H 'I ; 1::,/. I!liii;tlii.r!trf!i Ilhu BERK ■;;;^ f?^ CALIFORNIA^/ ^ -^ / -. A CHRISTIAN APOLOGY. Christian Apology BY PAUL SCHANZ, D.D., D.Ph., PBOFB8BOB OF THKOLOGT IN THK UNIVKIISITT OB" TUBIUGIW, TRANSLATED BY REV. MICHAEL F. GLANCEY, INBPKCTOB OF 8CHOOM IN THE DIOCESE OF BIBMINOHAM, AND REV. VICTOR J. SCHOBEL, D.D., PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY AT ST. MART'S, OSCOTl. IN THREE VOLUMES. Vol. II: God and Revelatio FIFTH REVISED EDITION. ^ ffrcOericft Puatct S, Co. Printers to The Holy Apostolic Sec and The Sacred Congregation of Rites RATISBON ROME NEW YORK CINCINNATI 65410^^6 Copyright, 1891, By E. STEINBACK, of the Firm Fr. Pustet & Co. lOAN STACK r) ( I A! 7\TT S33a 5^^ 2^/ - y, ^. TRANSLATORS' PREFACE. The present volume deals mainly with the vital problems that have been raised in recent years by the sciences of Biblical Criticism and Comparative History of Religions. The author's method of treatment will, we trust, commend itself to every one who is alive to the prominent part played by the latter science in relation to the former. The tendency of modern Biblical Criticism is extremely Rationalistic. It aims at undermining the whole economy of supernatural revelation, by destroying the historical and authentic character of Holy Scripture, and chiefly of the Old Testament. With such results wc Catholics are, of course, deeply concerned ; but Protestants, by their very position, are concerned far more deeply. The Protestant rule of faith is itself in jeopardy. And Protestants, here in England at any rate, have not been slow to recognize this fact. They were the first to observe the rising dust of the hostile advance, and they set about preparing what purport to be plans of defence, but which we feel bound to consider as terms of surrender. Among other efforts in this direction, we refer especially to three. ' Inspiration and the Bible,' by R. Horton ; London : Fisher 8^0 FREFACSk Unwin, 1889. 'The Holy Spirit and Inspiration/ an Essay by Charles Gore in Lux Mundi; London: Murray, 1890. * The Oracles of God,' Nine Lec- tures by W. Sandy; London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1891. Now it is almost an essential note of these recent Protestant Apologetics that, while attempting to save a supernatural element in Scripture as a book containing divine revelations, they should allow so large a measure of success to the attacks which have been directed against the historical element, as to leave the revealed element defenceless. We are told that the results of Biblical Criticism, especially in regard to the Old Testament, must be frankly accepted by all Christians, as they have already been accepted by the best leaders of religious thought ; that Anglicans have already made, not without encouragement from the highest quarters, a complete change of front, which now only awaits a fuller and wider recognition.* With the nature of that change we are not here interested ; nor shall we criticise it further than to ask : " What boots it at one gate to make defence^ "And at another to let in the foe ? " It is equally characteristic of the writers already named, to comprise the whole controversy under the title of 'The Inspiration of Scripture,' whereas inspiration, in the Catholic meaning of the word, is involved only remotely, and by way of conse- I Sandy I.e. p. 57. 103. Note. PEEFAOL qjence. By reason of this confusion between inspiration and revelation, between things inspired and things revealed, Protestant Apologists have been gradually driven into a hopeless and fatal position. For, assuming the principle that whatever is revealed is inspired, and whatever is not revealed is not inspired, and then being compelled, by the cogency of evident facts, to confess that there is much in Scripture, which was not revealed, they are now bound to allow that there is much in Scripture, which was not inspired. Two practical results of supreme importance have followed. First, the strong and effective barrier of inspiration has been thrown down, behind which the Catholic church has ever sheltered revelation, and all the rich domain of revealed truth lies open and exposed to the con- suming ravages of doubt. And next, the practical utility of Scripture, as an assured teacher of truth, has received its death-wound. It has now become imperative to distinguish between the two elements of Scripture— the inspired and the uninspired— the divine and the human— but this is a task that defies the wit both of men and angels. It has happened here, as it has not unfrequently happened elsewhere, that time-honoured words should be current when the ideas which they first embodied have either changed or disappeared. A familiar instance of this may be seen in the device resorted to by impoverished governments, who, while retaining the normal denomination of coin, IV. PREFAC3B. replenish their empty coffers by debasing its material. A similar process is constantly taking place in the world of thought and language. For an idea may contract or expand without any corresponding alter- ation in the formula by which it was originally expressed ; and thus it comes about that party-cries and watchwords, upon which the very life of nations once turned, may, after a few generations, be found still holding their position though now with a largely altered meaning ; and men, by the mere possession of outward similarity of name, are often deluded into the belief that they possess real continuity of thought and principle. We have referred to this well-known phenomenon, partly in explanation of the strange use often made of the words 'Inspiration' and * Revelation,' and partly as a help to the English reader. These two words will, in the following pages, be frequently met with, and differ- ent classes of readers may attach to them widely different ideas. It would be a misfortune were this to happen. We shall endeavour, therefore, to explain as clearly as we can the sense in which * Revelation' and 'Inspiration' are taken by Catholic Theologians, and which they bear in the present volume. Not to be clear on this point is to be exposed to serious error. The term ' Revelation,' then, is employed by Catholic Theologians, first, in an active and subjective sense, to denote the act whereby God immediately makes certain truths known to man ; and, secondly, PREFACE. ^« in a passive and objective sense, for the sum of truths so communicated. Both senses, it is evident, are indissolubiy connected by mutual and necessary implication. Now the truths which go to make up objective revelation, cannot be all referred on intrinsic grounds to the same class. Some, by their very character, are altogether beyond the reach of human thought, either because, like the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, they are essentially mys- teries, or because, like the fact of the existence of A no-els, or the bestowal of a Divine Sonship upon man, or the reserved reward of a Beatific Vision, they are positive points completely dependent upon the free and hidden will of God; and, for the simple rer/^on that they do so depend, they are, without a divine manifestation, quite unknowable. The revela- tion of such deeply-hidden truths is, absolutely and in the strictest sense, called supernatural revelation ; for not only the manner in which we come to be possessed of them is supernatural, but the truths themselves belong to a sphere so far beyond that in which the mind of man naturally moves, that they cannot by him be brought under the natural play and action of his intelligence. Other revealed truths there are, however, which fall well within the sweep of man's native powers ; as, for instance, facts of nature or history, and the broad principles of natural morality and religion contained in the Decalogue. Such truths belong to a revelation that is supernatural only relatively. In their substance VI. PREFACE. they are natural truths, discoverable by the ordinary hght of reason ; but they are yet classed with the supernatural on the ground that, having in point of fact been made known immediately by God, and so coming to man not by the natural avenues of his knowledge, they are supernatural in the manner of their manifestation. Hence, though the act of imme" diate revelation is absolutely and always supernatural, the truths revealed may be supernatural both in themselves and in their manifestation, or solely in their manifestation. Those to whom God's revelation is originally made, are called Organs of Revelation. Now it is quite true that, in a general sense, the recipients of revelation and the message they receive may be, and are commonly said to be, inspired ; but we must not lose sight of the fact that, in so terming them, we are prescinding from the specific concept of inspira- tion. An inspired book — for here we have to deal exclusively with books — means something else than a book containing divine revelation, even though there be nothing in the book but what has been divinely revealed. The recipient of God's words might, of his own accord, write down, and that too, most faithfully, the truths mysteriously communicated by God ; and inasmuch as such a record would contain divine truth, it would doubtless be a divine book ; not for that, however, would the volume be inspired. For the inspiration of a book it is required that the divine message should have been given with a view PREFACE. trU. to its subsequent transmission by writing — when, consequently, the writer has been moved to write by the special command and influence of God, who then owes it to Himself to guide and assist such a one, by enlightening his mind, directing his will, and efficaciously preserving him from error in the message. Thus inspiration does not directly and immediately fall upon the material contents, but on their formal enunciation in writing. In this view of the matter, it is quite plain that revelation is not identical with inspiration, and that a book may contain revealed truth, while yet failing to be an inspired book. And now the converse question arises, may a book be inspired even in those parts which contain matters not revealed ? If it be maintained that inspiration necessarily includes revelation, and that a book cannot be inspired unless its contents have been revealed, then, in truth, the whole question of inspiration, as a special question distinct form that of revelation, loses all practical importance. For, on the supposition that the contents of an inspired book must essentially be revealed, those contents already possess, by reason of their divine origin, a divine authority ; and what greater authority could we desire.** If, however, the book that is inspired need not be restricted to revealed contents, we are met, at the very threshold of our enquiry, by consequences of the supremest Importance. It is, at least in idea, supposable, that God should choose Viii. PREFACE. for his messenger a man of ripe experience — one whose mind is already stored with a rich treasury of truth, the fruit of long earnest study and observa- tion — and by an altogether special impulse should lead him to write down his thoughts for a definite purpose by Him intended, and should securely guide him to the exact and faithful performance of the task. Would not God, in such a case, make the lessons of the hook jus^ as muc/i His own as if the writer's mind had been a blank, and ail his knowledge were immediately due to a divine outpouring ? Does not the sculptor create the image even when he has carved it with borrowed instruments ? But if any one contend that, to secure true inspiration God must reveal, as it were afresh, the contents of the book, we can only reply, that we need strong proof to make us accept what it is unnatural to expect, that inspiration is an inward influence of which he can have had no personal experience, and that Christian doctrine gives him no warrant for his contention. As a matter of theory, therefore, it is quite possible for a message to be inspired, even though the contents of such message were known to the writer before the inspiration to write de- scended upon him. Now, what appears to be possible in theory is shown, by an examination of Scripture, to be actually the fact. In the Bible there are books whose contents comprise truths and facts unquestionably taken from the writer's own stores of knowledge ; PREFACE. IX. there are other truths and facts, again, which might have been revealed, but which yet may not have been revealed, and which lie side by side with truths that were revealed — and all of them — revealed, un- revealed, and doubtful — are closely interwoven so as to form the texture of one story that is complete and organically whole. This story, we maintain, is inspired, not merely in the gross, scope, and sub- stance, but in all its parts and entirety. We hold, therefore, that the character of the contents, as re- vealed or unrevealed, has no direct bearing on the question of their inspiration. Of course, where the contents have evidently been revealed to the writer, they may fairly be taken as affording presumptive evidence of inspiration in the writing ; but they are far from being conclusive on this point. The presence of revealed matter is not a perfect proof of inspira- tion, neither is the presence of unrevealed matter a perfect disproof. To establish the fact of inspiration we require evidence altogether special. This is the assured teaching of the Catholic Church. ** If any ** one shall not receive as sacred and canonical the " Books of Holy Scripture, entire with all their " parts, as the Holy Synod of Trent has enumerated '* them, or shall deny that they have been divinely " inspired ; let him be anathema." And again, " these books of the Old and New Testament are to *' be received as sacred and canonical, in their " integrity, with all their parts, . . These the " Church holds to be sacred and canonical ; not X. PREFACE. "because, having been carefully composed by mere ** human industry, they were afterwards a[)proved by ** her authority ; nor merely because they amtain *' revelatiGn, with no admixture of error; but because, "having been written by the inspiration of the Holy ** Ghost, they have God for their author, and have "been delivered as such to the Church herself." [Vatican Council Sess. iii. can. ii. cap. ii.] It must not be supposed, however, that between revelation and inspiration there is no connexion. If there had been no revelation, neither would there have been any inspiration ; if there had been no revealed truths to protect, we should have had no inspired writers. Inspiration came for the sake of revelation, and it was solely on behalf of revealed truth that inspiration laid hold of truths that were not revealed. For, after all, such unrevealed facts and truths, though patent to our natural sight and observation, do have a real bearing upon revelation and the supernatural providence of God. Such are the historical facts of the Bondage in Egypt and the Babylonian Captivity. Now it is this precise bearing that the inspired writer makes known ; this it is which gives their shape and character to the nar- ratives of sacred history, and altogether lifts them above the plane of profane history even when the latter is recording the same material events. In the expressive words of a German scholar, what might have been a history of man, is the history of the kingdom of God. In other words, the whole purpose PREFACE. Xi. of the inspired writer is directly religious and super- natural ; and the story being set amid the refulgent glow of that purpose, grows luminous and reflects throughout a supernatural and divine light. Hence the Vatican Council (I.e.), when speaking of the supernatural revelation, simply said : "This super- ** natural revelation, according to the universal belief ** of the Church, is contained in the written books " (Scripture) and unwritten traditions." It would have been alien from the spirit and scope of this de- cree for the Council to have attempted a separation of Scripture into parts revealed and parts unrevealed. All the parts are sacred and canonical ; whether the particular truths be revealed or not, they all possess an equal authority of inspiration. That authority is a divine authority, and is evenly bind- ing throughout. There remains yet another question that equally affects, though not in the same precise way, both revelation and inspiration. The question is this: Considering that the revealed and inspired word of God has come to man through the medium of his fellows ; that it has been put in the form of human speech, and adapted to our mental capacity ; consid- ering, further, that man's best speech and thoughts are inherently defective, and far from perfection ; — what degree of inevitable human defect in the messenger may be allowed by God, and may be compatible with the full safety of the revealed or inspired message? Rude and unpolished Ian- Xll. PREFACE. guage ? Ungrammatical forms ? Debased literary taste ? A host of similar, or more serious questions, will immediately occur to the reader. This point has been discussed by Theologians under the title of ** De Extensione Inspirationis." This title we cannot but consider as very misleading. Inspiration extends to all the books, "in their integrity, with all their parts." We cling to this doctrine with all the strength and tenacity of our soul, for we feel that, if once we relax our hold of this, we shall be swept away by a flood. We prefer, therefore, to put the question in the form already proposed : — How far are human defects, and which, compatible with the perfect truth and safety of a revealed or fully inspired message } What limitations of thought and language will weaken the claim to that trust- worthiness which we demand in an inspired writer, and render his statement unfit to be the medium of a divine communication ? In other words, what materials must be considered unsuitable, and so be rejected by God in the execution of His plan to build up for us a strong home and shelter-house of absolutely reliable truth ? As a broad solution we would say that, in the case of revelation — where the absolute security of a precise truth or exact fact is paramount — no defect is admissible that would in any way impair our full reliance on the perfect accuracy of the message. In the case of inspired, but unrevealed, contents which, as we have said, are written for their bearing upon revelation and the t>R£FAClL XIU. divine purpose, every defect must be repudiated that would weaken the Hnk between fact and purpose, or tend to throw the slightest discredit upon the truth of the whole revelation. In consequence, we stand by the canon of St. Augustine : '* I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture : of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books. . . . For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement . , . there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away.*' ' For a more detailed answer to the several points comprised in the question, we must refer to our author's pages. From what has been so far discussed, it is clear that, for the Catholic Apologist to expect help from recent Protestant defenders of Scripture, would oe to trust to a broken reed. Their whole plan of defence is wrong in principle, and based on a fatal misconception. Davids, as we believe them to be, in zeal and spirit, they have gone out to the combat in the armour and with the weapons of Goliath. They have already given to the Critical School what was essential to that which they wish to retain, a £p. 82 ad Hier. a. 3 ,* 28 ad Hier. n. 3. Clark's Translation. XIV. PREFACE. but not before what remains had been rendered scarcely worth keeping. For inspiration and reve- lation have been exposed to the action of dissolvents so powerful that almost every trace of the super- natural has been eaten away. In justification of these severe strictures we submit a brief analysis of the earnest and thoughtful essay written by the esteemed Editor of '' Lux Mundi." We select this, because of the very prominent place it has won and the attention it has so widely attracted. The Essay is divided into two parts that are sufficiently indicated by the title. The first part is one of principle, the second part makes the appli- cation to Scripture. With that application we are little concerned. We shall judge of the principles on their own merits. They are certainly broad and comprehensive. Mr. Gore reviews the action of the Holy Spirit from the beginning of the world even until now. That action is considered in its bearings upon creation in general, and upon man in particular. But we must let the writer speak for himself, only premising that the italics in the vari- ous passages are ours. I. ** Nature is one great body, and there is " breath in the body ; but this breath is not self- " originated life, it is the influence of the Divine *' Spirit." (Gen. I. 2 ; coll. Ps. xxxiii. 6 ; civ. 29, 30.) This, of course, is the common doctrine that God is the creative Spirit who sustains in life and being all the creatures of His hand. PREFACE. XV 2. "And yet, because His special attribute is "holiness, it is in ra//^;/^/ creatures which alone are •♦capable of holiness, that He exerts His special "influence. A special inbreathing of the Divine "Spirit gave to man his proper being, (Gen. H. " 7.) In humanity, made after the Divine image, " it was the original intention of God that the Spirit "should find His chiefest joy, building the edifice of " a social life in which nature was to find its crown **and justification: a life of conscious and free ''sonship, in which the gifts of God should be not "only received, but recognized as His, and con- " sciously used in willing and glad homage to the " Divine Giver, in reverent execution of the law of "development impressed by the Divine reason, in "the realized fellowship of the Blessed Spirit of "knowledge and love." The whole drift of this passage warns us to be on our guard, for we are treading on dangerous ground. The writer men- tions, indeed, "holiness," sonship," and "special influence," which are Christian terms belonging to the sphere of the supernatural, but which will also bear a wider interpretation, and so cease to be specifically Christian. It is by no means clear from the words themselves, either what action of the Holy Spirit is meant, or in what way the special influence is special. As far as the words go, we have not got beyond the limits of what is known as natural religion, nor, to speak truth, will the context allow us to advance beyond them. The XVI. PREFACE. author is absolutely silent as to the supernatural character of man's original state, when there was not only a most appropriate and favourable oppor- tunity for making mention of this, but even at the precise point when such mention was imperatively demanded, for it is absolutely essential to the explanation of the system of revelation. He has shown plainly enough his sense that man's original state is the necessary basis and type of all that follows in his religious history : yet he speaks of that original state as one of man's ''proper being," with a destiny in which '' nature was to find its crown and ''justification." There is not a word of the super- natural character of that destiny — the direct beatific vision of God — nor of the supernatural endowments of body and soul, with which man was equipped for that destiny, and raised to the level of its sphere — the partaking of the Divine nature by sanctifying grace, freedom from concupiscence, and the gift of immortality. The whole passage conveys a picture of pure nature made perfect in its own degree. The doctrine is the doctrine of Pelagius revived in Hegel. That we are not exaggerating, the writer's third principle will show : 3. " Our race was created for " conscious fellowship v/ith God, for sonship, for the " life of spirit. And it is just in this department that " its failure has been most conspicuous. It is here " that the Divine Spirit has found His chiefest '' disappointment. Everywhere He has found re- PREFACE. XVll. ' bellion — not everywhere without exceptio7i, ' for in ' ' every age entering into holy souls, He has made ' * the sons of God and prophets ; ' but everywhere * in such a general sense that sin in fact and its 'consequences covers the whole region of human- ity." From a denial of the supernatural character of man's original state there must follow, as a nec- essary corollary, a denial of the existence and uni- versality of original sin. This denial Mr. Gore, in the words just quoted, supplies. Moreover, the sin of humanity lies in the fact that ' ' men in great masses' have not proved themselves worthy of their rational nature, but have suffered themselves to be " dominated by the mere forces of nature!' 4. The action of the Holy Spirit having thus been thwarted and spoiled, because mostly '' resist- '' ed, rejected, ignored, quenched'' He secured for Himself a sphere of action amongst a remnant, that is, amongst the Jews, "until He should find in the " Son of Man, the Anointed One, the perfect reali- *' zation of the destiny of man, the manhood in *' which he can freely and fully work, etc." The question of the supernatural can now no longer be evaded. Mr. Gore, when face to face with the work of Christ, feels that a word must be said con- cerning what has hitherto been called supernatural religion. He says that word, and it is this : This work ''is not natural, but supernatural — super- * ' natural, that is, in view of the false nature which ''man has 7nade for himself by excluding God." XVin. PREFACE. At last the truth is out plainly. Redemption is simply the reversal of the unnatural ; regeneration is only the removal of a vicious accumulation that hid our native worth. Christ has set us in the supernatural order, not by raising us up above the level of our nature, but by raising our nature to the true level of itself. The whole essay is so hope- lessly naturalistic and rationalistic that we cannot give it a Catholic meaning without sacrifice of con- sistency. As we read the writer's words we were perplexed by the introduction of such doctrines as the Divinity of Christ and the Atonement, Baptism and the Sacraments, The Trinity and Descent of the Holy Ghost ; and we wondered what could be their relevancy. In fact, they have no place in the writer's system, nor are we sure that the writer has any real hold of these specific Christian dogmas. (See p. 336 and Note 2.) Yet the Essay has had no more serious charge brought against it than that it expresses a too liberal view of inspiration. Who would quarrel with Lessing or Hegel concerning his view of inspiration, and not rather contest the principles which are the support and warrant of that view ? We are not wise in allowing the broad volume of waters to rush over our fruit-trees and flowers unstemmed, and in directing all our efforts to the paltry task of bursting a bubble floating on the surface. But this is really what has been at- tempted. And the bubble may burst, but the waters will continue to flow. PREFACE. XIX. In past times, the Reformers strove to overturn the immortal, rock-built towers of the City of God by striking at them with * The Book ; ' and now the Children of the Church stretch forth their hands to save * The Book' from the assaults of the Chil- dren of the Reformers. ** And thus the whirligig *' of time brings in his revenges." But, perhaps, some of the confusion that prevails may very justly be attributed to the loose and care- less statements of writers on our own side, who have written with that easy familiarity of faith which can only be understood by those who never stop to weigh difficulties. Quite recently a writer in a leading Catholic paper {Tablet, March 7, 1891), writing under such circumstances that we had every reason to expect from him a clear, cautious, and accurate statement of the matter he had undertaken to explain, is yet found to be simply blundering into dangerous ambiguity. For, quite unmindful of the principles governing the application of Old Testament Scripture by the writers of the New Testament, and especially by S. Paul, oblivious of the spirit that reigned over the exegesis of the great Christian School of Alexandria, the writer just re- ferred to lays down, broadly and without limitation, the following canon of Scriptural interpretation : ''To place upon the words of Scripture a mean- *' ing which is not obvious and literal, is to play " with them, and this whether they refer to faith or "• morals, or to anything else whatsoever." Did he XX. PREFACE. mean : To deny to Scripture its literal and obvious meaning is to play with it ? Some such inversion is the only way of diminishing the eccentricity of his words. The present volume of Dr. Schanz will, we trust, help to remove much of the obscu- rity that now overhangs many important questions. The Translators wish to put on record their sense of indebtedness to the Rev. J. McIntyre, D.D., for his assistance in the preparation of this volume. St. Mary's, Oscott, ist May, 1 891. CONTENTS, CHAPTER I. CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. PAGl The Christian religion new— Objected to on that account by Jews and Gentiles— Antiquity as a general mark of truth— The early Christian Apologists show from the Old Testament and from reason that the Christian religion, though old, admits of legiti- mate progress and development— The Logos as revealed in the heathen woi Id— Preparation for Christianity— Modern compara- live History of Religion points to the unity of religion in the beginning, to a primitive revelation— The historical develop- ment of Religion under the guidance of Divine Providence proves that Heathenism w*8 a preparation for Christianity— But Christianity is not the natural outcome and purely human development of heathen religions— Utility of the History of Religion for Apologists— It must needs precede the exposition of Christian doctrine itself— The views of Greeks and Romans, and of the Old and New Testament, upon the mutual relations of peoples and nations to one another— Ethnographical Know- ledg« of the Fathers somewhat limited— Verdict of the History of Religion conceining the questions of Primitive Revelation and the origin of Christianity— Division of religions- Religions of nature and culture— Of savage and civilized man— Particular and universal religions— Revealed and non-revealed religions- Monotheistic and polytheistic religions— Religions of fear— Of sin— Of law and justice- Pantheistic religions— Division based upon genesis of language— Turanian— Semitic— Aryan- Statistics from the History of Religion . • • • 1 XXil. CONTENTS. CHAPTER II. THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. 1 The Hindus— PAGE The religion of India — The Vedas — The Varuna period — Indra period — Brahma period of the Rig-Veda — Sama-Veda — Yajur- Veda — Atharva- Veda— Division of Hindu religions — Vedism — Older Brahmanism — Buddhism — Jainism — New Brahmanism or Hinduism — Monotheism its beginning — Not nature-worship — Devas, the oldest Gods — Zeus Pater the Supreme God — Aditi and Aditijas — Mitra and Varuna — Worship in the first period — Soma — Immortality — Custom — Indra period — Indra makes way for Varuna — Mitra for Agni — The warlike character of Indra as the national God — Worship— Soma, a drink for the Gods — Brahmanism — Brahma and Brahman — Castes— Power of the Brahmans — Law and custom fixed Claw books) — Vishnu and Manu — Sutras — Schools of philosophy — Upanishad — Mi- gration of Souls — Atman — Schools of Sankhya and Yoga — Pessimism — Buddhism and Jainism— Monastic orders of men and women — Sakya-Muni or Gautama — Buddha — His life — Comparison between Buddha and Christ — Buddhistic dogma and canon— Agnosticism and Atheism — Denial of Atman — Nirvana — Doctrine of regeneration or new birth — Karma — No creation — Deliverance from suffering, not Pessimism — The three Buddhistic treasures : Buddha, Dharma, Sangha — Ne- gation — Passivity — Not positive moral agency and action — Buddhistic asceticism an impediment to Christian Missionaries — Spread of Buddhism — Hinduism as the Worship of Vishnu and Siva — Trimurti — Incarnations of Vishnu- Krischna — Si- vaism — Nature, its destructive and regenerative force — Moral excesses— Worship of images and beasts — Comparison with Christianity . . . . . . .25 2 The Iranians — The Iranian religion — Zend-Avesta — Division in religion cause of division of race — Religious reforms — Dualism following upon Monotheism, the hinge on which the whole religious system turns — Zoroaster not a myth — Zernane Akerene — Ahuramazda Supreme God — Amschaspands and Jazetas — Creation — Davas, the bad spirits headed by Ahriman— Dualism— Sosiosch, the redeemer — Mithra, the mediator— Sraoscha, the third god — CONTENTS. XXiil. PAGB Ethics— Struggle of the good agaiust the power of evil- Worship — Magi — Care of the dead — Resurrection — Haoma drink— External influence in the development of the Iranian religion — Babylonian Captivity . . . * ST 3 TAe Greek Relifrion. Human ideas and ways carried into Theol<^ — ^Three degrees in the Greek Religion: Worship of nature, Worship of a family of gods, Mythology— Poverty of ethical element— Virtue and Sin— Influence of religion upon the life o^ house and home — Worship of Apollo at Delphi— Disorganising influence of Philosophy — Hesiod, Epicurus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle — Greek Tragedians — Epicureanism and Stoicism— Mysteries— The charismata (gifts) in the church of the Corinthians . 65 4 The Roman Religion. Roman Theology — Greek and Roman Scepticism — Oriental cultus in Rome— Apotheosis of Emperors— Stoicism— Seneca — Attempts at restoration by the emperors . • .76 5 The Teut$nic Religion. ...... 81 CHAPTER III. THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 1 The Chinese. Chinese Religion and Chinese people — Their sacred books : King — Three kinds of religion : the old national, Confucianism, Taoism mixed with later Buddhism — Original Monotheism — Shang-ti the highest god— Perfect Monotheism— Confucius— Laotse — Pessimism in the Moral system of Confucius — Worship of ancestors— Virtue— Religion a state institution— This life the main point— Taoism— Tao, the first principle— Pantheism — Morality negative, inaction— Philosophy in Taoism— Spiritual conception of God — Trinity — Messianic idea — Buddhism ia China— Popular religion— Magic in Taoism and Confucianism — Statues of Animals— Prayer-mills— State religion and Ances- tral worship— Obstacles to Missionaries. • • XXiv. CONl-ENTS. 2 Tkt Japanese, PAGE Popular religion— Shintao— Confucianism and Buddhism— Cultus— Ko and Kin . , , . . .95 3 Thi Egyptians, Relation to the Semites — Literature— Difficulty in determining the nature of Egyptian religion— Differences according to time and place — Exoteric and esoteric doctrine— Very probably Henotheistic in the beginning— Ptah, Ra, Amon, Osiris — Triads — Monotheism — Polytheism — Pantheism — Sabaeism — Myths — Typhon — Origin of Egyptian religion quite unknown —Sexual Dualism— Osiris Myth— Three classes of gods : gods of the Dead, gods of the Elements, Sun-gods— Cultus of Ani- mals and Fetichism— Worship and Custom — Care for the dead — Immortality and resurrection — Complete Moral system. . 97 4 The Semites. Crude Worship of nature and demonic beings— Belief in Provi- dence — Original Monotheism, soon followed by naturalistic Polytheism — Assyria and Babylonia — Assur — Little known of the old Assyrian and Babylonian religions, but, as far as known, con- sisted in worship of light and fire — Bel, Baaltis, Istar — Sensuality and human sacrifices— Creation and deluge — Religions of Western Asia, Syria, Phoenicia, and Canaan — Monotheistic Pantheism — Sensual worship— Influence upon the Israelites— The Sabbath, or the observance of the Seventh day— Belief in immortality- Deep consciousness of sin and great piety. • . . 107 5 The Arabs. This religion the crudest and least cultured. More in chapter on Islam ........ 112 CHAPTER IV. UNCIVILIZED PEOPLES. General description— Fetichism, deification of nature, Pantheism — Belief in a higher being, in spirits, in a future existence — Worship of ancestors and belief in ghosts — Magic — Tolemism — Religion of fear — Human sacrifices — Cosmology — Eschatology — Low stand- ard of morality — Sad condition of these races — Brief sketch of religious life — These natural religions move on a downward CONTENTS XXV. PAGE course, both intellectually and morally— The civilized peoples of America as compared with the uncivilized — The Mongolian uncultured peopies— Shamanism— Kuscbius—ri udeniius—Folk- lorists • • • • • ...III CHAPTER V. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. The chosen people— Historical sketch— The old Testament and Modern Criticism— The various Hypotheses : original document, fragments, supplements— The Hexateuch according to the Hypo- thesis of Reuss, Graf, Wellhausen— The Elohistic original docu- ment, and the Jehovistic book of history— The Priestly codex, whether older or more recent than Deuteronomy ?— Importance of these Hypotheses— The arguments in support of them drawn from the history of religions — The development of the religion of Israel begins with Monotheism— Idolatry, as practised by the majority of the descendants of Noe, came by falling away from the original monotheistic religion— Such a defection from a spiritual to a sensual religion is in itself possible, and with Semites probable— The entire history of religion proves this— Retrogres- sion does not suppose a previous lower grade— Proof from Holy Scripture — Particular persons named as representatives of the idolatrous principle— The names for God are no proof of Poly- theism—El, Ilu, Elohim, Jahve— No trace of special and separate worship being paid to the supposed different gods ; nor any trace of mythology — No goddess ever worshipped by the Jews — Josue on the foimer Polytheism of the Israelites — ^Judges xi 24 on th« game — The Lamentations of the Prophets concerning the idola- try of Israel, presuppose their belief in Jahve — Preservation of that belief quite impossible without a religious moral basis — Moses taught pure Monotheism — Not the founder of the religion, but only the mediator of the Covenant — The Covenant becomes the vital principle of Israel — The Covenant not impossible— The ide* existed also among Non-israelites, and at an earlier time — Moses appealed to the God known by the people — His knowledge of God greater and purer, his education more perfect and refined — Egyptian influence — Written laws an ancient Institution — Mono- OTl. CONTENTS. PAGl theism as perfected by the Prophets— A new law after the exile quite incomprehensible from an historical point of view— The special problem of the authorship of Deuteronomy and Priestly Codex— Supposed distinction between tradition and scripture— But the sacred writers appeal to the written law— The sacrifi- cial tables of Carthage and Marseilles— Composition of the Jeho- vistic book in the eighth century— The Book of the covenant still earlier— Legislation ofjosias (Deuteronomy) by the help of Jeremias— Value of the proof drawn from the judgment which the prophets pass upon the sacrifices— Sketch of the historical condition — The data of the historical books regarding the antiq- uity of the Law cannot be set aside as so many interpolations- Centralisation of worship older— Worship in the high places not allowed, but tolerated— The Ark of the Covenant as the symbol of unity— The tabernacle the pattern for, not the copy of, the temple— Unity, in the time of the Judges— Restoration not innovation under Josias— Priestly Codex anyhow older than Deu- teronomy — Restoration under Esdras and Nehemias — People would not have accepted the Priestly Codex as Mosaic Law, if new and hitherto unknown— Ezechiel and the law of sanctifica- tion — Wellhausen's reasons for the later composition of Priestly Codex — History of Tradition — The Books of Chronicles — Impos- sible to admit that the entire ancient history was rearranged upon a new basis — Parallels drawn from Egyptian and Assyrian Archaeology — Priests ; Feasts ; Sacrifices — Impossible to fabri- cate in the year 444 a legislation adapted for the march through the desert — Impossible to unite the various writings into one whole — Critical and philological comparison pronounces against the hypothesis — The testimony of the New Testament on the history of the Old Testament— The Original text and Greek Septuagint — The Messianic idea the central point of the history of Israel — Preparation for Christ . . • • .130 CHAPTER VI. NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. I T^e /ews. Talmudistic Judaism without priesthood and central sanctuary— CONTENTS. XXVll. PAGE Mishna — Gemara — Talmud of Jerusalem —Babylonian Talmud — Midraschim—Kabbala— Jewish civilization — Reformed Juda- ism . . . . . . . .195 2. — The Moslems. Islam— Mohammed — His acquaintance with the Old and New Testament — His religious education ; course of his religious development — The year of the Flight— Death of Mohammed — Various appreciations of his character, sometimes too favour- able—Two periods to be distinguished in his life — Mohammed not acting bona fide in the later period of his life— Accused Jews and Christians of falsifying the Scripture, but never proved the charge — Rapid spread of his doctrines due to sensu- ality, brute force, and the degraded condition of the Arabs — The Koran — Its faith and morality — Crude monotheism — Angels —Combats a distorted notion of the Trinity— Christ a prophet, like Moses and Mohammed— Allah is great, and Mohammed is his prophet — Miracles and higher knowledge no place in his system — Mohammed raised by Tradition on a higher pedestal — Veneration of Saints a compensation for the unapproachable- ness of God— Pilgrimages — Paradise Sensual — Christ's second coming — Good works impregnated with self-seeking and plea- sure—Polygamy—Slavery—Blood-Revenge—Pork and Wine forbidden— Prayer and fasting— Cultus — Mohammed's hostile attitude to Christianity — Progress of Islam — Its antagonism to civilization and to Christianity ..... 198 CHAPTER VII, THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY. The name of Christian— Josephus on Christ— Tacitus on Nero's per- secution — Suetonius on the expulsion of the Jews — Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan— The sacred Scriptures on Christ — The relations of Christianity to the Old Testament— Celsus' gibes, and Origen's reply— Christianity contained in the Old Testament in germ — The Sermon on the Mount not a mere anti-pharisaical manifesto — Christ came to fulfil the law and the prophets in a spiritual sense — A freer and wider explanation not possible before the coming of the Holy Ghost — Distinction XXVllI. CONTENTS PAGI between doctrine and morality— Universalism— Heaven our home— The mysteries of Christianity— The Incarnation— The Blessed Trinity — Christian morality — Love of God and our neighbour — Love of enemies— Love for God's sake, and for the salvation of souls — The evangelical counsels — Married life and virginity— Humility— The doctrine of Jesus not derived from Judaism and Hellenism— Even the teaching of the Essenes far removed from Christ's teaching— Is the progress of the New Testament on the Old due to heathen influence ?— The Fathers, by their explanation of the Logos, allow that there is a religious element common to Christians and Gentiles— Their knowledge of other religions scanty — The Iranian, Hindu and Buddhistic icligions similar in some respects to Christianity — But they differ in cause and nature, means and end — The common ground of reason and the remnant of primitive revelation only a general basis — A modern Japanese writer on Christianity — It cannot be proved that Jesus was influenced by the Egyptian religion — Christianity not a blend of Jewish spirit and Greek philosophy — The Fathers, though prizing Greek philosophy, set greater store by the teaching of prophets and apostles — Socrates' ethics a long way behind Christian morality — Jesus and the Apostles not conversant with Greek philosophy — Love of God and neighbour unknown to the Greeks — No universalism — Christianity not hellenized by the Apologists — Otherwise they would not have abandoned Greek philosophy— Philosopliy employed by them to defend and build up Christian doctrine — Faith, inherited from the Apostles, the principle of religious knowledge— Even the myth-hypothesis cannot break up Christianity into bits from heathenism and Judaism — Christianity inexplicable, unless it is the work of God ••••••• 2x7 CHAPTER VIII. REVELATION. The Old and New Testaments on supernatural Revelation — The Apostles organs of supernatural revelation — Meaning of the word ••Revelation " — Belief in a Revelation common to all religions — Therefore not in opposition to self-consciousness— Definition of CONTENTS. XXlJt. PAGB Revelation — Natural and supernatural Revelation — Objections of Rationalists — Revelation not impossible — Natural dependence of the mind on external influence — Of knowledge and science on faith — The Spirit of man as the image of God capable of divine influence — Above reason not contrary to reason — Knowledge by Faith— Revelation not contrary to man as a free, moral being —Pedagogical purpose of Revelation — Necessity of Revelation before and after sin — Supernatural end— Necessity shown from History of religion and philosophy — Insufficiency of natural power of man — Vatican Council on the necessity of Revela- tion—Grace—Manner and modes of Revelation — Types — Dreams — Visions — Words • • • • • 2S^ CHAPTER IX. REASON AND REVELATION. Certainty of Revelation required for immediate and mediate recipients — Duty of believer to examine —Negative and positive criteria — Character of prophets and apostles a guarantee for the fact of Revelation — Moral certitude and evidence — Confirmation of internal conviction by external signs — Miracles as an external criterium — Used by Jesus for that purpose— Influence of man's will on the belief in miracles— Persuasion of the Jews — Impotency of false gods in this respect — Miracles only necessary at the beginning — Prophecies, another and still more general criterium — Have full force only after resurrection of Christ — Internal criteria— Contents of Revelation—Doctrine and precepts of Jesus — Gospel as preached to the heathen — The early Apologists — Morality of the Gospel — Its effects upon disciples and apostolic communities — Criteria for later times — For Jews and Christians —Apostolic tradition — Propagation of Christianity — Miracles have not ceased altogether — Appeals to miracles in the past — Trust- worthiness of Scripture presupposed— Supported by prophecy — Origen on the conjunction of external and internal criteria- Importance of the criteria in Apologetics — Knowledge and Faith — Natural and supernatural Faith — Ecclesiastical Decrees against Traditionalism — Vatican ^ounciJ • • • • 2S$ XXX. CONTENTS. CHAPTER X. MIRACLES. Miracles in nature and history — Belief in miracles universal — Re- flections on the subject by Augustine, Scholastics and modern writers — Notion of a miracle— Purpose of the miracles of the Old and New Testaments — Working of miracles by Christ an essen- tial element in the plan of salvation— The miracles of Aristeas — Miracles as sensible signs— Immediate divine causality — Not contrary to nature — Absolute and relative miracles — Possibility of miracles — Possible only from theistic standpoint — Material and formal objections — Miracles not a restoration of nature to its former state — A means of God's providence — Not contrary to the law of causality — Natural forces and laws employed for higher purposes — Analogy of nature— Physical and moral possibility on the part of God and on the part of man — Necessity of miracles — Mysteries in nature — Miracles can be recognized as such — Immediate perception of divine operation not necessary — Nor complete knowledge of all the laws of nature — A knowledge of limits suflicient — Relation between cause and effect — Instan- taneous effects — The testimony of those who work miracles — False miracles — Moral conditions — Spiritualism — Vatican Coun- cil ........ . 324 CHAPTER XI. PROPHECY. Cicero on Prophecy — Universal belief in — Prophecy in the Old Testament — Meaning of the word — The Prophet a preacher of truth and foreteller of the future — Messianic Prophecy — Pro- phecy a gift of God — Inspiration of Prophets — Difficulties in the explanation of Prophecies — Time and space in the Proph- ecies of the Old Testament — Prophecies a connected system — Must be viewed in the light of divine Providence — Allegori- cal interpretation .... . . 358 CONTENTS. XXXL CHAPTER XII. THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. PAGE The Canon of the Old and New Testament — External and internal grounds of trustworthiness — Protocanonical and Deuterocanon- ical books — Jewish tradition on the formation of the Canon- Testimony of Jesus and the Apostles on the Canon — Use of the LXX. in the New Testament and in the Fathers— Council of Trent— Texts of the Old Testament— LXX— Peschittho—Itala— Vulgata — Codex Claromontanus— Muratori's fragment — The Canon of the Alexandrian Church— The four great Epistles of S. Paul— The Epistle to the Hebrews— The Catholic Epistles— The Apocalypse — The Acts of the Apostles — The Gospels- Time of composition of the Gospels — The Synoptical Gospels composed before the destruction of Jerusalem — Precautions against forgeries or falsifications— No forged or interpolated document can acquire canonical authority — Tradition the criter* ium — Only Apostolic writings canonical — Apostolicity the touch- stone for the canonicity of the books of the New Testament • 376 CHAPTER XIII. INSPIRATION. Inspiration and Revelation in the Prophets and the authors of the Hagiographa — Jewish doctrine on the subject — The gift (charis- ma) of Prophecy and Wisdom — The New Testament on the Inspiration of the Old Testament— The Inspiration of the New Testament follows from the general Inspiration of the Apostles — Testimony ofthe Apostles to this effect— Their literary activity occa- sional and supplementary — Promulgation of Inspiration — Second and third gospel inspired — The Divine Economy in the writings of the New Testament— The latter gradually put on a level with the Old Testament— Nature of Inspiration — Verbal Inspiration as held by the Fathers— Scholastics— The Reformers— The Human Element in the composition of the inspired writings- Schools of Alexandria and Antioch— Discrepancies of Scripture XXXll. CONTENTS. PAGE a proof of their trustworthiness — Practical application of this principle — The term " dictare" — Post-Tridentine Theologians on Inspiration— Recent Theologians — Various degrees of In- spiration — Modern notion of — Direct and indirect reasons for limiting the notion — Cardinal Newman's obiter dicta — Applica- tion of principle to particular subject matter often difficult — S. Thomas and Bellarmine — Application of principles to points of natural science — Councils of Trent and Vatican . . . 405 CHAPTER XIV. THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. Necessity of interpretation — The great Synagogue — Holy Scripture not self-interpreting — How far later books explain the earlier — The New Testament explains the Old Testament — Obscure passages explained by clear — Faith also a help — Yet all these means are insufficient — Proof from Scripture and the Fathers — Holy Spirit not in individuals, but in the Church at large — The mind of the Church or the rule of faith as the living spirit of the Church— Authentic interpretation by the Church — Consensus Patrum — Ecclesiastical precepts on interpretation — Dogmatic and scientific exegesis — Scientific importance of Patristic inter- pretation — Decree of Council of Trent regarding the use of the Vulgate — Ecclesiastical approbation of translations into the vernacular — Non-catholic Exegesis .... 441 CHAPTER XV. THE CxOSPEL AND THE GOSPELS. The Gospels as records of the Apostles — The good tidings — Dlates- saron — Apochryphal Gospels not sources for the life of Jesus — Controversy about the Synoptical Gospels and S. John's Gospel — The relation between the Synoptical Gospels of Matthew and Mark according to the Fathers — The Dependence-Hypothesis — Griesbach's Hypothesis, assigning to Mark the third place — CONTENTS. XXXUL PAGl The Mark- Hypothesis, assigning to his Gospel the first place — The fragments of Papias — Prologue to Gospel of Luke — Explan- ation of Synoptic discrepancies from the scope of the Synoptisti, supposing the hypothesis of dependence on one another and on Tradition — Tradition-Hypothesis exonerates the Evangelists, but incriminates Tradition — Scope of the Synoptists — Progress from Matthew to Luke — Peculiarities of John's Gospel — Com- plement of the Synoptists — Gospel of John and Apocalypse- Last Supper probably on 13th Nisan — Internal reasons for authenticity of the 4th Gospel — Plints as to the author — Contents point to John — Language, character, anti-judaistic tendency not contrary — Everything points to an eye-witness — Further proof taken from the fact that Christ's activity in Judaea if recorded — Portrait of Christ drawn by John completes that of the Synoptists — No want of historical development — Miracles recorded in the 4th Gospel not against reason, but must be viewed in the light of Providence — Agreement between Christ's discourses and those of the Baptist to be explained by the prophetical office of the latter — Affinity between the Synoptical discourses and those of John's Gospel — Discourses held in Jerusalem naturally less popular — ^John's peculiar fitness to record them — Idea of the Logos not taken from Philosophy, but from Sapiential books viewed in the light of tne actual fact of the Incarnation — The Kingdom of God in the Synop- tists — The Person of Christ in the 4th Gospel — Eschatology — Parables — Unless of Apostolic origin, its relation to Synoptists and its general enthusiastic reception inexplicable — Scope of the 4th Gospel — Christ the Messias and Son of God — Conclud- ing remarks upon the trustworthiness of the Gospels — These do not furnish a complete portrait of Christ • • • 458 CHAPTER XVI. THE LIFE OF JESUS. Life of Jesus the most effective Apolog>' — Model of the life of the faithful — Historical sketch — Year of birth probably 749 u.C. — Day of birth difficult to determine — Since 4th century Decem- ber 25th generally accepted — Length of public ministry 2^ XXXnr. CONTENTS. PA6S o' 3H years— Complete Biography impossible—Infancy and jrouth little known— Order of public ministry chiefly determined by John's account— History of Passion— Year of death 782 or 783 — Day of death a Friday — Resurrection — Its importance for faith and life— Resurrection foretold by prophets and Christ himself— Proofs of the resurrection partly historical, partly psychological— Discrepancies to be explained by the different scope of the Evangelists— Reasons why the disciples did not recognize the risen Saviour at once— The doubts of the disciples a proof of the resurrection — Belief in the resurrection not due to prophecy — Apparitions vouchsafed to the disciples only — Slowness of the disciples in believing — Psychological proof for the resurrection — Belief and conduct of disciples otherwise inexplicable — Attempts at natural explanations— Theft — Trance — Vision — Fact of the resurrection the necessary, basis of faith and hope in Apostles and Christians . • • • 4S9 CHAPTER XVII. PERSON AND NATURE OF JESUS. Holy Scripture on the divinity of Christ— The Synoptists— Meaning of the term "Son of Man " — Genealogies — Parents of Jesus — S. Paul on Christ's divinity — Christ's Preexistence taught in his four great Epistles— Jewish idea of a heavenly Messias— Incarnation the distinguishing feature— General Belief in the Apostolic communities— Gospel of S, John— Jesus the centre of Christian worship— Divinity of Christ fully taught throughout — Particular passages on the preexistence of Jesus — One passage favourable to subordinationism ...... 517 CHAPTER XVIIL CHRIST'S DOCTRINE AND WORK. Claim of Jesus to equality with the Father considered as blasphemy by the Jews — Jesus proves his claim by miracles and prophecies — Evangelists and Apostles adopt the same method— Protevaa- gelium — Development of Messianic prophecy — Of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Juda, of the house of David — Son of CONTENTS. XXXV PAOB. David and Son of God — Moral and religious renovation through the Messias— Eternal reign of the Messias — Attempts of the Rabbinical school to make void the prophecies — Prophecies concerning the sufferings of the Messias — Born of a virgin — Nativity in Bethlehem, triumphal entry into Jerusalem, betrayal —Messianic hopes of Jews and Gentiles at the time — Tacitus — Suetonius — Vergil — Erythraean Sibyl — Fulness of time — Why the advent of the Messias so late ? — Answers from Scripture and the Fathers — Preparation of Gentiles negative and positive — Law of development in the economy of salvation — Predestina- tion — Mediaeval Theologians — S. Thomas — Recent Apologists — Full natural development of good and evil — Retrospective force of the sacrifice of the Cross — Preparation for Christ an argument for his divinity — Claims of Jesus not dependent on condition and spirit of the time — Belief in the coming Messias leads the disciples to believe in Jesus as the Messias and Son of God — Some passages of the Old Testament concerning the divinity of the Messias — Not unsuspected by the Jews — Involuntary testi- mony of the Rabbis — Christ's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem— Christ's miracles a proof of his divinity, especially in conjunction with his doctrine — Significance of the miracles in the several Gospels — Division of the New Testament miracles — Cures and Nature-miracles— Rationalistic explanations — Miracles wrought in and for Jesus ..•••• 534 CHAPTER XIX. THE GOD-MAN. Difficulty of drawing in full the character of Jesus — Union and cora- penetrafion of the divine and the human — God-Man — One and the same person in two distinct natures — Bodily development of Jesus— Spiritual development not altogether wanting — People of Nazareth ignorant of true character and nature of Jesus — Jesus endowed with surpassing wisdom, though not educated in tke schools — True wisdom — Truth gives real freedom to believers — Sinlessness of believers — Direct and indirect testimonies of Scripture— Portrait drawn by the disciples of their sinless master not due to considerations of indulgence— Testimony of his enemies — Accusations of blasphemy and violation of Sabbath XXXVl. CONTENTS. PAGE — Baptism of Jesus — Internal sinlessness of Jesus — Positive side of his moral character— Virginity of Jesus the sign of per- fect renunciation of all things earthly — Charily of Jesus — Humility and self-denial of the Son of God — Unique example of each and all virtues — Impossible to explain his character by supposing a fusion of Eastern and Western genius — Jesus the only pattern of all men and all conditions of life — Redemption the work of the Son of God— Prophetical, sacerdotal, and royal office — Doctrine of Jesus sublime and yet adapted to all m.en — Trinity — Incarnation as a manifestation of God's love, justice, and holiness — The Kingdom of God spiritual and universal — Sanctificalion of individual, family, society — Matrimony — Its Indissolubility and chastity — State of virginity — Voluntary pov- erty — Grace . . . . . . '575 CHAPTER XX. A RETROSPECT. Brief analysis of contents in first and second volumes . . 609 CHAPTER I. CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. Jews and Gentiles were wont to reproach Christians with seeking to introduce needless innovations in religion. The Jews were so convinced that their law, their religion, and their sanctuary were to abide for ever ihat, in spite of the warnings of the prophets, they expected from the Messias not reform in religion, but merely a restoration of their former prestige. From Jerusalem their renown would go forth to the whole world. Their Sabbaths and festivals, their rites and sacrifices, were to remain untouched, and to be solemnized with great pomp and magnificence in their new kingdom. Party politics kept alive the flame of hatred that the ruling class had enkindled against Jesus ; but petty disputes about the absolute rest prescribed on the Sabbath set the whole country in a blaze. Even the Apostles found it difficult to disentangle themselves altogether from the external forms of Judaism. How tenaciously the Jewish Christians clung to the law and the ordinances of their forefathers I S. Paul was able to compile a catalogue of the hardships he had to endure at the hands of the Jews for trans- gressing the law. The Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude against him because he taught all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place.* In a work entitled the Acts of Peter and Paul, • Acts xxL •&. i CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. belonging to the second century, Paul, on arriving in RoniC, is made to pose before Jewish Christians as a genuine Israelite; " Defend the faith in which thou wast born and bred ; for it ill "becometh thee, a Hebrew and coming of a Hebrew stock, to '• call thyself a teacher of the Gentiles, and a patron of the "uncircumcised. Neither is it right that thou, being thyself "circumcised, shouldst make faith in circumcision void." And Paul perforce reassures his interloctures : " In this I am proved "to be a true Israelite that, as you yourselves see, I keep the "Sabbath, and observe circumcision in very deed. For on the "Sabbath God rested from all His works. Ours are the "Fathers, the Patriarchs, and the Law."i In like manner the Gentiles, though without the same authority to fall back upon, resisted any attempt to introduce innovations in religion. They appealed to antiquity which, in their eyes, gave their religion the right to exist, and, what is more, stamped it with divine approval. Age imparts respect- ability. The further time recedes into the dark vista of the past, the nearer it api)roaches eternity ; the more closely, too, mortal man is linked to the immortal gods. The Athenians, as the story goes, once asked the Delphic oracle which religion they were to embrace. "The religion of your forefathers," was the reply. But the Athenians were well aware that the religion of their forefathers had not been kept pure; otherwise the question was meaningless and unnecessary. So they asked a second time ; " Our forefathers often changed their religion. " Which of them are we to follow ? " And the oracle made answer: "The best." Cicero deems the oldest to be the best, because antiquity stands nearest to God.^ Hence he regards the existence of a universal belief in a divine being as a proof that this belief has its root in man's nature. To him the faith inherited from his ancestors was a sacred thing.^ Socrates, I L'fxius, Dit m^kry^ktH Apostelf^eschichten und ApostslUgenden. ii. i. Braunschweig iP-P.7, p. -ts*. a. Cicero, Dt Leg II. i6. Sec Tusc I. i«. A Christian Apology^ I. p. 991. 9 Tusc. I. 13. Dt Hat. Dtor. III. a. CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOJf. $ though compelled to drink hemlock for slighting the gods, still upheld the ancient religion. Plato ascribes his knowl- edge of God and the soul to the ancients, to the teaching of Egyptian priests, and the faith of the barbarians (Chal- dees). In Aristotle's opinion, belief in the gods, as to its substance, has come down from the grey mist of antiquity ; but the mythical embellishments are the work of later ages.* To the charge of innovation the apologists made a two- fold answer. Christianity, they said, is not absolutely new, but rather marks a forward movement in the direc- tion of the old religion. Its foundations are laid in the Old Testament. Prophecy had prepared the way for its coming. How, then, can the Jews oppose that which does but fulfil Moses and the Prophets ? With what face can the Gentiles stigmatize that as new, which is more ancient than the wisdom of their philosophers ? The Prophets lived before Socrates and Plato ; Moses is older than Homer. The apologists endeavoured to show not only in general that Eastern traditions, as both Plato and Herod- otus admitted, were the well-head of Greek wisdom, but also to trace their philosophy to the Old Testament. The apologists, however, are far from denying that Christianity is progressive. But why should progress be held up as a reproach ? Did Greeks and Romans of the second and third centuries still believe the same as their fathers who lived a thousand, five hundred, or even two hundred years before ? Is virtue to be measured merely by length of days ? Is age the sole criterion of a good cause ? Then it behooves us to go back to the first begin- nings of the race, and revert to the primitive habits of eat- ing acorns and dwelling in caves, of being clad in skins and offering up children in sacrifice/ Against this conclu- sion, reason, because it condemns errors and aberrations, rebels. Reason proves that Christianity has a right to exist, and shows its superiority to heathenism and Juda- ism. Christianity is as old as human reason. 4 Plato, TiM. a. xxii. 48. PliUeb. p. 16. Aristotle, Metaph. xxii. 8. 5 Prudentius, Pertst. xi., 409. C. Symm. ii., 272. See Ambrose, Ep. 17. 18. 57. 4 CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. The Fathers did not think that everything in heathenism is to be rejected as bad. For, besides bearing witness to the influence exercised by the Old Testament, to which allusion was made above, they further held that the Logos enlightens every man coming into this world. By the former tenet they give expression, unconsciously perhaps, to the conviction that the light of primitive revelation was never wholly extinguished. By the latter they confessed that divine providence had watched and guided the fallen human race. Reason and revelation joined hands, in pav- ing the way for Christianity in the hearts of men. In ac- cordance with this view Justin teaches that, even before Christ, all into whom the Logos entered, were Christians. Socrates and Heraclitus he mentions by name as Christians. Before Christ's coming, Clement of Alexandria insists, philosophy was necessary for the justification of the Greeks. It is still, he adds, useful unto piety, inasmuch as it is a preparation for those who acquire the faith by dint of argu- ment. For God is the author of all good things, either im- mediately as in the case of the two Testaments, or only mediately as in the case of philosophy." Origen, Clement's disciple, writes thus : ** We are not to limit the words of " Christ to those which He has spoken with His own divine " lips, for He was the Word of God that spoke in Moses *' and the prophets."' " What we now call the Christian ** religion," says S. Augustine, " existed among the men ** of old. During the whole interval that elapsed between " the beginning of the human race and the coming of " Christ in the flesh, it has never failed. When, however, " Christ came, the true religion, which already existed, '* began to be called Christian. "^ But while the Fathers proved the antiquity of Christian- ity from reason, and the action of the Logos^ they still in- 6 Justin, Apol. ii., 8, 13 ; i. 46. Clement, Strom, i. 5, p. 331, 349, 356. See vi. j. Kuhn, Theol. Quartalschr. i84i,p. 27. Einleitungin die katholische Dogmatik. and edit. Tiibingen, 1859, p. 350. Max lAxAX^Xy Essays, 2nd edit. 1879, vol. i., viii. Bratke, Die Stellung des Clemens Alex, zum antiken Mysterienivesen. Studien und Kritiken, 1887, p. 647. Weiss, Apologie des Chrisienthutns, 1878, i., p. 99. 7 De Princ. Preface, n. i. See Kuhn, p. 367, 349. 8 Retract, i., 13, B. CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. 5 sisted that a distinction great and wide, and not of degree only, obtains between heathen philosophy and Christian truth, and also between Judaism and Christianity. In heathenism, truth and error are blended, the truth being accessible only to a few. Judaism is but a shadow of the things to come. Still, it never occurred to the Fathers to regard revelation as a mere genetical development or evo- lution of the religious elements in the human mind, ripened by the circumstances of the age. Christian revelation, they held, had subdued the world, not because the sum total of religious knowledge had, as it were, found expres- sion in one genius ; nor because what, so to speak, was on the tip of every tongue had been uttered in clear and burn- ing words by one master-mind ; nor yet because the many rays that, in the days before Christ, streamed forth from the Logos, were united in Christ, the resplendent sun ; but because, in their eyes, pre christian times were but a divine *' paedagogia," preparing the hearts of men for the word that God was to reveal in Christianity. As Pythago- ras, Socrates, Plato, and other heathen philosophers were firmly convinced that truth comes from God, and as, more- over, ancient peoples traced their religion to a divine reve- lation, so, in like manner, the Fathers bore witness to the universal belief in a primitive revelation, and to the per- suasion that God had in divers ways been preparing man- kind for the coming of Christ. Modern history of religion is not yet within sight of defi- nite and certain results. One point, however, it has brought out : the fundamental ideas of religion have, from the earliest times, been more or less the common property of all nations. Religious faith has ever found itself confronted with certain problems ; and the answers, though various, have certain features in common. We may not assent to the view that the history of religion re- sembles the history of language, in offering nothing but new combinations of the same original elements. But there is hardly room to doubt that traces of a primitive revelation, defaced and disfigured though they be, by the 6 CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. natural mind and corrupt will of man, are everywhere to be found. The heathen world is covered with fragments of truth, and footprints of God. Men's minds were never wholly free from misgivings or surmises as to an unseen world. At every turn we meet with ideas, sometimes ob- scurely expressed, that there is a higher order in the uni- verse ; we find all men wishing and hoping, however feebly, for better things, and longing to be united to God. The truths, that are divinely revealed in their fulness in Chris- tianity, are contained, at least in shadow or in germ, in heathenism.' Nor were the Greek philosophers alone in giving a religious education to the human race. For, ac- cording to the Fathers, such enlightened men as Zoroaster, Buddha, and Confucius, the founders of religious commu- nities among the Persians, Indians, and Chinese, con- sciously or unconsciously, had also their share in the great work of preparing the way for Christ. The goal for which they strove was that supreme divine truth and moral per- fection which are manifested in Christ alone. And, in truth, given a divine providence and the laws of historical development, what else should we have expected ? Great events, as the saying goes, cast their shadows before. The laws of continuity and development hold no less in the life of men and in the world's history than in nature. And should not Christianity, the greatest event in the world's history, have been foreshadowed in the pre-christian de- velopment of mankind ? For earlier observers, save only the chosen people, it was not easy to perceive the drift of events ; it is far easier for one who takes his stand at the end and looks backward. Such an one is like unto a trav- eller who climbs up a high mountain with the twofold ob- ject of feasting his eyes on the beautiful panorama that lies before him, and of surveying the several stages of the road he has traversed, and who then combines the scattered features of the landscape in one complete and thrilling picture. Christianity ranges from end to end mightily, 9 'iA.6\i\cT^ Gesammelte Schri/ten und Au/sdtze. Edited by Dollinger. Regensburg, 1839, !•• P« 315. CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. 7 uniting past, present and future into an eternity. It views the earthly and the human in its causal relationship with the heavenly and the divine. It looks at time in the mir- ror of eternity, and views space with the eye of infinity. Christianity alone can trace the under-current of unity that percolates the Babel of History. It alone can show how what seems accidental and fortuitous, is really subservient to a higher purpose of divine providence, and how the true religion is indeed the touchstone of all religious develop- ment. As those only can appreciate the worth of Chris- tianity who, in their life and creed, have tasted its bless- ings, so none but those who possess the true Christian re- ligion can form a just estimate of the course of religious history, and thereby of the history of the world. In Chris- tianity God Himself enters into the domain of history, and hence the history of man is made divine. In other words the whole economy of creation and redemption is repre- sented as one act of divine providence. In this drama, to use the phrase of Clement of Alexandria, each soul has a defi- nite and permanent part to play,'» now and for all eternity. Nowadays it is fashionable to assume that all things have been subjected to a process of gradual development by the agency of natural causes, and that the human race has been fashioned and educated by slow degrees. With many it is a foregone conclusion that Christianity, like other relig- ions less fortunate, is merely the product of religious evo- lution in olden times. Christianity is, indeed, stamped with the unique personality of its founder ; but this potent fact is explained away as meaning nothing more than that Christ, being the greatest of religious heroes, was enabled, by his insight and penetration, to focus the rays refracted from earlier religions in one bright light, before which all others must grow pale. This view completely ignores the supernatural element that predominates in all religion, and in Christianity in particular ; still, on the other hand,' some human influence on religion, and some kind of his- 10. Teichmuller, Religionsphilosophie, Breslau, 1886, p. no. Haffner, Grundlinien der Geschichte der Philoso^hie, Mainz, 1881, p. 116. 8 CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. torical development should not be simply put out of court. Even those who believe in revelation, and in Christianity as the supreme revelation, are constrained to allow in an- cient religion o. prcsparatio evangelica. In this, too, there is an analogy between creation and revelation, between na- ture and grace. As, in individuals, reason develops into self-consciousness only by degrees, so a lengthy gradual process had to be gone through before mankind could be disposed anew to receive the original grace and truth they had rejected. As it was God's will, not to set up the world all at once, nor to lead each individual man to Heaven otherwise than by the free use of his natural powers, so, in like manner. His divine revelation conforms itself to time and place. Thus the training of mankind had to proceed step by step. Christianity is not accessible to every stage of culture ; it had to await the fulness of time when the nations had been duly prepared. The history of mankind, as it were, divides itself into two great streams : the Jew- ish and the heathen. The waters had to make their way through the soil and cut out their course, before they could unite and meet the great source whose waters flow into life eternal. Many Christian truths would have been un- intelligible, had they been revealed to the mind before the heart had been set on fire with desire. As missionaries to the heathen make it their first business to arouse the neces- sary dispositions of heart and mind, so God adopted the same plan in instructing the human race. History, it is said, is the best teacher. This saying is especially true in regard to the history of religion. A man will set greater store by his own religion" if he knows how far it agrees with and differs from other religions. Chris- tianity has nothing to lose if traces of its truths are found imbedded in other religions. Assuredly its gain will be all the greater, if withal, it transpire, that no ancient re- ligion approaches it within a measurable distance, in purity of doctrine and moral sublimity, and furthermore that the glory of all founders of religions pales before the light that zx See Max Miiller, Essays, Vol. I. p. 170. Wissenscha/t der Sprachlehre, Vol. IL p. 394. Fischer, Heidenthum und Offenbarung, Mainz, 1878, Preface. CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. 9 was manifested to the world in Christ. We may not ignore the history of religion, though in its latest phase it be drawn up in hostile array against the supernatural element in Christianity. Rather it should be the apologist's am- bition to conquer a foe who will often supply weapons for an attack on the faith. What position are we to assign to the history ot religion ? There can be little or no doubt that, both in point of time and order, it should precede a treatise on the Christian re- ligion. Both heathenism and Judaism are older than Christianity and have, each in its own way, made straight its paths. Christianity, though a divine act and a revela- tion from God, had its fulfilment at a definite time, and under definite historical circumstances. One might, per- haps, argue, with some plausibility, that non-christian re- ligions should be studied after Christianity, on the ground that the true religion alone can furnish the correct stan- dard for judging religions that are false or imperfect. The history and method of apology, however, demand the op- posite order. As general apology sets out from general external and internal experiences, in order therewith to establish the truth that God may be known from nature, so, in like manner, it bases its exposition on the history of religion in order to raise thereon the specific truths of Christianity. The old world may be divided into two groups, unequal but essentially distinct. In the eyes of a Greek none but Greeks were true men. All others ranked no higher than plants, cattle, and slaves ; they were barbarians fit only for plunder. The Romans, the heirs of the Greeks, hav- ing extended their empire over the whole of the then known world, took a broader view. Though keenly con- scious that a provincial was far below a Roman citizen, they gradually gave the conquered tribes a share in the administration of the empire, and admitted their gods into the Roman Pantheon. The Old Testament regards man from a religious standpoint. It also divides the human race into two classes : the worshippers of the true God, lO CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. Jahve, and idolaters. The chosen people, the descendants of Seth and Sem and Abraham, those consecrated to God by circumcision, were the privileged caste. Till Messianic times salvation viras of the Jews alone. Only then were others admitted to a participation in this privilege ; but the claim of priority was still assigned to the Jew. For the Messianic blessings were chiefly, and above all, for those who formed part of that Jewish kingdom, which, with Jerusalem and Sion as a centre, was to be exalted by the Messias into a world-wide empire. Hence the Jews were very severe in their judgments on the heathen.* That the heathen had been preparing for the Messias was a thought that had never crossed a Jew's mind. The Jews began to make proselytes only after the Babylonian cap- tivity, at a time when historical circumstances particularly favoured this course. The New Testament furnishes a clearer idea of the two- fold preparation for the Redeemer that was going on among the Jews and the heathen. Jesus, indeed, appealed to the law and the prophets which He declared He had come to fulfil,t but He explained the law in spirit. He not only declared external ceremonial to be of secondary importance, but he also pointed to other sheep not of this fold ;| He prayed for all men of all nations who should believe in Him.|| Our Lord taught His disciples to pray to their Father in heaven Who maketh His sun to shine upon good and bad, and Who raineth upon the just and the unjust. S. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, has given a wonderfully vivid sketch of the world's history. In the centre stands Christ, the second Adam, the mediator be- twixt heaven and earth, who has redeemed us from sin. In the background are Jews and Gentiles. The former had received God's revelation, but nevertheless they had erred and sinned. All their works were evil ; all had swerved from the right path. Not even one was free from ♦ Wisdom xiii. i. t Matth. V. 17. X John X. i. II Ibid xvii. I. CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. II sin. There was no wise man that sought after God. On the other hand the Gentiles had not recognized God in His works, and when they knew, they did not glorify Him as God, but became vain in their thoughts, and their fool- ish heart was darkened. They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a cor- ruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things. They hearkened not to the voice of conscience, but followed the lusts of the flesh. Wherefore God punished them with those things in which they had sinned, and gave them up to the desires of their heart, and to dishonourable passions.* Thus their religion ended in universal scepticism and immorality. The Law served to aggravate the sin of the Jews ; the Gentiles, as they had sinned without the Law, were also judged without it. God concluded all under the law of sin, and involved all in disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.f Never- theless the universal sin that God had permitted could not make void the eternal decree of salvation, but was rather to assist in its execution. The Jews were prepared for Christ by their law which revealed man's helplessness and made him yearn for a redeemer. Philosophy conducted the heathen to the same end. But philosophy was barren and empty, and revealed its own impotence.'' Nevertheless S. Paul finds that Jews and Gentiles had many points of connection with the glad tidings of the Gospel, which he was preaching. The Old Testament his- tory discloses a progressive series of divine revelations and ordinances pointing to Christ ; the natural knowledge of God can be revived, and conscience awakened from its slumbers. S. Paul has, indeed, dwelt chiefly on the nega- tive aspect of ancient religions, but he is far from dispar- aging the positive element of preparation contained in them. To break with existing thoughts and habits was ♦ Rom. i. t Ibid vi. 3a. 12 See Mach, Die Nothwendigkeit der Offinbarung Gottes^ nachtewiesen aus Geschichte und Vernun/t., Mainz, 1893, p. 48. 12 CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. inevitable. It was, however, to be a breach that would restore man to his original destiny, — a destiny he had never wholly forgotten ; that would quell the painful struggle raging within his soul ; and build up religious and social life on a new foundation. But, owing to the limited his- torical knowledge of the time, S. Paul's thoughts did not range beyond the Roman Empire. He speaks only of Jews and Greeks who had hitherto been enemies one to another, but are now united in Christ, Who has broken down the wall of separation. Nor was it without God's permission that the majority of the Jews were excluded from the Messianic kingdom. Their place was taken by the Gentiles. And when the Gentiles have had their turn, a remnant of Israel shall be saved. When at Tarsus, S. Paul had an opportunity of making himself acquainted with the horrible rites of Phrygian worship. Later on, when at Ephesus and Corinth, he encountered in all its hideousness the sensual worship of the later Greeks, who had been debauched by Eastern influences. But his con- siderations rest, on the whole, upon the historical knowl- edge gained in the Roman Empire, and, in particular, at the great commercial centres. We have no means of know- ing how far he had studied this religion in its history. Cer- tainly he was not unfamiliar with the Greek poets ; but their influence was effaced by the impression made on his earnest and divinely-enlightened mind, by the corrupt heathen life of the times. The view of the Fathers was bounded practically by the same limited horizon. To them also the greater part of mankind was an unknown quantity. Christianity was, indeed, penetrating beyond the boundaries of the known world into Egypt and Persia. Eastern religious systems, however, were but imperfectly known. The Egyptian schools, with which the Alexandrians had made themselves acquainted, were degenerate and debased. It was not till the Crusades that Western nations were brought into con- tact with the peoples of the East. But the discoveries and researches of modern times have laid almost the whole CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. 13 world at the feet of man. The sacred books of ancient re- ligions have been rendered accessible ; hieroglyphic and cuneiform inscriptions have been compelled to yield the hidden treasures of their wisdom ; uncivilized tribes have been visited in their haunts and homes. Romans, Greeks, and Germans have hitherto been the scales in which heathenism has been weighed ; but an earlier, higher and purer ideal, and deeper moral earnestness in Eastern re- ligious systems, has now been brought to light. Views on savages have undergone a twofold modification. The ideal savage has vanished before the stern reality ; the animal man has been better pictured in consequence of the study of religion. In this way we are able to gain some insight into non-christian religious development. Now that Creu- zer's symbolical explanation of mythology has been univer- sally abandoned, the students of the history of religion are hotly debating whether the philological school, repre- sented by Kuhn and Max Mailer, or the evolutionary school, to which most moderns belong, supplies the true explanation. It may, however, be regarded as certain that neither the mere influence of language on thought, nor the polytheism that springs from hero-worship or fetichism, can unlock the mysteries of religious develop- ment. The psychology of savages, and mere linguistic development, are equally incompetent to solve the prob- lem. Without an all-ruling Providence, religious develop- ment is as unintelligible as this visible world without a purpose. The more knowledge advances, the more clearly is purpose discerned ; so, in like manner, the greater our knowledge of the divers forms in which religion has mani- fested itself, the greater will be our grasp of the history of religion. In its brief, but brilliant, career, this new sci- ence has already demonstrated that the fundamental ideas of supernatural religion are common to all ancient relig- ions and sagas ; and thus it has been more clearly estab- lished that they, too, had their share in preparing the way for Christianity. 14 CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. It is no business of ours, in this place, to set forth the history of religion in detail. But nowadays a short sketch is absolutely necessary, inasmuch as two important prob- lems in apologetics are connected therewith : primitive revelation or primitive monotheism, and the origin of Christianity. The two subjects are, I say, closely con- nected. For if it be established that the debased heathen religions, in addition to error and vice, possessed many elements, distorted and misapprehended though they be, that betoken a primitive revelation and a clearer knowl- edge of God, then the appearance of Christianity on the scene cannot but prove attractive to the natural man. Christianity thereby loses, so to speak, somewhat of its startling and extraordinary character, in that it no longer shines forth in sharp antagonism to all existing sciences and creeds ; but it gains in historical consecutiveness, and in the power to convince. Moreover, it gains in dignity and sublimity, for it is seen to be the goal to which all other religions were tending, the light that dispersed the darkness in which the most ancient religions were shrouded. The fact that for thousands of years Divine Providence had been directing religious life and thought to this end, does not weaken, but rather strengthens the divine character of Christianity ; just as the universe, if said to be fashioned on one grand plan, causes the greatness of the Creator to stand out more transcendently than if he had, as it were, been obliged, after the manner of men, to come to its aid at every turn. Of course the history of Israel is very different from this. For Israel, at the outset, lays claim not merely to a primi- tive but to a continuous revelation from God. Judaism comes in immediate contact with Christianity. For this reason it cannot form the beginning of our present treat- ise. But since Judaism culminated and continued in Tal- mudism, while Islam rested on the same principles and was propelled by a tendency, similar indeed, but not directed so exclusively against Christianity, it will be better to consider both these non-christian religions in CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. 15 relation to Old Testament history. The history of rehgion aims at reducing the several religions to a common denominator. Hence the history of heathen religions will naturally depend upon that science. But up to the present the received classifications are so diverse and contradictory, that one almost despairs at arriving at a division that shall be at once generally valid and truly genetic. The historical religions are always a strange compound, because in their career they have been subjected to the most varied influences. Sentiment, will, and judgment have, each in its own way, modified or distorted the common foundation of religion laid by tradition and the promptings of the human heart. Some seek to explain everythmg genetically, and set out from pre- conceived notions about origin and development, others deduce the manifold existing religions from a priori notions. Undoubt- edly religion and the human soul are in nature most intimately connected. But the soul is neither merely the principle of cognition of religion, nor should it be taken for granted that it is the main source whence religion flows. We must not make light of the influence exerted by the will on religious life and thought. So far the nature of the soul has failed to explain the nature of religion. Precedence should therefore be given to historical facts. One chief classification divides religion into savage and civilized, or natural and cultured. It is difficult, however, for til is division to hold its ground. For it cannot be wholly denied that peoples who are now savages, formerly stood on a higher level of civilization. The idea of the "natural man" as conceived last century, like the idea of "natural religion" is a pure abstraction which, so far, no one has succeeded in verifying Writing, however, may be taken as a safe test of this distinction. Accordingly we may distinguish written and unwritten," natural and historical religions.^* This cc nci es very nearly, though 13 Max iMiilier, Einleitung in die vtr^Uichen^U ReU^,;uwiss*nscka./t, 1874. p. 115. 14 Drey, Apologitik, II. 68. I6 CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. not quite, with the distinction into popular and personal religions. Writing has been the chief agent in spreading civiliza« tion. Only the nations that have a refined literature rank as civilized. Indians, Parsees, Jews, Christians and Mohammedans are all civilized, and their religions are based on Canonical Scriptures. Some religions have sacred books : Brahmanism, Buddhism, Zoroasterism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with their offshoots; and their sacred books are respectively: Vedas, Tripitaka, Zend-Avesta, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran.^^ The classification into written, and unwritten or natural religions has therefore some external justification. It, however, sets out with the assumption that these religions were reared on these books as on a foundation. Now it can be shown that an oral tradition, of a longer or shorter duration, had in each case preceded the composition of the books. Religions are not founded on books ; but books are a more or less perfect reflection and vehicle of religious tradition. Religion is older than writing; but writing is an excellent test of religious development. For, besides bearing witness to doctrines and precepts, persons and events, written documents render great service to the comparative science of religion by affording a glimpse into spiritual motives, and into the relations that subsist between religion and language. This is the great merit of the philological schooi. It is vain for the Folklorists to gainsay the results that the philological school have obtained in regard to the Indo-Germanic family. Moreover, the written religions are made up, in great part, of natural elements. This fact alone, apart from any question as to origin, shows that natural and written religions are of the same kith and kin. The previous development and subsequent history of these book-religions do not by any means appear to have been always in a progressive and ascending line. Anyhow a cannot, without proofs be assumed as impossible that natural religion should have some features in common with civilized IS Max MiiUer, I.e. p. 96. CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. 17 religion in its earlier stages. In point of fact a non-chris- tian religion belongs definitely to some one people, race, or country. Its characteristics are determined either by the person of the founder, or by the country, nationality, or history of the people. But the particular presupposes the general. Ideas and customs in the concrete must be referred to general religious ideas and inspirations nestling in the soul. Religions are also divided into world-wide or universal, and provincial or particular.'® But this division is too nar- row, to embrace within its folds national and racial relig- ions. Then, again, universality may either mean an at- tribute, or merely state a fact. All religions before Christ, Buddhism perhaps excepted, would, in their actual incep- tion, have to be set dov/n as particular. Christianity alone is universal in every sense. A further classification into revealed and unrevealed re- ligions (if, indeed, this be not identical with the division into civilized and natural) is also inadequate. For their characteristics, howsoever much forgotten or misunder- stood, are drawn from a primitive revelation. Nearly all religions make pretensions to a revelation ; the rest are and must be a cross between natural and revealed. Again, religions are classified by Reville, Fritz, and others as monotheistic and polytheistic. This classifica- tion labours under a similar defect. It really begins with later forms, and assumes, tacitly or expressly, that religion generally, or at least most religious systems began in poly- theism. With equal right, to say the least, we may begin at the other end, and make monotheism the well-head of religious development. Civilized religions furnish many indications that the polytheistic system is of later growth. In natural religion this is not always so palpably clear. Still its followers believe in some sort of Supreme Being. Mythology, which is in itself an inextricable labyrinth, 16 Drey, Theol. Quartalschr. 1827, p. 234, seq., 591, seq., Folkmar, Jtsus Nazarenus, unci die irste christliche Zeit. Zurich, 1882, p. 3. Kuenen, Folksreligion und IVeitrcligion, Berlin, 1883, p. 4. Chanterie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Relig' ionsgcschichte, Freiburg, 1887, vol. p. 38. B 18 CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. ceased in later times to be regarded as sagas of the gods, and subsided into fable. This fact goes far to show that mythology, as a divine saga, was a corruption of the belief in one God. An original monotheistic worship of heaven is to be found among all peoples." Scientists do not now look on this question with a favourable eye. Even Max Muller calls it a legacy from the Middle Ages.'® Every religion claims a primitive revelation. Others assume polytheism in the form of deified nature, or deny that a reflective monotheism existed in primitive times. '^ It may be granted that the features and lineaments of heathen religions are pantheistic ; still it by no means follows that pantheism is the original religion. Rather it is the out- come of development and long reflection. The religious idea, which in the beginning was one, was gradually split asunder into its various component elements ; but the mutual relation in which these stand to each other was no longer understood. Then reflection came to the rescue, and strove to restore the sense of unity. But, owing to the preponderating influence of a naturalistic tendency, this unity could not but assume a pantheistic shape. Poly- theism had its beginning in that worship of nature and its forces which, under one form or another, is common to most ancient religions ; thus it is branded as a decline and fall from a higher knowledge of God. The source of religion can hardly be sought in the ego. Nor can belief in one God, or in the unity of the world, have originated in the unity of self-consciousness being transferred to the visible world. '° But the unity of the human consciousness assuredly proves that monotheism is more in accord with man's heart and mind than polythe- ism. In what other way could self conscious man regard 17 Gloatz, Speculative Theologie in Verbindung mit der Religionsgeschichte. Gotha, 1883, Vol. i., pp. 122, 130, 278. i8 Ursprungund Entwicklung der Religion. Strassburg, 1881, p. 291. 19 Asmus, Die indogermanische Religion in den Hauptpunkten ihrer Entwicklung Halle, 187s, 1877, Vol. II. p. 30. 30 Yx\\.z., Aus antlker Weltanschauung. Dit Entwicklung des jiidischen und griechis' chen Volkes zum Monotheismus nach den neuesten Forschungen, Hagan, 1886, p. 2ca. CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. 10 the universe than as an organism destined to subserve an intelligent purpose ? If, however, as Schelling contends, polytheism marks an advance on monotheism, the ego or self-consciousness cannot be the beginning of development. The ego is not man's first conscious idea. The child only attains self-consciousness by means of the non-ego. It is the same with the life of peoples and of mankind as with individuals. But since no equivalent self-conscious non-ego existed in the beginning, monotheism, in its commence- ment, could only be referred to divine influence, or to a primitive revelation. The science of religion cannot mar- shal any positive arguments to do battle with this conclu- sion. The appeal that most religions make to a primitive revelation is a very strong point in favour of this conclu- sion ; unless we are prepared to attach no weight to the universal religious sense and tradition of mankind regard- ing the fundamental facts of religion. It may be urged, perhaps, that the difficulty can be solved by an appeal to the mere general or collective development, which as yet includes no individual self-consciousness, but only sup- poses some higher forms or states of psychical life known as enthusiasm or ecstasy.*' But this, again, is impossible. For how can there be a general or collective development aiming at personality, when the goal has not been fixed by a personality ? Collectiveness supposes individuality. We may, indeed, thus account for the appearance of some par- ticular personalities and masters in philosophical and re- ligious thought, such as Socrates and Zoroaster, Moses and Jeremias ; but the entire expanse of human development cannot be thus explained. Nay, even in the case of these eminent personages, it should not be forgotten that a higher element has been at work. Polytheism marks a decline from a higher state, as is plain from the fact that it ever rushes in a downward course. Anthropomorphism, idolatry, and the worship of the stars, animals, and nature, are the sloughs into which it ever plunges. Again, it brands itself as a decline, inas- 81 Fritz, p, 220. S6 CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. much as moral corruption is not only its inseparable ally in point of fact, but the two stand to each other in relation of cause and effect. Time may have lopped off many re- volting excrescences ; but the whole tree is eaten up with rottenness. The only cure for moral evil is to pull up the tree, root and branch. No calculations on error and re- ligious decadence can dispense with " good free-will." To make the mind and metaphysics the sole basis of classifica- tion is labour lost ;•" for the will is a power both in religion and cognition. False ideas and false principles, defective apprehension of facts, false combinations of facts and ideas, are some of the causes of error ; but error often precedes reflection, and is often due to moral obliquity. Knowledge alone does not make up religion ; it must be associated with sentiment. Every form of religion is char- acterized by certain well defined acts. But if this be so, then no a priori principles of division will suffice for a re- ligion that includes the ideas of fear, sin, and righteous- ness. The scheme lacks historic reality. History con- fronts us with many different forms and blends of religion, which register a moral standard as well as a standard of culture. If to the idea of fear are joined those of right- eousness and sin, polytheism will necessarily lead to mono- theism, because righteousness and the commandments can come from none but a personal God. Thus the influence of the moral sense is established.''^ Why should it be deemed impossible that a decline from righteousness should lead to polytheism, the religion of fear, when atheism must needs be the transition from one to the other ? These groups, which have been constructed apriori, ex- ist side by side, and cross and re-cross one into the other. In like manner, there are some religious systems that will not fit either into the monotheistic or the polytheistic scheme of division. The dualistic, henotheistic, and athe- istic systems w^ould all have to be fitted in.^* Some authors 22 Teichmiiller, I.e. pp. lo, qq. 23 Ibid., p. Q9, 285, 2Q5. 84 Max Mtiller, Religionswissenscha/t, p. 126. CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. 21 have even attempted the task." Since, however, all relig- ions before Christ, whether natural or historical, are set down as polytheistic, this classification has no greater value than that which divides religions into natural and historical. The same may be said of the division founded on the genesis of language, provided the Jewish be re- garded as specifically distinct from the other Semitic re- ligions. The heads of this classification are : Turanian, Semitic, Aryan ; dualistic ; God in history ; God in na- ture.^® With this in the main agrees the division based on the genesis of the speculative philosophy of religion.'" Its distribution is as follows : Beginnings of religion ; the Indo-Germanic nations (Indians, Persians, Germans, Greeks, and Romans) ; Semites ; Christians. A correct appreciation of the kind and quality of religion is of as much importance in apologetics, as problematical speculations on its genesis and development. For this purpose the moral tendency has to be observed as much as the intellectual. Nay more, it may be said that the moral aspect is of greater consequence, because the com- manding position occupied by religion in history is due primarily to its moral influence on the life of nations. For this reason it has been suggested that religions should be classified as natural and moral ; and the suggestion has recently been favourably received. Hegelian philosophers like Asmus, Scharling and von Hartmann distinguish spir- itual religion from religion determined by nature : Natu- ralism, Spiritualism, Theism. This distinction chiefly re- gards the moral side of religion. Religions were classified by Tiele as natural and moral, according as the gods were conceived as natural objects or moral beings. Again nat- ural religions are divided into three groups : I — Religions in which magic and animism hold sway, and which are characterized by devil-worship. These are the religions of savages. 25 Volkmar I.e., p. 2. 26 Max Muller, I.e., p. 139 seq. 27 Pfleiderer, Berlin, 1884. Sec TeichmQller, p. 97, a. 1, loi. 22 CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. 2 — Refined or organized magical religions. These may be described as semi-animal and semi-human (therian- thropical) polytheism. In this category are included the Japanese, Dravidian, Finns, Esths, the half-civilized tribes of America, Arabians, Pelasgi, Italians, Etruscans, Sclavs, ancient Chaldeans and Egyptians, and the old empire of China. 3— The worship of God in human form, of semi-ethical beings, but of super-human strength. This is anthropo- morphic polytheism. This class embraces the Vedic Hin- dus, ancient Persians, later Babylonians and Assyrians, civ- ilized Semitic tribes, Celts, Germans, Hellenes, Greeks and Romans. Moral religions fall into two classes : I — National nomistic religious communities. Under this heading come Taoism, Confucianism, Brahmanism, Jain- ism, primitive Buddhism, Mazdeism, the Mosaic religion and Judaism. 2 — Universal religious communities. This division would embrace Islam, Buddhism and Christianity. Here, it is clear, only formal moral precepts serve as a distinguishing mark. For, as a matter of fact, all religions lay either customary or special moral obligations on their disciples. May be to one the idea of the infinite is brought home by nature, to another by conscience. Hence a great distinction may be made between the Indo-Germanic, Semitic and Turanian religions.^^ In no case, however, can the moral element be excluded. In the case of the Hindus, Varuna alone, whom the ancient Vedas represent as king of gods and men, and as the all-seeing, all-judging, all-avenging ruler of the world, would suffice to prove that a moral element was essential to the beginning of religion. In its later development it was strangled by a demon and nature worship ; but this fact, far from disproving, actu- ally goes to show that God had decreed and established a moral religious order from the beginning. Moral mono- »8 Max Miiller, Ursprung, p. 242 seq. See Vetter, Die neuere Mythen/orschung au/ vedischem. Gebiett. Literarisch. Rundschau^ 1883, Nos. i and 9. CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. 2$ theism or Theism existed only, strictly speaking, among the Jews. Among other civilized peoples the moral law suffered under the influence of the later polytheism or naturalism, and yet among some peoples, as, for instance, Hindus, Greeks, Romans and Egyptians, it retained con- siderable importance. The same may be said of the dual- istic systems. Hand in hand with what may be called the cosmological dualism goes an anthropological ethical one ; and there can be no doubt that priority or superiority was ascribed, at least in the beginning, to the good principle, God.'* As the prima facie probability favours the supposition that the history of religion presents us with a retrograde movement, it will be better to keep to the distinction be- tween civilized and natural religions. To the most ancient civilized religions belong the religions before Christ that possess canonical Scriptures, that is the religions of the Aryan family. We have thought it a simpler and easier plan to treat of the different periods of the several relig- ions immediately after one another, and to bring all the Indo-Germanic branches together. The Semites, the Jews excepted, will fitly follow. Egyptians form the connect- ing link ; savages the continuation. This would seem the proper place to give a survey of the number of those professing the different religions. Esti- mates, indeed, vary considerably. Generally the total number of human beings is set down at about 1435 "^^1" lions. Of these, according to the Planisph(Briu7n published by the Lyons Propaganda, 419,710,000 fall to the share of Christian denominations : (Catholics 212,100,000 ; Schis- matics 83,810,000 ; Non-Catholics 123,800,000) ; Israelites 6,890,000 ; Mohammedans 200,000,000 ; Brahmanists 163,- 000.000; Buddhists 7,000,000 ; Chinese 300,000,000 ; Japan- ese 35,900,000 ; other heathens 228,500,000." Hiibner counts 432,000,000 Christians or 30. 2^ (Catholics 2 1 8,000,000 ; 29 TeichmQller, p. 285 seq. 30 See Fischer, De salute infidelium. Essendise, 1886, p. 2, seq. Missions Catholiques^ Lyon, 1883, p. 273, seq. Hiibner, Giographisch-statischt Tabellen aller Lander der Erde, 1884. Saussaye, p. 41. 24 CHRISTIANITY AND THE HISTORY OF RELIGION. Non-Catholics 123,000,000 ; Greeks 83,000,000 ; others 8,000,000) ; Mohammedans 120,000,000 or 8.3^ ; Israelites 8,000,000 or 5^ ; 503,000,000 Buddhists or 35^ ; 130,000,000 Brahmanists or 9.6^ ; 234,000,000 fetish-worshippers or 16.4^. CHAPTER II. THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE §1. The Hindus. In our sketch we shall begin with the civilized races. And first we shall treat of the Indo-Germanic or Aryan races. At the summit stand the Hindus, whose religion, at once the oldest and most advanced, is a rich mine that cannot fail to yield abundant treasure to religious historians and philologists exploring its caverns and recesses. Its beginning and origin are lost in the twilight of fable, and yet, in spite of numerous vicissitudes, its essential charac- ter has remained unchanged. That essential character may be said to consist in mysticism and antagonism to the real world. The Indian religion is enshrined in a compre- hensive literature, whose beginning stretches as far back, perhaps, as the year 2,000, and whose end has only been reached at a relatively late epoch. For long ages it was propagated by word of mouth ; but, in default of histori- cal information, its place in history cannot be more than approximately determined. Tradition was regarded as a cosmic principle, a divine, almighty, and eternal force ; and it has always maintained its position in literature. The most ancient MSS. go no further back than the 9th or loth century a.d. The oldest portion of their sacred books, which are known as the Vedas (oiSa, to know. 26 THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. knowledge)/ is the Rig-Veda. It consists of hymns of praise, arranged according to the families of bards, and offers many points of resemblance with the Psalms. But, as the several parts are of very different ages, it is hardly possible to arrange the hymns in chronological order. Attempts have recently been made to dislodge the Rig- Veda from the pre-eminent position hitherto accorded to it, and to put its contents on a level with those of the other Vedas, even the Atharva- Veda, The Rig-Veda should no longer b: regarded as a sort of encyclopaedia of all the more ancient ideas held by the Indo-Germanic race, but only as a collection of the notions prevalent in a very cir- cumscribed area. We may, however, in general distin- guish three periods : The Early Veda or Varima period ; the Middle Veda or Indra period ; and the Later Veda or Brahman period.' The other Vedas, the Satna- Veda, Yajur-Veda, and Atharva- Veda are made up partly of hymns, borrowed from the Rig- Veda, and arranged for liturgical purposes, and partly of ordinances, sacrificial formulae, incantations and adjura- tions. The Sama-Veda contains the hymns used in the Soma sacrifice, the Yajur-Veda the ceremonial prescribed in the sacrifices. The Atharva-Veda, apart from the hymns taken from the Rig- Veda, is for the most part a collection of incantations and benedictions, without systematic ar- rangement. It is the most recent of the four Vedas, and probably belongs to the nth century. The Veda certainly existed in its entirety before the days of Buddha. In each of the Vedas, the hymns {Mantras) must be care- fully distinguished from the later prose works, the casuis- tic expositions of the hymns, and the sacrificial ritual {Brah- manas). Moreover there are the Sutras which, being as it were limbs of the Veda (Vedanga), rank with the Veda proper. The questions discussed in the Sutras are various, 1 See Max Miiller, Essays, l, i seq. Kirckenlexicon, 2nd edit., ii. p. 1180 seq. Fischer, Heidenthum und Offenbarung., Mainz 1878, p. 13 seq. 2 See Vetter, Liter. Rundschau, 1883, p. 264. Chr. Pesch, Der Gottesbegriff in den heidnischen Religionen des Alterthums, Freiburg, 1885, p. 5 seq. Flockner, Theol. Quartalsckr. 1887, p. 47 seq. THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. 27 some concerning ceremonial, morality and justice, others on grammar and metre. The first two are called Sruti (hearing, sacred doctrine), and the third Smrtti (memory, tradition). From this we may see how extremely difficult it is to divide the Hindu religion into periods. Internal grounds are almost our only guide. For, as the Hindus were de- ficient in the historic sense, no great reliance can be placed on their history, as handed down by them. At one time Max Miiller's classification found great favour with scholars. He distinguished four periods in the development of Hindu literature : (i) The Tshandas period, in which the hvmns were com- posed (1800 — 1400 B.C.). (2) The Mantra period, during which a collection of the hymns was made (1400 — 1000 B.C.). (3) The BraJunana period (1000 — 600 B.C.). (4) The Sutra period (600 — 200 B.C.). Now, however, that the later literature receives some of the attention of which the Vedas formerly enjoyed a mo- nopoly, scholars have adopted Barth's classification into five periods : Vedism, elder Brahmanism, Buddhism, Jainism, and younger Brahmanism or Hinduism.' The beginning of Hindu development goes back to pre- historic times. On this question, as on every other, the philological and anthropological schools hold diametri- cally opposite opinions, and, what is more remarkable, philologists are at loggerheads with one another. In lay- ing stress on the popular element in song and saga, man- ners and customs, the Folklorists and Tylor's anthropologi- cal school are certainly in the right,* but, as the Hindu re- ligion is nistorical, we must above all be guided by docu- mentary evidence. The Vedas, as we now have them, give a very clear picture of the formation of myths. It is, therefore, a strong temptation to suppose that the religion 3 See Wurm, Geschickte der jiidischen Reli/:wn im Umriis dargestellt. Basle, 1874. Liter. Rundschau^ 1883, p. 230. Fischer, p. 20. Revue de Vhistoire des religions. Paris, 1880, vol. i., p. 23. * Gardoz, A. Lang. 28 THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. of the Indo-Germanic races began with nature-myths, from which Henotheism, Polytheism, Monotheism and Panthe- ism were gradually evolved. Or, at least, it would seem to suggest that the nature myth is the shell in which the religious idea was in the earliest times encased. Then, as the result of a long and tedious process," the shell was cast off, and an objectively theistic and spiritual religion crawled forth. The idea of the Infinite arose and was matured partly by " palpable" objects, such as stones and shells, partly by " semi-palpable" (trees and so forth) and partly by '* impalpable" objects, for instance heaven, the sun, stars and dawn. We may call this the solar interpreta- tion, according to the sun-myth of M. Muller. Kuhn, Lauer and Asmus have propounded a m.eteorological hypothesis, according to which natural phenomena (storms &c.) were the occasion of man acquiring an idea of the Absolute and Infinite. The supreme God battles with the daemons, in order to obtain the mastery over the rain. The essence of the several inferior gods depends on the part they play in the myth. For in Henotheism, or the initial stage of development, the gods have as yet no strongly marked individuality, nor is the line between the divine and the earthly sharply drawn. From this were evolved the ulterior forms of the religion of the Indo-Ger- manic tribes, in particular the acosmic Pantheism of India. Thus far one fact only is beyond cavil : that, before the Indo-Germanic family dispersed, their religion had reached the stage of nature-worship. But we hold it to be estab- lished by empirical researches' that their religion, in the earliest period of their history, was monotheistic and spir- itual. Traces of this earlier spiritual religion may be clearly discerned in the older Vedas. Whether, as was formerly contended, the religious ideas enshrined in the 4 See Max Muller, Vorlesungen iiber den Ursprung, &c. Asmus, Die indogermanische Religion, Vol. I., p. 143. Liter. Rundschau, I.e. Chanteriede la Saussaye, Z,f>4r/5Mn the social relations that were in vogue in ancient times. As in all ancient systems of jurisprudence, punishments are severe and ill-proportioned. The connection of law with religion brought in its train the promise of eternal rewards, and the threat of eternal punishment. Belief in the transmigration of souls was a favourite Brahmanic doctrine. Those who com- mitted certain offences had to wander through the various castes, and the wicked were to be born again in the bodies of animals. Suffering was a punishment for guilt contracted in a former life. Purification was effected by fasts and ablutions, and by reciting Vedic formulae.^i The Sutras, unlike the preceding literature, had a purely human origin, and carried these principles much further. In the Sutras the religious idea reached its nadir. To the Brahmanic precepts they added a domestic ritual, in which the life of the believer was regulated, down to the minutest details, from the day of his conception till death. It -specified the duties of all classes : husbands and wives, parents and children, teachers and pupils, masters and servants, kings and subjects. In a word, they catered to the habits of one and all. The copious philosophic literature and the various philo- sophical schools are entitled to a brief notice for two reasons : they are for the most part of Brahmanic origin, and, furthermore, they give an insight into the spirit that is even now swaying Indian speculation. To this literature the name Upanukad has been given. It should not be forgotten that it is not easy to fix the chronology of the several parts, which are separated by long intervals of time. A few of the Upanishads are part and parcel of the Vedic literature (Sutra). Thoughts of astonishing depth lie buried in an ocean of trivialities and puerile fancies. In 91 Max Mailer, Indiem, 1884. See Teichmuller, p. 537. Pescb, p. 13. Saussaye, ^ STOseq. Rtw, i, p. 947 THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. 39 them we meet for the first time the doctrine comuioa to all Indian religions, — metempsychosis. Whether or no it be of earlier origin, it is quite foreign to the hymns of the Vedas. But philosophy reveals itself as a new religion, by the manner in which it applies this doctrine. For its chief aim and object is to liberate man from an everlasting migration, by absorption in Atman. Atman, whose colour ever varies, represents antagon- ism to the world of phenomena and deceits. He is the e£o, the soul, the spirit, the reality, the absolute, in whom all apparent individual existence is swallowed up. From Atman and Maya (unreality, illusion) have emanated the world and the world-soul Hence the promises, held out by the Vedas, of personal happi- ness in the world to come in the mansions of the gods, are valueless and unattractive to such a philosophy. The summum honum lies in the complete dissolution of all individuality. Man realizes to the full sanctity and the supreme good, when he is set free from his accidental and individual surroundings. Life on earth is but an embryo. Death is the gate by which we enter into true life. In death the most perfect souls are swallowed up in eternity, and in the universal world-soul. With this philo- sophy was bound up a stoical apathy, which accorded well with the climate, and the natural temperament of the people. It also ushered in a reaction against the despotism of the Brah- manic priesthood. Of the philosophical schools I shall mention only two : the Sankhya of Kapila, and the Yoga of Patanjala. Like the other schools they take their stand mainly on the Vedas. They have only one object in view, — deliverance from evil. India is the home of Pessimism. The world and human life are evils ; know- ledge is the deliverer. The Yoga, however, by admitting one •upreme god as the ruler of all things, and by giving prominence to meditation and asceticism, may be considered a step in advance, although on this point opinions are divided. The name Yoga, according to some writers, signifies union, to wit, with God, with Brahma ; whence it is inferred that the Yoga 40 THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. philosophy was a noble form of mysticism, which made man's happiness to consist in loving and obeying the self- conscious absolute who guides his destinies." Others see in Yoga the embodiment of an idea, extinct in the West, for which there is no equivalent in any European language. Yoga, they say, signifies an indescribable inward yearn- ing for absorption into the infinite. The Western Aryans were swayed by a contrary impulse ; to draw the infinite into themselves." According to the first view, the desire to be freed from earthly encumbrances seems to coincide with freedom from sin, and in being like unto God in holi- ness and charity ; according to the second opinion, it seems to lie in the attainment of superhuman power, and in lordship over nature. This religion of Brahmans and other Indian philosophers was clearly not popular ; it was the speculative and imagi- native religion of a caste. Only when the people began to find satisfaction for their needs in popular religions else- where, was the Brahman dominion tempered, and its area circumscribed. Brahmanism is sometimes, in this respect, compared with the Middle Ages ; but the two have noth- ing in common.'* To the people the fantastic theories of Pantheism were incomprehensible. The life of individuals became utterly valueless. Sacred worship lacked a relig- ious basis and aim, and moreover concerned only a privi- leged class. The element of reconciliation and redemp. tion from sin, which so powerfully draws the popular mind, was wanting. In the Middle Ages, indeed, there flourished a privileged priesthood, not a caste. To the priest rich and poor, high and low had access. Priest and people, learned and unlearned professed the same faith. All had the same sacraments and sacrifice. All without distinction had a share in the Communion of Saints. Hence there could be no question of Pessimism, whether the word be taken in its proper sense, or as 22 Ebrard, Apologetik, 2nd edit., Guterslohe, 1874, vol, ii., p. 37. Saussaye, p. 379. as Stimtnen aus Maria-Laach, 1887, p. 262. From an account by an Indian (Morad Ali Bey) in the Sphinx. 24 Teichmiiller, p. 528. THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. 4I a kind of Optimism, inasmuch as the Brahmanic Pessimism had reference only to things external. Only a few off-shoots of ancient Gnosticism were grafted on a kind of Pessimism. Monas- ticism and Brahmanism, it is true, share in common the Indian love of solitude ; but this is hardly a sufficient reason for labelling Monasticism as Pessimism, This account of the Brahman monks is necessary to a right understanding of Buddhism and Jainism, which we now proceed to sketch. At one time it was the fashion to see in Buddhism a mighty revolution, in which the rights of man rose in rebellion against Brahman tyranny. Now, however, the History of Religion has made the discovery that Buddhism was not arrayed in hostility to Brahmanism, but that, on the contrary, each maintained friendly relations with the other. A sound historical judgment of Buddhism may be formed from the Edicts ofAsoka, wherein special stress is laid on the toleration that Brahmans and Buddhists should observe towards each other. In the sacred books, the beggar-monk is named with as much respect as the Brahman. Nor, again, was Buddhism a democratic or social revolution, for the constitution remained unshaken and unchanged. Caste was retained in principle, but the ranks of of the monks were henceforward recruited from the Khshatrijas (Knights), not, as formerly, from the Brahmans. Both Bud- dhism and Jainism were religious orders^ which had the king's sons for their founders. The difference between them centres in a single point. Jainism refused to establish religious orders for women, while Buddhism, though holding women in contempt, gave an unwilling assent. Both parted company with Brahman- ism in denying all authority to the Vedas. But the denial of this authority was also to some extent the logical consequence of the ascetical system of the Brahman. Later on it was more or less put in practice. The Buddhist monks also led a com- munity life in monasteries, and were formed into congregations, which subsisted after the death of their founder. Jainism and the Siddhanta Canoii (5th century a.d.), which 42 THE TNDO GERMANIC RACE. forms its liicrature, have only recently been brought 'o light. Was it started as an independent religion at the sanie time as Buddhism ? or was it a sect that severed itself from Buddhism ? These are questions that still perplex the learned, and to which no satisfactory answer has yet been given. Here, however, we may dismiss the subject, for Jainism has played only a subor- dinate part in religious life. Its adherents still hold their ground in India, and number about half-a-million. Its tenets approxi- mate more closely to Brahmanism than to Buddhism, for, unlike the latter, it professes faith in Atman^ and on this basis of uni- versal being proceeds to divide all things into two classes: beings with and without souls. Nirvana, therefore, does not mean annihilation, but deliverance of the soul. As a means of deliverance the Jainas advocated not only faith in Jina, Know- ledge, and observance of his tenets and precepts, but also an ascetical life, and even suicide.^^ ' Sakhya-Sinha (lion), Sakhya-Muni (monk), Gautama, Sid- dharta of the race of Sakhya, as he is variously styled, was born] at Kapilavastu. He was not, as is generally supposed, the son of a great king, but of a petty chieftain of Northern India. He founded that great monastic order which has exercised such a world-wide influence on the religious history of Central India — an influence that is still in full vigour. His death, or to speak in Buddhistic language, his Nirvana is usually set down to the year 543 b.c. This date, however, is now regarded with sus- picion. The only account, to which we can safely allow the weight of historical evidence, is to be found in the Fragments of Megasthenes who, by order of Seleucus Nicator, was staying at the court of Tshandragupta from 306 to 298 B.C. The Fragments seem to turn the scale in favour of the year 477. From the recently discovered edicts of King Asoka, who was certainly alive in 256 and who died about 230^, it has been inferred that the Nirvana of Sakhya-Muni was accomplished between 482 ■S Saussajre p. 386, Earth, Rco, I.e. Ku«nen, Vclksreligifm wtd WtUreltsi'ttt Berlin THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. 43. and 472 ; others, however, bring it down to 410, and even to 388.26 The date of his death, however, presents but an easy difficulty in comparison with the events of his hfe. And yet it is of sur- passing importance that these should be accurately gauged, as for some time it has been boldly and emphatically stated that they form a perfect parallel to the life of Jesus Christ. This assertion notwithstanding, it may be said with truth that our knowledge of Sakya-Muni, or to call him by the name given him on account of his reforms, of Buddha, the Illuminated, is almost a blank. The northern legends differ in essential particulars from the southern. By some the legends are explained mytho- logically, by others symbolically. A great deal cannot be ex- plained other than symbolically. Even those who contend that Buddha's life has an historical nucleus, allow that solar myths are its environment. When his personality is unchallenged, his biography is merged in that of Krishna, Hercules or Apolla His rank and dignity, his descent and parentage, his birth and home, his youth, marriage, and calling, his struggles and vic- tories, in a word all the details of his life are engulphed in the myths of sun and storm.27 Not that we are disposed to see myths in everything. On the contrary, we hold that the legend of Buddha in its entirety cannot be rightly understood unless it be assumed to be founded on fact. Nevertheless nearly all the details are not forthcoming till fully two hundred years after Buddha's death, that is, only two centuries before Christ. In view of these facts, we feel bound, at the outset, to protest against such an unauthentic life of Buddha being flippantly and malevolently employed in an anti-Christian interest. Against any minute parallelism with the life of Jesus, even when drawn by believing Christians, we are bound to enter our protest. There is no resemblance whatever between the two except on ■6 Revue p. 253. On the other side p. 396, $43. Saussaye p. 347, 477. MuIIer, p, 393 s«q. f7 Revue p. 254. See Saussaye p. 407. Kucaen p« 258 m^ ^ THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. theTupposition that a real life of Buddha can be built up from contradictory and ludicrous details. Monsignor Bigaudet, Vicar Apostolic of Ava and Peru, thus writes of Buddha : " The several incidents in the life of Buddha "cannot fail to recall many circumstances, described by the •* Evangelists, in the life of our Lord."28 The gods, it is recorded, had decreed to give a wonderful sign. About the feast of mid- summer, Sakya-Muni was conceived of a beautiful, virtuous and immaculate virgin whose name was Maja. The whole world rejoiced at his birth, and the gods did him homage. Soon after his birth an aged and venerable ascetic, named Devala, saluted him, and proclaimed him the future Buddha. When he was eight days old, he received the name Siddharta. His child- hood bristles with legends, which are even more improbable than the silly stories told in the apocryphal gospels of the child Jesus. After this no one will be surprised to hear that Buddha's schoolmaster marvelled at the knowledge he displayed. At the age of sixteen he lived in all his father's palaces, each in turn, with lovely maidens for his companions. He won his wife Yasadhora in a race, and she bore him a son Rahula. The gods now brought home to him the destiny they had marked out for him. On seeing a man bent with age, an invalid, a corpse and a monk, he knew these to be signs from heaven, and forthwith he resolved to renounce all worldly honours and pleasures. At midsummer he left the city, overcame the tempter Mara, who tried to turn him from his purpose, and then received from an angel the eight requisites of a beggar-monk, to wit, three gar- ments, a shell, a knife, a needle, a girdle, and a sieve. With five other penitents, who had joined him, he now began to lead an ascetical and meditative life. As, after six years, the goal did not seem in sight, he again changed his mode of life, and took plenty of nourishment. At length extraordinary events warned him that the time was at hand, when he was to be installed as w il Max M&Ocr, iE<»if» i. p. •79. See KaikoiiA 1883, p. 630 seci. In Saussaye tho •cvcral patrfMi ve draws out. THE INDO-GIRMANIC RACK. 45 Buddha. As he lay down under a tree, awaiting the advent of the supreme wisdom, Mara sought to stir up temptation, within and without, by mjans of his evil spirits and his daughters; but Buddha again stood firm, and would not yield. And he was rewarded with a triple gift ; a vision of the past, and present, and an insight into the chain of causation. Then he uttered those memorable words, in which he declared that, ''after many exis- " tences and painful regenerations, he had at length recognized "the builder of the house. Now, however, he would build no *• other house, for Nirvana was attained." Then he went forth and preached in Benares, and disciples, even from among the Brahmans, flocked around him. In his native town he revealed his glory, and induced his own tribe to follow him. Neverthe- less, during the forty years of his active life, he encountered opposition from his relatives and others. When he was now eighty years old, and was minded to give a parting admonition to his disciples, Mara tried to prevent him ; and again Mara was vanquished. Being now fairly convinced that his work would live on in his disciples, Buddha calmly awaited death. After giving orders that he should be buried like a Great King, he died at Kusinara from the effects of eating roast-pork, which Tshunda, the smith, had set before him. The body was burnt. The disciples gathered up the relics and distributed ^hem among the various chapels, where they were carefully preserved.-^ This story, it is needless to say, cannot have been borrowed from Christianity ; nor can it be assumed to be a remnant of primitive revelation. The main outline of the story — renuncia- tion of the world and victory over the evil one — is so character- istically Indian, and so thoroughly oriental, that it must have a religious basis. The life of Jesus is, no doubt, also the life of one who perfectly fulfilled the task allotted to every man, of overcoming the devil and renouncing the world and its pleasures. But the perfect manner in which the task is fulfilled, and the several stages in the fulfilment, set a special seal on the 19 Saostajre, p. 404. 4$ THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. whole work. What a vast difference in this respect between the life of Jesus, from his Conception to the Ascension, and the legendary life of Buddha ! The alleged resemblance between Buddha and Christ, when closely scanned, crumbles to pieces.* Buddha, though credited with a high degree of spiritual and moral exceii' ince, is not put forth as a god in the proper sense of the word. A Deva appearing at four different times and under four significant forms, caused the king's son to be convened. Similiar appearances occur at intervals. Mention is made of endless grades of spirits, and of visible and invisible powers, but there is no one God who rules all things, and preserves all things in being. Buddha was also manifested in the fifth form, and will be manifested yet again five and twenty times. Still though externally honoured as God, he is not really God. It is idle to deny that Christianity, in the guise of Nestorianism, has brought influence to bear on Buddhism in China, as it has admittedly done in the isle of Patu.^o On the other hand, it is open to grave doubt whether any connexion exists between Buddha's reformed monasticism and Christian religious orders. The search for the missing link in the Therapeutaeand the Essenes has failed. Buddhism may, indeed, as Lassen contends, have left its impress on Gnosticism, Neo-Platonismand Manichceism; but on this point again modern research bids us not to draw hasty inferences. Buddha's life was set up as the moral ideal, at which his disciples were to aim. Their lives were modelled on his. The Buddhist Dogmatic System was built on him and his preaching, • The reader may consult a recent articlt in the New Review for January, 1891, by Max MuUer. In that article he tries once more to set at rest the fears of the weak in faith by [assuring Ithem that there is no connection between Buddhism and Christianity in the s«nse of one having borrowed from the other. They hare nothing in common except the four lations UHderlyi;' all religions. " Many things are alike/ he says, " and yet diiTerent in origin ; many things seem unlike and yet spring from a common source," Again he asks, " if we are to suppose that Buddhism had leached Alexandria, and had filtered into Judaea, and had influenced the thoughts of the Essenes and other sects before the rise of Christianity, how are we to account for the diametrical oppositi«n which exists between the fundamental doctrines of the two religions? " — Tr. Rtvut^ p. J53. Pesch. Siimmem aus Maria-Leiach, 1887, p. 17, seq. THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. 47 his poverty and renunciation of the world, his virtue and his sufterings. This is a tradition bequeathed by North and South, handed down in the copious Sanscrit literature of Nepal, and in the less comprehensive Pali literature of Ceylon. The two have many things in common, notably the tripartite Canon or Tripitaka (three baskets). The three Pali canons are called Vinaya-Pitaka Sufta-Pitaka, Ahhidamma-Pitaka, In general terms Buddhism may be described as an Agnosticism or Atheism that ignores speculative questions. Its denial of Atman is the chief point of difTerence between it and Brahm n- ism. Eternal substance and essential being, eternal life and the immortality of the soul have no place in Buddhism. God, redeemer and priest are, one in all, ostracised. The older Devas were purely allegorical. The names were retained, but the reality was abandoned; indirectly by Buddha himseK, inasmuch as he is silent as to the existence of God, whereas his disciples directly deny it. The gods have no influence on man's destiny. "To the Buddhist a ptrsonal god is but a " giant spectre, like a horrible shadow that ignorant fancy has ** cast athwart empty space." Every individual man is being dissolved into the universal nothing. Non-existence is the only true happiness. Nirvana or Dissolution alone gives rest, if Nirvana, as is usual, be taken in the philosophic sense and interpreted to mean pure and simple nothing; others under- stand by it a real existence in contradiction to this sham earthly existence. Do the Saints survive or not after death ? This was an open question which Buddha had left undecided. In the Abhidamma, Nirvana means an absolute cessation of existence. But in the more ancient and at the same time more authoritative books, in the Vinaya-Pitaka and the Sutta-Pitaka, and more especially in the Dhammagada, it bears quite another meaning. The law of Karma, by which is meant whatever accrues to the soul by its own activity, holds out the promise of a happier existence on earth. " If then the highest state in this life already constitutes 48 THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. "a Nirvana, the Nirvana of the life beyond need not mean •' annihilation. It merely precludes being born again. Death "affects only one of the five Skandhas^ or qualities constituting "personality. It affects only material parts of the body (Rupa). *' Tanha^ or the last dying wish, transforms the other parts and "forces them to plunge again into the mire, and to be materally " Dorn again. Thus the abyss of death is bridged over, and a " logical foundation laid foi a new birth. In the new birth the ••same individual comes forth again, but his chief parts and " Skandhas are newly distributed according to his deeds and *' thoughts in his previous life on earth "^^ Meanwhile it should be noticed that the doctrine of the new birth can only be applied to Buddha's system within very restricted Hmits. If there is no soul and no individuality, if the soul, like matter, is devoid of essence, if, in short, all things are a combination of forces, and fieri is the only reality, what is left to constitute personal individual existence? Nothing but moral causality i.e. Karma, continues to live. If this be the eternal principle of life, regulating all the new births, till Nirvana is attained, then it melts into a mere abstraction. With matter Buddhism is even less concerned. Materialistic science is the middle grade in earthly development, and as it deals almost exclusively with the Dhysical properties of matter, " six sevenths of its components and properties are passed over unheeded." But Buddhism transcends the material world. After death, the higher eternal self, the indestructible monad, having been purified in Kama Loka (purgatory), passes thence into Devachan or a spiritual heaven (where, however, the bliss is not perfect and eternal), and there all powers begotten during its life on earth are fully developed. Here it remains until the physical forces are ready for a new and higher incarnation. The cycle of all the incar- 31 A Buddhist Catechism^ according to the Canons 0/ the Church 0/ South India, arranged by Henry Olcott, President of the Theosophic Society ; Approved and recommended for the use of Buddhistic Schools hy H. Sumangula, High-Priest of Sripada and Gallo in Ceylon. With notes of the American Edition by E. Cones, M.D., D.Ph., Professor of Anatomy. 1887. See Tluol. Quarialschr. 1887, p. 311 seq. THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. 49 nations is called Sansora. Like Nirvana it sweeps into its net the earth as well as the whole human race: God all in all. Such is ideal Buddhism, from which, however, everything personal and individual is eliminated. Buddhism, then, denies creation. Its own theory is akin to Atomism. A strong wind condensed the atmosphere, and formed a mighty cloud, whence the sea emerged. The dry land collected on the surface of the sea. There are countless worlds cut off from one another, and wandering about in infinite space like souls. When the end comes, the world will sink into its original nothing. For the rest, Buddha exhorts his followers not to ponder on this finite and infinite world, but ever to fix their gaze intently on that alone which conduces to sanctity, and brings peace and enlightenment. Release from the sufferings of this life is the goal of the saints. This release, however, is not pessimistic, but gladsome. The iUianinati find enjoyment in what they possess, and suffer without complaint the evils of this life. This doctrine of release is summed up in four phrases : suffering ; the origin of suffering ; the removal of suffering ; the way to remove suffering. Here, then, we get a good insight into the practical side of Buddhism. Originally Buddhism was not called a religion, but a philosophic guide to bliss.^2 TXixs is true of the orders of monks, and also of the laity, whose chief duty it was to support the monks. But it is otherwise with the multitude to whom religion is indispensable. The monks or Buddha's own disciples find in Buddhism three treasures : Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. First and foremost is meditation on Buddha. Dharma, (i.e., law, doctrine) contains Buddha's preaching entire, and the cosmic and ethical system of the world. Sangha treats of Buddha's community of tonsured and bearded monks who live on alms. The decalogue is merely prohibitory, and contains no positive precepts. In the first five it is forbidden : to kill any living being, to steal, to commit adultery (in case of a monk to 3a Pesch, I.e. p. ao. Kuenen, p, 256, s«q. 5«> THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. touch a woman), to tell lies, to indulge in intoxicating drinks. The five others are framed specially for monks, who are forbidden to have their meals at irregular hours, to take part in worldly amusements, to use ornaments or scent, to lie on a soft bed; and to receive money. It would be a mistake to regard this as genuine enthusiasm for the work of sanctification,^ because redemption is obtained by freedom from suffering now, and not merely in the future ; it is not merely as a means to an end. Moral actions and virtue are not the highest good or end, but merely a transitional stage. Not moral deeds, but negation stands at the summit. Buddha's compassion for human suffering is at best cold and icy. In spite of hospitals for the sick, and infirmaries for the brute creation, we fail to discern that he had even a faint notion, that the love of God and man is an incentive to virtue, and a motive for showing mercy. In Buddha's eyes suffering was something universal, not individual. His consolation always turns on the point, that others too are miserable. His only haven of refuge is resigna- tion ; not, indeed, the despair of the pessimist, but the presumed consciousness of deliverance. However estimable the Buddhist's struggles and strivings for moral ends, they fall short of the Christian ideal. Christianity and Buddhism, it is true, have many moral pre- cepts in common. Most of the moral truths contained in the Gospel are found in the Buddhist Bible. And thus it is clear that the human soul, which God has destined to lead a higher moral life, has many features common to all men. But the end proposed and the means employed are very different. In the Buddhist creed, man redeems himself from sin and misery ; the divine reason that governs his body vanishes ; he is ultimately without active energy, and is doomed to dissolve into nothing. What solution has Buddhism to offer to the problems about God and heaven, the end of man, bliss and immortality ? To these questions Buddha gives no answer. Silence is equivalent J3 Teichmiiller p. 406. Sydel, Das Evangelium von Jesu in seinem Verhdltnisse sur Buddasase und Bvddalehre, Leipzig, 1S82. Die Buddkaltgendt und das Lebtn Jesu nach den Evanstlmn 1884. Compare Saussaye, p, 453. THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. $1 to negation. Silence is the only consolation he can offer. What will it profit a man to follow Buddha ? Buddhism is powerless to found a new active life. It holds out no hope. Schopenhauer and Hartmann have laboured in vain to set it on as high a pedestal as Christianity. The resemblance is only apparent. It is labour thrown away to compile Buddhist Catechisms, and scatter them broad- cast in Christian lands, in order to show that there existed a religion of universal redemption before Christ, in the hope of winning disciples among Christian states and churches. He who has lost faith in Christ's redemption will not draw new life from the barren soil of Buddhism. To him who still believes in Christ, Buddhist redemption will seem superfluous. The common people put their own construction on the meaning of Buddhist redemption. They imagined Nir- vana to be a Paradise, and Buddha to be a god incarnate, dwelling in Paradise. Thus Buddhism never steered quite clear of Pantheism ; and, moreover, it sought to accom- modate itself to the religion of the nations with which it came in contact. What can people make out of a religion without God ? of supreme goodness without a personal god ? of continued existence without personal immortality ? of bliss without a local heaven ? of possible sanctification without a saviour and mediator ? of redemption without prayer ? of penance and pardon without the aid of priests or the intercession of saints ? of self-deliverance from igno- rance and sin ? of the attainment of supreme perfection in this life ? For the bulk of mankind such ideas are incon- ceivable and impossible." ' ' And thus, it is necessary once for all to abandon the unsci- ''entific assertion which boasts that Pantheism is the spirit, " which the Gospel has failed to conquer,and which dominates "the most wide spread religion on earth.'"' In the case of Buddhism and of other Indian religions, whose roots are fixed in antiquity and in man's moral and spiritual disposition, the 34 Theol. Quarialschr.y p. 315. 35 Tcichmiiller, p. 442 ; see Mohnike, Natur u. Off.^ 1886, p. 167. ^2 THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. work of Christian missions is handicapped, not by their Pantheism, but by their ascetic teaching. The Buddhist believes, that in the consciousness of sin, and in imitating the divine Buddha, and in working out his own redemp- tion without priestly mediation or sacrifice, he already pos- sesses all that the Gospel has to offer. Buddhists are as conservative and suspicious of innovations in religion as they are stationary, if not retrogressive, in their civiliza- tion. Their view of happiness begets Quietism and In- differentism. The present condition of the countries in which Buddhism is in the ascendent, is an overwhelming proof that human wit and human power are inadequate foundations on which to build up the common weal. HUb- ner and other recent travellers paint in sombre colours the moral condition of the great Indo-Germanic and Mongo- lian tribes. Nothing but the Christian civilization of the West can quicken them into a new life. Buddhism, being a sort of religious order, and having intimate relations with the common people, had great power of expansion. India soon lay at its feet. In the second century before Christ it had spread to Ceylon, Afghanistan, Bactria, and China. In the year 6i a.d. Buddhism was recognized by the Emperor Meng, as the third official religion of China. A Buddhist priest, a statue of Buddha, and a sacred book were brought over from India. From that time forward pilgrims and travel- lers streamed into India. From China Buddhism pushed its way into Japan, and in the seventh century into Thibet, and thence, in the thirteenth century, into Mongolia and Mantchouria, while, by a strange fatality, owing chiefly to the Islam invasion, it has been banished for centuries from the land that gave it birth. In the fourteenth century Tsongkhapa introduced into Thibet a special form with an elaborate hierarchy, which is known as Lamaism. The great dignitaries, especially the Dalai- Lama or Great Lama, who resides near Lhassa, are regarded as living Buddhas incarnate. The peculiar Buddhistic practices which bear some resemblance to practices in vogue in the Catholic THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. 53 Church, are embodied in a still more elaborate form in Lamaism : monasteries, church-bells, rosary beads, images of saints, relics, fasts, church-music, processions, ablutions, confession, mass, thanksgiving services, sacrifices for the dead.^® At first missionaries were thunder-struck by these similarities. The Abbe Hmc's Journey to Thibet \\a.s placed on the Index," because he mistook the outward semblance for the truth. After all, these customs are empty symbols without meaning ; and, furthermore, the proof of their antiquity not infrequently breaks down. The symbolism is without doubt more recent. The attitude of the mod- ern Science of Religion is worthy of notice. All sacred books but the Bible are assigned the highest possible an- tiquity, and the judgments passed on them are most friendly and favourable ; whereas the Bible is mercilessly hacked with the keen-edged sword of criticism. Yet the questions as to older and newer portions, as to recensions and additions, are treated as open questions. The doc- trine, morality and miracles of Eastern religions are so in- comparably inferior to Christian doctrines and the miracles of the Bible, that it is the wildest dream to suppose these latter to have been borrowed from Eastern ideas and customs. Later Brahmanism was swallowed up in Hinduism. This may, in brief, be described as the worship of Vishnu and Siva. The two great sects named after these two gods Vaishnava and Saiva, or the worshippers of Vishnu and Siva respectively, exercised a preponderating influence in Hinduism, without opposing Brahmanism. On the con- trary Brahmanism received these sects into its bosom. The bond of union was the Trinmrti,—2. doctrine that is frequently held up as a parallel to the Trinity : but the two are really wide apart. At first blush it seemed a sort of modalism, as the Supreme Being is manifested at one time as Brahma the Creator, at another as Vishnu 36 Sausiaye, p. 434. 37 Max Mflller, £"^ja>'.r, Im 175. Theol. Quart y\%s^y V- 289 seq. In editions of the Index published between i856and 1873 '^^ name does not occur. 54 THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. the Preserver, and again as Siva, the Destroyer and Restorer. Brahma, however, makes a purely formal debut \ he really holds aloof, and is subordinate in rank. In Hinduism a popular religion supplanted the speculative religion of the Brahmans. Through its influence the Pantheistic mists and monistic cob- webs were dispersed. Man's personal needs and cravings for intercourse with a personal God were satisfied. These doctrines were, in their main features, old, although they cannot be recognized as such from the Vedas. Many diversified influences had been brought to bear on them. The aborigines, the Greeks, the Scythians, the Arabians, Afghans and Mongols had each, in turn, wrought their own changes. The Brahman dis- tinction of caste, far from being abolished, was intensified and made more strictly exclusive. In course of time, however, there was a disposition to tone down differences. The origin of both these religions is buried in obscurity. Vishnuism had no historical foundation till the twelfth century. The history of Sivaism begins a few centuries earlier. In the Rig- Veda Vishnu appears as the Sun-god, receding behind the other gods. In later times he was worshipped as the Creator, Sustainer and Providence. He assumes various bodily shapes, and as Saviour comes into closer contact with man. His various bodily appearances are merely by descent, not in the manner of real incarnations. In the early ones he takes an animal form ; in the sixth he is Rama, in the eight Krishna, in the ninth Buddha, The tenth is still to come. His embodiment as Krishna is the most remarkable. A mere statement of the Krishna myth is sufficient to disprove any resemblance to Christ. Krishna was the son of Vasudeva and Devaki. He was brought up by peasants, and abandoned him- self to sensual pleasure with the Gopi, — the wives and daughters of cowherds. His youthful escapades with shepherd maidens form the subject of many love songs. Many of his disciples have copied this ideal. These extravagances have excited no little astonishment in our own day. The founders of sects THE INDO GEkMANIC RACE. 55 wished to pose as incarnations and representatives of God. Thus the Godhead was brought nearer to man. The persona- lity of God and man threw into the shade the old doctrine of identity. Man is united to God by Faith, Love and Devotion, — Bhakti. Neither knowledge, nor ritual, nor moral works make sanctity. The fundamental conditions of sanctity are resignation to God, absorption in God, and the mutual love between God and His servants. But the initiative must come from God. Vishnu — in his manifestations as Rama and Krishna, asserts his presence among men by helping them, by showering down his blessings, and by saving them. Man owes everything to God's foregoing grace. Whether man is a passive receptacle of grace, or lays hold of it as a young monkey seizes its mother, has always been a bone of contention. By favouring symbolism, and allowing images, animals and plants to be wor- shipped, Vishnuism satisfied the popular craving. Wonderful efficacy was attributed to the recitation of certain formulae, and especially to the repetition of the several names of Krishna. Sivaism has many points of contact with Vishnuism, but it has taken deeper root in Vedic literature. Siva steps into the place of Rudra, whose praises are sung in a hymn of the Yajur- Veda, as the god of mountains, of hearth and home, and daily concerns. He is the god who most endeared himself to the Brahmans. For a time his popularity in India was very great, as the Chinese pilgrim of the seventh century of our era, Hiuen- Tsang, bears witness. Siva is the supreme god, and his very person is the object of worship. Like Vishnu he appears under various forms to his servants. As a popular god his aspect is terrible. He has three eyes in his head, hissing snakes are coiled round his body, and skulls encircle his neck. He represents the dissolving and destroying as well as the restorative forces in nature. Hence the symbol, under which he is most commonly figured, is the Phallus, which is counted by millions in India. Siva is likewise a great ascetic, the great Yagi. Among the disciples of vSiva are reckoned many great Yagi, who e6 THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. have done wonders in bringing human nature into subjection, as, for instance, by standing for years on pillars, and taking scarcely any rest. His asceticism does not, indeed, preclude him from being in his way a Bacchus, hunting with jovial companions, drinking wine, and enjoying a dance with women. This gives the key to the wide-spread popularity of Sivaism among all classes. But the most prominent and at the same time the worst side of Sivaism is the worship of Sakti or female force. The worship of god is stifled by the worship of the great goddess (Parvati, Ambika, Uma, Durga, Kali), which had, indeed, a certain footing in the ancient Hindu cult. And a grim disgusting worship it is. The goddess drinks the blood of animals, and gnaws corpses. Unbounded licentiousness and magic go to form the worship. We have no wish to judge the ancient Hindu religion with severity ; but we cannot but see in the orgies of Krishna and Kali a marked degradation, and a victory of popular passions over old thought and morality. The cultus blends old and new in a most liberal fashion. Besides Vishnu and Siva there are spirits and demons who have also their part to play. The Ganges is held in high esteem. Animals (cows), snakes, trees, and lifeless things serve as fetiches. The temples ereclsd to the gods are legion. Flowers, oil, incense and food are the gifts offered. Bloody sacrifices are also offered up to Siva and his consort. Nor are idolatry and prostitution forgotten. Images, which had no place in the old Brahman worship, are many and multiform ; nay, " the limits of the possible and the beautiful " are too narrow to contain all the forms of images. Fasts and feasts abound. Music, processions and festal games add solemnity to the feast, and minister to dissoluteness.^^ Here, too, a comparison vrith Christianity reveals more points of difference than of resemblance. The personal relations subsisting between God and his servants, and the personal presence of the incarnate God may possibly find their counter- part in belief in Christ, which rests on personal relations ; these, 3I Pesch I.e. THE INDOGERMANIC RACE, 57 however, are but the aspirations of a soul, christian by nature, which yearns for a personal G jd. A clue to their presence may be found in the monotheistic element in the Hindu religion, which was never wholly blotted out. Is it not probable, that the chief points proper to this period were borrowed from ChriLiianity ?^^ Nowadays Indian scholars are multiplying their cflbrts to establish a connection between the cultivated religion of India and the fundamental truths of Christianity: creation, the iitriy and spiritual nature of God, and the moral leaching of Jesus. § 2. The Iranians. The Iranian religion is undoubtedly an offshoot from the common Aryan* religion. In the Indo-Persian period, when other branches had been lopped off, it was still in living union with the religion of the Aryans proper or Hindus. In the separation, however, the old plain form of the Vedas began to be cast off. The canonical books of the Iranians are the Avesta (teao}v) is the sun-god with the Arcadians, Phoebus (the Bright One) with others. Phoebus subsequently received the surname Apollo, from the Greek word aTreAAwv, which means one who repels or wards off attacks. Dione or Demeter is the female germinative principle. Hera is the goddess of the dark firmament, Hebe of spring. Besides the sun-god there is Artemis or Helena, the moon-goddess, and Eos, the goddess of the dawn. Prometheus, oviginally Heph?estus, the god of lightning, is the god of fire. Hestia is the goddess of the hearth. The sea had for its god Potidaos, the Poseidon of later times. Dionysus presided over moisture and fertility. Darkness, sleep and death were under the divine control of Kcrmes. And now the day had come when poetic imagination com- pletely anthropomori)hosed the primitive reli^^ion of the Pelasgi. The gods were drai^^ged down into the turmoil of human life and passion. I'heolo-y :is iimed a polytheistic form, and continued to develop in this direction. Mythology Mm Muller, Wissenschaft der S^r., II., 388. 68 THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. encroached on the old religion, and almost strangled it." It was an excrescence, not a genuine growth of natural re- ligion. Homer speaks in a lighter and less reverent strain. Through his picture of the life of the Olympic gods, there runs a vein of irony which contrasts strangely with the faith of bygone ages. It can hardly be questioned that Asiatics and Egyptians had a hand in constructing the Greek heaven. The colonies of Asia Minor are the con- necting link between the natural rigidity of the Asiatic, and the flexibility of the Greek. ^^ In saying that the ancient Greek theogonies were the creation of Homer and Hesiod, Herodotus did but give utterance to an historical truth. But it is also equally true that the poets only followed along the track which the genius of the Greek race had marked out. Pliny expresses the same thought in a more matter-of-fact style. ^'^ Human speech," he says, " in- vented many gods. Being unable to grasp the idea of perfection as a whole, man broke it in bits, and devised his own ideals and objects of worship."^® Here the linguistic school scores ; but the Folklorists are also partly right. Speech is both a seed and a flower of thought. The poets did what lay in their power both to anthropo- morphose and to degrade the gods. A noble and pure tone was lost. In natural religion the moral element was, in- deed, at a discount ; nov/, it was not only neglected, but set aside and divided. Ethics is the weak point in Greek religion. The merry Greeks never dreamed of approach- ing their deities with a feeling that they were sinful and unworthy. The older Greeks had no sense of sin or moral evil. Virtue, in their eyes, was something external ; not a gift of the gods, but a work of man. The Greeks allotted bliss to gods, and virtue to men. It would, however, be unfair to impute this notion to the entire Greek world. Cicero's statement : Virtutem 7iemo luiquam deo acceptam retulit is contradicted by classical authorities. Socrates petitions 54 Max Miiller, l.c , p. 387, 425. Herodotus, iv., 2, 53. Compare also Roller, Pruden- tius, p. 150. Mach., Offenbarjing^ p. 46, seq. Dollinger, Heidenthutn^ etc.^ p. 63 seq. 55 Fritz, p. 211 seq. Saussaye, p. i4«5 seq. 56 Histor. Nat., H., 4. THE INDO GERMANIC RACE. 6g the Gods, first and foremost for inward beauty.''^ Tut, in truth, the pattern set by the gods neither called forth this prayer, nor invited imitation. On the one side stood Ares, the god of war; on the other, well to the front, was Aphrodite. In her more aesthetic capacity she is goddess of love and beauty ; but im- morality followed in her train. The family life of the Olympic gods — its intrigues and cunning, its passions and vices — is but a copy of human family life, and that not the noblest and best ; for family life among the Greeks was a moral cancer. In depict- ing the gods, Homer has taken as his model la bek humainc. Laxity and irreligion were the natural outcome of immortalising the lower side of human life, and of painting sensuality in lively and gaudy colours. Except among the lonians, the transformation of the Greek religion into a formal mythology was beset with difficulties. The Dorians stoutly opposed the change, and thereby, perhaps egged on by Crete, implanted deeper religious ideas, which, from the time of Hesiod, centred in the worship of Apollo at Delphi. Self-knowledge and self-examination now figured as the fundamental conditions of religious life. The noble chord of religious consciousness was also struck. They did not ask for forgiveness, but they sought to atone for sin. Purity and re- demption were recognized as needful on earth. Iranians and Egyptians typified victory over sin by the struggles between Ormuzd and Ahriman, and between Osiris and Typhon respectively. The Greeks carried that struggle into the human conscience, and thus made a step in advance from the im- personal to the personal. Still they were not within sight of any supernatural conception of God. Even the lonians of Attica were driven to discard the repulsive human constituents of the Homeric gods, and to raise them up on a superhuman ethical pedestal. Apollo was promoted to be custodian of morals, Zeus protector of right, and Athene patron of good counsel, art and science. 57 S«c SzBssaye, p- 107. 70 THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. But philosophy had already brouen the force of the attempt to improve religion. Its explanation of the worl " was atomistic and pantheistic. It mixed up theology with cosmogony, All was either melted down in the crucible of cosmology, or dissolved in doubt. From the sixth century, tl ■ ^ movement of philosophy towards monotheism or rather monism gave rise to scepticism in the matter of traditional religion. Theagenes of Rhegiuixv (about 520), Heraclitus, Theodore of Lampsacus, and others, made one supreme but vain effort to save religion by giving a vrider interpretation to the myths. The naturalistic and pantheis- tic philosophy of the Ionic and Eieatic schools finished the work that the Theogony of Hesiod had begun, in preparing the way for the later scepticism. The gods, according lo Hesiod, sprang from nature. Earth and Tartarus issued from Chaos. Earth (Gaea) gave birth to Heaven (Uranus), Pontus, and the twelve Titans. Cronus, the youngest of the Titans, was the father by Rhea of the Olympic gods. Cronus swallowed all his children, Zeus included, but was compelled to disgorge them. Then Zeus and his brothers made war on Cronus and the Titans, and Zeus reigned supreme. But though he appears as a person, he is in truth but a personification. The havoc made by philosophy throws light on a remark of Protagoras : " I am not in a position to say whether the gods " exist or not. The way to this knowledge is blocked by the " shortness of huma 1 life, and the darkness which overspreads a it/'68 Although Pindar, Herodotus and Sophocles still clung to the old faith, rationalism and scepticism had eaten their way into Thucydides, Euripides, Aristophanes and ^schylus. The popular religion had fallen into discredit. Comedy counter- balanced tragedy, and scepticism cut the ground from under earnest philosophers. Euhemerism, so-called from Euhemerus of Messana, explained myths historically. Epicurus degraded Zeus and all the gods, held up their lives and history to ridicule, and deified men. Importance was no longer attached to oracles, |8 S*« M. Muller, l.c II., 389. DoUinser, p. 354, teq. THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. 7I Chrysippus and Qinomaus mercilessly laid bare the un- trustworthiness, ambiguity, and absurdity of the responses ; no was the subsequent advocacy of Plutarch and Sextus Empiricus of any avail to save them. But we have been anticipating events. In the history of Greek religion and philosophy, the name of Socrates towers above all others. He was a believer in the national religion and a doer. Xenophon bears witness that his master was religious. All hangs on the mysterious Daemon, who guided him from youth upwards, and kept alive his faith in divine revelation and religion. It was the Daemon, the divine something (SaifAoviov, Oeiov tz), which he felt within him, the contact with divinity, which made Socrates a true believer." While some ignored their country's gods, and others, like Herodotus and Pindar, were striving to make them more palatable by giving them a more re- fined appearance, Socrates sided with neither party. Alle- gorical interpretations he branded as foolish. To the re- ligious education of the Greeks he gave a new direction, by bringing it into conformity with the worship at Delphi. He told men to look into their own hearts. He tried to persuade them to keep free from the turmoil and bustle of the world ; thus he hoped to compel them to look into themselves. Thus a foundation was laid for the moral life of man in his own personality. And what was the upshot ? Socrates was condemned to drink hemlock for despising the gods. Plato has vindicated the character of his master ; and Plato's philosophy is a splendid apology for his master's teaching. In his writings there is a noble inspiration. He takes wing and soars on high. One is almost tempted to say he had the divine genius of a poet. How noble his ideal of the wise man ! How skilfully he depicts his free- dom from self-seeking, sensuality, and evil desires ! See his picture of the wise man who heroically suffers evils he had not deserved ! How pathetically it speaks to the heart of the reader ! Is he not in very deed antiquity's 59 De f influence du d^mon de Socraie. Revue de Phist., 1886, p. 47. ja THE INDO GET? MANIC RACE. great " prophet of redemptic^n ? " Unhappily Plato could not clothe his life-like pictures with flesh and blood. He does not tell us ho\\ hia ideals are to be realized. Alas ! how many mangled shadows cross his noble teaching, and dim the bright colours in which his life is painted ! Even Socrates, as pour- trayed by his enthusiastic disciple Xenophon, according to strict moral motives, was no virtuous hero. But Plato was still more under the sway of the moral shortcomings of the day. Did he arrive at the knowledge of the one true God ? This is a ques- tion al)out which philoi^ophers are still wrangling. The idea of absolute goodness, which was his supreme being, shewed that he hnd attained a high moral conception, which found vent in a desire for purity, holiness, and redemption. Put Plato never travelled beyond ideas, and his ideas were almost nullified by his low estimate of morality. He upheld slavery ; he degraded woman-kind ; he raised his voice but feebly in condemnation of unspeakable vices which, among the G»eeks, at that time, passed as refinement. All this, and much more to the same purpose, is full and overflowing proof that the noblest representative of Greek philosophy, " Christian Plato," was powerless to stem the torrent of religious and moral decline. Is Aristotle, perchance, more Christian ? In the work of regeneration Aristotle was as unsuccessful as Plato. His idea of God is unmeaning, rigid and lifeless, and is of no practical utility for daily life. Plato's notion of a divine providence was inapplicable to Aristotle's god, who was ever busy w^ith his own thoughts. Through the severe condemnation he passes on women, slaves and barbarians, there peers the haughty Greek, who despises the rest of the world and gauges morality by station and external surroundings. In his view, man, so far as he is a member of the state, is a fwov -koXitikov ; but in himself he is nothing. The Tragedians took a serious view of life ; but their writings are congealed by sadness, and soured by melancholy. There runs through them a tone of sullen resigna- tion and despair, and of a dread fatalism which even the gods THE INDO-GERMANIC RACE. ^3 cannot escape. If these things were done in the green wood, what, think you, was done in the dry What was the reh'gious and moral condition of the masses ? A slavery reeking with rnmorality, woman in ignominy, public institutions for prosti- tutes of both sexes forma parapet from which we can look down into the seething cauldron of corruption. Pleasure, as embodied in Epicureanism, was the lode-star of the classes ; exploitation and oppression were the lot of the masses. Stoicism, indeed, marked a reaction. Better and nobler natures tried to find in man's own inner self a motive for virtue, nay, to make virtue man's only end and duty. But Stoicism again ended in self- glorification or self-deification. As a last resource suicide was recommended as a means of preserving virtue and dignity. None but the biassed opponents of Christianity can see in the suicide of the Stoics a parallel to Christian self-sacrifice, and the Christian desire of martyrdom.^o f^e Christian's love for Christ and longing for heaven has nothing in common with that act of despair. The consciousness that the old religion had been weighed in the balance and found wanting was deepened and intensified, but Stoicism was powerless to utter the true and saving word. Human nature shrinks from an apathy that does not spring from high motives. Virtue without reward had no attraction for the natural man. St. Paul's description of heathen sinfulness reveals the impassable gulf that separates heathen and Christian morality. Still, at that time. Stoicism had a large following. The Greeks found in Mysteries a compensation for the redemption they had sought in vain.^^ After the introduction of Orphic rites and the cultus of Apollo, Asiatic and Egyptian mysteries had been gaining a greater hold on the people. They were designed as a confession of sin, and a yearning for redemp- tion. It was generally felt that man needed to be assured that o Fiitz, p. 34a. t. Compare, besides the works of Welcker, Preller in Pauly't Reahncyklopadit, 1839, v., 311, $t:c in origin, but it is most mechanical, especially in prayer, -the prayers being passed through " prayer-mills," whicli are worV.ed by hand, wind or water. On Buddhistic pyramids there are scrolls of Thibetan prayer-formulae.^'^ From all this it is evident that the modern Chinese rehgion has almost wholly erased all traces of a primitive revelation. Both Christian and rationalistic writers have appraised it at too high a figure ; the latter, Voltaire for instance, to show that revelation was unnecessary, the former to prove the existence of a primitive revelation. Decline and decay is written on its every feature, more especially in Thibet, where the great Lama is adored as god. Christian missionaries have very uphill work, and make but slight progress. Their task is indeed doubly difficult because the Chinese religion is a state religion, which, by means of ancestor-worship, has caught every depart- ment of family and civil life in its snare. Enthusiastic veneration for the writings of the wise men of old is the chief cause that prevents the Chinese, and indeed all peoples with ancient documentary religions, from entering the right path.^"^ Religious records, esteemed for thousands of years as a sacred treasure, la Revue de Thist. des religions 1880, p. 355. 13 Kathol. Missionen, Freib irg, 1882, p. 40, 1887, p. 55. 14 Harlez, Controverse 1885, p. 530. THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 95 combined with traditional observances, have bred a conservatism in religion in keeping with the character and hubits of the people, which presents an almost insurmountable difficulty ; for to abandon records and observances would tear asunder social and religious ties, and constitute a breach with history and the entire past § 2. — The Japanese. The Japanese are a cross between Mongol and Malay, and their religion is as mixed as their race. The recent discovery of Sanscrit works in Japan reveals the finger of India.i^ In 288 A.D., Confucianism crossed from China to Japan, and allied itself to the popular religion. In contradistinction to Buddhism, which began to gain ground in 552 a.d., it is called Shin-tao (" The way " or " teaching of the gods ") in Chinese, and Kami- no-mitsi in Japanese.* It teaches that the islands of the Japan- ese Empire, the whole world, and the sun and moon were, in the course of ages, created by spirits. Thus there are seven gods of heaven and five of earth. Here is already a tincture of Buddhism. At the same time we find the ancestor-worship of Confucius with its corresponding belief in immortality, which Buddhism did its best to stifle. Men are the offspring of the sun and moon, the imperial house being descended from the sun. The Mikado is Tensi or son of heaven, and is held so sacred that he is addressed as Dairi or Imperial Palace. Sacrifices, prayers, purifications, feasts, processions and ban- quets go to make up Japanese worship. In the fore-court of the temple the priests keep alive a pure fire. There are many pilgrimages to the sacred shrine Ise. Latterly, especially since 1874, the Shintao religion (Sintoism) has received special offi- cial protection against Buddhist encroachments. An anti- Christian Japanese of the present day believes that all the IS Saussaye p. 399. • K*mi signifies a guardian spirit. 96 THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. relations of life are regulated by the Ko and Kin of Confucius. The Ko treats of the relations of men to one another, and pre- scribes degrees of love or friendship varying according to the degrees of kindred. The Kin prescribes the manner and method of showing respect and submission to authority. Obedi- ence to this two-fold teaching, thinks the Japanese, will ensure happiness at home and peace with the world at large.^^ Obedi- ence to parents, masters, and those in authority is a duty that takes precedence of all others, for it is the hinge on which the safety of the state turns. Hence he opposes Christianity tooth and nail, and looks forward to the day when Con- fucianism shall triumph over all other religions, as he conceives that the world will thrive and flourish best under its sway.* The ordinances of Confucius are supreme. To other matters the Japanese are almost indifferent. This confident tone of superi- ority only marks a reaction against the introduction of Western civilization which would necessarily bring Christianity in its train. .^ //-tf/^j of the threefold obedience that women owe to their parents, their husbands and their children, it may be observed 16 Revue, p. 389 seq. On the question of women see Allgem. Zeitg. 1887. No. 257. • Very recently a great change seems to have come over Japan in this respect. The relentless opposition of the State to the introduction of Christianity has ceased, and a door is open to the Gospel and to Western influence. " The year 1890 was marked by four great events in the history of the Catholic Church in the Japanese Empire. The first was the new Constitution issued by the Mikado's government "in the month o. February, o! which Art. 27 guarantees foi the first time lull "religious freedom to all Japanese subjects. The second was the first Synod 01 "the united Vicars Apostolic of Japan and Corea, inaugurated on March 3, at " Nagasaki, the ' City of Martyrs,' and in which their Lordships issued a joint "pastoral letter narrating the extraordinary growth of their Church dnring the last " 30 years. The third event, most important of all, was the erection of the "Japanese hierarchy by Leo XIIL, with the metropolitan see of Tokio, and the " threfc suffragan sees of Nagasaki, Kioto, and Sendal, having spiritual charge of " 40,000 Catholics in 499 mission stations. Lastly, on May 1st, took place the "blessing of the beautiful new metropolitan Cathedral of St. Francis Xavier at " Kioto,— lichted by the way with the electric light. At this splendid demon- " stration, n«t only three Catholic Bishops and innumerable of the faithful, but also " th« Governor General of Kioto, and his wife, the Head of the Police, the two " Mayors, and numerous officials took part. The pagan ladies had even presented "the carpet for the church I Bishop MiDON in his eloquent sermon, reminded his *' hearers that 20 years ago not a single neophyte was to be tound in the city and "I'ae priests were all in hiding ; and now he publicly prayed for God's blessing on •* • the august person of His Majesty the Mikado and the officials of this beautiful •• ♦ Un^:'—IUustrmted Cathtiic Missions, Jan., 1891. Tr. THE HAMITES AND SEMITES, 97 that the question as to the position of woman has lately been raised. Serious efforts are made to oI:)tain for her the same position as is assigned by Europeans to women in the family circle and in societ)-. This tendency is symbolized and expressed by the adoption of European dress. § 3. The Egyptians. The Egyptians furnish a transition from the Hamltes to the Seiintes. Their position in the history of religion and language is unique. Generally they are considered Hamites; but Egypt- ologists are even now hotly disputing whether the Egyptian language is closely akin or wholly foreign to the Semitic. The latest suggestion is distinctly in favour of an affinity between the Semitic and African languages ; an affinity which would mean more than that the Hamitic had borrowed from the Semitic. Nay some go so far as to suppose that Africa was the home of the Semites.i7 Anthropologists also profess to see so many points of resemblance between Semites and North Africans, Caffres included, that they feel justified in setting up a distinct African-Arabic race.^^ Thus Egyptian culture is, in some way, at least, linked to Semitic. It is no longer quite correct to con- sider the old land of the Nile as an entirely independent focus of intellectual activity in religion and language, as if the elements of both reached back far beyond the age of full-blown Scmitism and Aryanism.^'-^ Still we must beware of drawing the lines of contact too sharply. Of course Egyptians have decided peculi- arities of their own, physical as well as religious. In his carriage and mode of life the ancient Egyptian has nothing in common with the Caucasian ; his religion is a mixture of the loftiest views with very gross elements which are quite foreign to the Semitic 17 Noldeke, Die Semitischftt Sprachen, B-rlin 1887. 18 See Saussaye p. 175, 179. 19 Max Mulljtr, Jieii^umswiss. p. 148. gS THE HAMirES AND SEMITES. and Aryan reli^ions.^o On the other hand, Egyptian literature is something quite unique. It is enshrined in texts on papyrus and in monumental inscriptions. The monumental inscriptions are in hieroglyphics. Of the papyrus texts the most ancient are written in hieratic, the most recent in demotic characters. Owing to the dryness of the climate the scrolls of papyrus, some of which go back to the year 3000, have been preserved unhurt for thousands of years. But amid all the copious Egyptian literature, there are no canonical books. Documents there are in abundance, such as the famous Book of the Dead, which, while they give a pleasing insight into Egyptian religion and morality, have no title to be considjred uflicial. Clement of Alexandria says that the wisdom of the Egyptians was enshrined in forty-two hermetic books, but we have no means of judging in what relation these stood to the sacred books in use. Herodotus says that the Egyptians were, beyond the rest of men, an exceedingly god-fearing people. To some, the verdict of the Father of History seems proven by history and archaeology ; while others affirm that his statement has poisoned the wells of enquiry. For it is exceedingly hard to determine the character of Egyptian religion. The early writings and inscriptions are at variance with the later. The common fundamental thoughts, if such exist, can only be reached with the greatest difficulty after piercing through the thick mists of local differences. The sharp distinction between exoteric and esoteric doctrine, though recently denied again, is dangerously near mistaking the shell for the kernel. The chequered political history of the country has disturbed the religious equilibrium again and again. An interval of perhaps 5,000 years separates the last stones at Esneh, engraved under Philip the Arabian, from the first tomb at Memphis, which is that of a king belonging to the third of the thirty-one dynasties that are generally counted up to the time of Alexander the Great. During these 5,000 years, to say nothing of the Shepherd ao Ke.ue, i336 (xiv.) p. 37. THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 99 Invasion, the Ethiopian and Assyrian dominion, the Persian and Greek contest, and a thousand political revolutions, the fragile vessel of Egypt's intellectual and moral life has embarked on many an uncertain voyage.-^ Is it then sur- prising that the views of Egyptologists should shift with the wind? At one time Maspero advocated monotheism as the original religion of Egypt ; now he holds it to have been poly- theistic. But polytheism, he thinks, gave way to monotheism as early as the fourth dynasty. For the change in his opinions he assigns a reasen that is not too paltry to merit consideration. " Men," he says, " are always led away by some sort of pre- " conceived idea. Some, hoping to find the stamp of divine " unity on everything, have searched every nook and cranny "for monotheistic ideas, and, by ingeniously shelving all "rebutting evidence, have proved to their own satisfaction " that the Egyptian religion was monotheistic. Others, bewil- "dered by the multiplicity of divine forms, which cross and " re-cross one another till they are lost in a maze, have thought " that the different doctrines register so many shades of pan- " theism. To one it seems self-evident that the monuments "preach the crudest polytheism. To another everything " glistens with the sun and sun-worship. Others see in the gods "only concrete representations of abstruse metaphysical ideas. " To me all seem both right and wrong ; right in one point, " wrong in many." Here are some of the principal represen- tatives of the various opinions concerning the original religion of the Egyptians. Monotheism is advocated by de Ronge, Lauth, and Pierret ; henotheism by Le Page Renouf; pan- theism by Brugsch ; sun-worship by Lepsius ; nature-worship by Lieblun ; animism by Tiele ; mixed ideas by Pietschmann, Wiedeman, Meyer, and Maspero. In the midst of such divers opinions, who shall decide? Nevertheless, when a majority of the most reliable Egyptologists ■I Maspero, ^^/K^, 1880, p. 122. Histoirt ttnciennt des peuples d Orient, ^. iA. Paris, 1886. Compare, Zeitschiift fUr Kutth. Theol. 1887, p, 183. See also Saussaye, ». 065 and 273 seq. 100 THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. ap.siire us that th.e ancient Egyptian faith plainly taught the unity of God, the immortality of the soul, and the creation of the world, it is right to take their word.^^ The Egyptian religion, while apparently polytheistic, is in reality monotheistic. Herein lies its peculiarity. When Maspero is forced to concede that monotheism appeared early on the scene, it is forthwith probable that monotheism is its groundwork. The most ancient docu- ments that have come down to us, those, that is, from the third and fourth dynasties, speak among others, of the God, the one and only God. This name and idea may, indeed, have been applied sometimes to the local deities, but anyhow it is remarkable that, in the oldest documents, the monotheistic idea should be to the fore, side by side with its polytheistic form and expression. This idea, though corrupted by supervening naturalism, survived in the hymns and funeral service, even when polytheism arising from the amalgnmation of local deities, was on the increase. In Memphis was worshipped Ptah or Patah, the designer, who is the first being and has created all things. In Amu, (called in Greek Heliopolis, and in the Bible On) was worshipped Ra. Amon was worshipped in the royal temple of Karnac, at Thebes, and Osiris in Abydos or Thinis. But Amon, who according to Plutarch is the first being and all things, Ra, the sun-god, and Ptah are in an ancient document set down as one god. As the invsible one he is called Amon (the hidden Deity) ; as eternity and infinity his name is Ptah; as the builder of cities his name is Ra. Hence it came to pass that, when Upper Egypt gained the supremacy, Amon-Ra was the supreme god ; the union of names signifying that Upper and Lower Egypt were united. Even if this story, as Maspero contends, had been invented by the Theban priests to confer supremacy on their god Amon, it would still go to show that the several local deities were conceived as one. The original meaning of the name Osiris, a personification of Amon, on n See Viijouroux, III. la seq ; Pesch, p. ii6; Fischer, p. 268; Pierret, Essai sur la Mythologie, Paris 1879. Compare Revue, 1880, p. iiq seq ; Saussaye, p. 274. THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. lOI whose name all subsequent development of Egyptian religion hangs, and who was universally worshipped, is likewise that of supreme god. He is the " imperishable god," benevolent, rich in mercy, hidden, alone, wonderful ; he embraces all, and has conceived all that is ; he created heaven and earth, the waters and the mountains ; he designed all being and created himself. ^^ In other words, he is the supreme being under another name ; for which reason the god-head is said to be " rich in names." According to Jamblich and a papyrus record the priests at Annu held the esoteric doctrine that there is one only god, who is divided into three persons : Amun, Ptah and Osiris, according to Jamblich ; Amun, Ra and Ptah, says the record. Some have thought that these were traces of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. But the Egyptian religion seems to be fond of Triads,** which usually appear as Father, Mother, and Son : Osiris, Isis, Horus ; Set, Nibithit, Anupu ; Amon, Mut, Khons. The different persons do not represent different attributes, as men have so readily believed, but the various offices and func- tions of the one supreme hidden god (Nuter) who, under each form, preserves his identity and his attributes in their entirety. The two things are by no means identical. Although the people may have worshipped every form for its own sake, without due regard to the theoretical bearing of one on the other, it helps us to explain and understand how monotheism gradually merged into polytheism. The triads and enneads sprang from the several ways of conceiving Horus, Ra and Osiris. And withal the triads were artificial in the extreme : often, indeed, a mere amalgam of heterogeneous myths. But it is precisely their artificial combination that discloses how forcibly and irresistibly the divine unity made itself felt, and held its ground against all obstacles.25 The one supreme God was everywhere invested with a local colouring, and worshipped under a local name. t3 Kaiser, Uehr die Theol. Lehrt deralttn y££j'/Ur. Xatk. 1882. ii. p. 600. Vi^ourou*, iii. 15 seq. t4 Fritz, p. 60. Vig«uroux, iii, 17, as Lef^bure, Rtvut 1886 (XIV.) p. 3^ I02 THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. It is but natural in the hour of fervent worship to increase and intensify the several perfections of the Godhead. Hence the natural tendency to polytheism. " This tendency may still be seen in deified elements of nature — the highest theological abstractions of the royal pyramids." Above triads and enneads stands one supreme God. But being creator of the other gods who personify different parts of the world, he could not, collectively considered, be wholly distinct from the world. Thus Egyptian monotheism, though clad in a polytheistic dress, is also stamped with pantheistic features. Some even pretend to see Hegelian speculation at work in Hermopolis ; add, they say, Nun or moisture, that is matter, to Heh or time, that is motion, and the sum total is Being. To Keku or dark- ness that is the void, add Nen or rest, that is inaction, and Nothing is the result. " This is evidently the high watermark of Egyptian speculation." The date of this speculation is still uncertain. Anyhow, there was no difference between the cos- mogony and the theogony. Water (Nun) was assumed as the first principle that begot Light (Ra.) In the temple of Sais is the inscription : eyw el/jn Trai/ rh yeyovos, ov kol tcrofx^vov, the pantheistic tint of which may be perceived by reading it in the light of Exodus III. 14. Deification of nature, in the shape ot Sabajism, wa:s the portal through which polytheism first entered. Sabaeism again lost itself in mythology. Semites and Phcjenicians introduced Typhon into the Osiris myth as the representative of the evil principle. Typhon is the same as the Semitic god Set, and he, again, is identical with Nubti. To Typhon belong the salt seas, and all things nauseous, compound, and impure ; for which reason the Egyptians were for ever debarred from becoming a sea-faring people. ^^ The Greeks give a further impetus to new religious development. Symbols were them- selves made into gods. The sun, the most ancient symbol, ^^ a6 Pierret, I.e., p. 120. Ebers-Guthe, Palestina, II., 59, 7 Kayser, I.e., p. 623. THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. lOJ no'.v n.: !rcd as R.i, ihe sdmit^xI. Tun In^cnnie the sct::n_; r.i-K ap.;l M )rin the niid Jay suii, while the .sun Iiid.leu at night was represented as O.iri',, and so forth. The converse tbi-ory which a-vserts thit the hunim mind gradually climi)ed ld the steep ascent from things sensible to things eternal, and thus met the sun as the first object of worship, has hardly any prob.v bility on its side, even if it he granted that the sun was at n very ear'y period the symbol and the seat of the Godhead. If Egvptians, foui thousand years ago, had delved in the mine of speculation to a depth that we have not yet been able to fathom,-^ this only proves that the religion of the Egyptians is very old, and that we must be on our guard against drawing hasty conclusions. Neither symbolism, nor philosophic nor evolutionary hypotheses can adequately explain the development of the Egyptian religion, for it precedes all history ; history does but reveal its various modifications. •' The Egyptians, more "than any other people, hav3 retained and allowed free "development to every branch that a religious system can "tolerate: animism, fetichism, polytheism, and monotheism. " But of these only the last two— especially the last- are well "known to us.""^ As the Egyi)tian religion appears on the horizon perfectly formed, we can know nothing about the time and manner of its formation. Its origin is buried in as deep obscurity as the sources of the Nile. Twice the Semites vainly rose up in arms against mythological polytheism. About the year 2,000 Hyksos Pharaoh Apopi strove to get Set and Amon- Ra recognised as the only gods. Five hundred years later Khimaten, the 4th Amenhotep of the i8th dynasty, whose mother was Thi, a Semite, strove to oust Anion in favour of Atcn-Ra. But these attempts were doomed to failure. In early times sexual dualism had made a cleavage in the divine unity. Noith, Nut, Pacht and Hathor appear as female deities. Again, in the combined worship of Osiris-Isis, which .-epi-esents a8 Fritz, p. 59. •9 Lefebure, I.e. p. 46 sea Saussaye, p. 294 seq. I ©4 THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. the original being, and the indwelling force in the fcur elements, this dualism assumed a naturalistic and pantheiitic colour, representing space and light as against storm and darkness. The myth of Osiris, which afterwards became general, makes Osiris, in conjunction with his sister and spouse Isis, the sun-god and the god of the Nile. They have iheir counterpart in the Babylonian Bel and Baaltis. Osiris is slain by his brother and foe Set-Typhon. Set-Typhon is slain by Horus, son of Osiris, but nevertheless continues to live, while Osiris survives in Horus, and at the same time is invested v/ith soverci'j:nLy over the realms of the dead. In the worship of Serapi^., Or^iris and Apis (^=Serapis) are the chief iigures. Thot and Horns, and more particularly Osiris and Isis, survive above all others, as gods of the dead. Osiris' battle with Typhon recalls the fall, while the survival of the latter reminds us of original sin. The serpent also appears as the tempter.''^' Here, then, we have a clue to the three great classes of Egyptian gods : gods of the dead, gods of the elements, and sun-gods. Sokari, Osiris and Isis, and perhaps also the younger Horus, Anubis, Nephthys, are gods of the dead ; Siv (earth). Nut (heaven), Nu (the first water), Hapi, and probably Sook (the Nile), Set-Typhon, Haroiri (Hor the elder), Phtah, and others are gods of the elements ; while the sun gods are represented by Ra, Shu, Onhuri, Anion, and others."^^ But perhaps the most remarkable and at the same time the most startling feature in Egyptian religion is its animal-worship, which has been in vogue from the earliest times, even from the first dynasty.^^ Whether, as is the case with savages, it has reference to the souls of the dead, or, as the Egyptian priests insist, it is symbolical of the worship of the gods, is still an open question. Originally, indeed, animals symbolised the divinity, as for instance Apis (the bull) and the cat. The former was 3» Kayser, p. 626. 31 Maspero, Revue, 1880, p. 195. 32 Compare Herodotus, ii, 65-76; lii, 28. Diodor. Sic. i, 83-90. Strabo, xvii, 38-40; Plutarch, cU Is. et Os. 71-77 ; Saussaye, p. 280, seq. THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. I05 worshipped and en])almed at Memphis, the latter at Bubastis. But Hke other symbols, e.g., the scarabaeus (beetle), ibis, boar, sparrow-hawk, serpent and others, they eventually became gods, and were put side by side with gods. As early as the age of the Ptolemies, the symbols rank as divine, although the priests, who never lost sight of the divine unity, did not worship them as such. Of course in the hieroglyphics animals represent ideas. Several, like the crocodile and hippopotamus, in some countries were adored and in others were loathed. Assuredly this worship is tinged with fetichism but the only question claiming investigation is : In what relation did it stand to the old religion ? Herodotus says that all the Africans were sorcerers or fetich- worshippers. Owing to the prevalence of magic it is thought that the Egyptians were included in this verdict. Anyhow, the development of the Egyptian religion cannot be traced from this point, although the popular religion preceded its philosophic exposition. Worship and morality are the most salient features of the many-sided religion of the Egyptians. From the beginning it was a popular religion, and in great measure remained such. The images of the gods were set up in stately temples. The sacrifices and the service of the temple were in the hands of a numerous priesthood who had, indeed, received special con- secration, but were not an exclusive caste. The priests were also the learned men, and had charge of education. The monthly and annual festivals were celebrated with processions, music, and dancing. To the king, as the representative of god, religious honours were paid. The Egyptians, as is well known, treated the dead and the monuments of the dead with the greatest care. The pyramids erected at Memphis during the fourth and fifth dynasties still bear testimony to this fact. Our museums abound in mummies and cofifins, covered with inscriptions. Every fresh discovery goes to confirm the saying of Diodorus that the houses of the living are but lodgings, whereas the sepulchres of the dead are I06 THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. everlasting mansions. It also hears out the testimony of Herodotus, as to Egyptian hcKef in the up.mortahty of the souh They were, he thought, the first to tench it. No people allowed wider scope to the idea of immortality in connection with certain metamorphoses in tlie next life. This should not, however, be confused with the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, which Herodotus ascribes to the Egyptians. Imniortality, as conceived by them, implied in the first place a kind of continuance of the present life ; an indispensable condition of life in the next world being the careful preservation of the dead body. In the meanwhile the soul has a two-fold existence. It hovers about the mummy as Ka or Copy, but dwells spiritually in other spheres as Ba, or spiritual soul. The resurrection does not exclude the transformation of the body. To try and account for belief in the resurrection of the dead by the alternations of days, months and years, or by the rise and fall of the Nile, is but to furnish an analogy, which might have presented itself to other nations as well, and which fails to clear up the chief point in debate. For the experience, that acts as a guide in natural phenomena, is wholly absent as regards immortality and the resurrection. To pray and offer sacrifice for the dead was a sacred duty, to which children were especially bounden. Hence a son was looked upon as a great blessing. In the lower world (Anient), the soul is subjected to a rigorous and searching scrutiny, which is set forth in detail in the Book of the Dead. It is incumbent on the soul to prove that it is free from the sins that lead to damnation. As the foregoing would naturally lead us to expect, the Egyptians had a fairly complete moial code. Hope in a future life is its guiding star. It is characterized neither by gloomy fatalism nor optimistic levity ; indeed^ in many respects it resembles the Mosaic legislation. The rules of the papyrus scrolls leave the impression that they were purposely designed to bear witness to the primitive monotheism of the most ancient civilized peoples. ** For the purer the ethical notions THE IIAMITES AND SEMITES. I07 of a people, the purer is their idea of God ; the purer tlie human soul is, the greater its capacity for revelation, "'^'^ Woman, it should be noted, occupied a high position. Fidelity and chastity were held in honour. Polygamy was not, indeed, forbidden, but neither was it universal, nor did it degenerate into a liarem. Provision was made for the whole round of social duties. Not only the common crimes against person and property, but also lying and every other evil thing was forbidden. On the other hand mercy and charity, especially to widows and orphans, were highly esteemed. It would not be difficult to institute a com- parison with the Decalogue. The oldest papyri and inscrip- tions lay special stress on the duties to God, man, and the state, and teach that parents and children, husbands and wives, should love one pnother. Drunkenness, lying and murder are forbidden. In the Book of the Dead, the soul is made to say to the judge : I have not wronged my fellow-man, nor told untruths, nor am I conscious of any sin ; I have not laboured every day, nor have I committed murder or adultery, nor have I stolen in secret ; and so forth. The Egyptian religion, however, was gradually falling to pieces. Ever since the building of Alexandria, Greek ideas had been gaining the mastery, and Thcodosius I. finally sr.ikd its doom by destroying the temple of Serapis at Alexandria in 391 A.D.34 THE SEMITES. An ancient but effete civilization is represented by the Semites, who were, in many respects, the rivals of the Egyptians. Owing to their relations with the chosen people they have always occupied a prominent place in revealed history. Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites and Phajnicians are clas.vjd J3 Naumann, U'eiihausens Methode, Leipzig, 18S6, p. 154 seq. Saussaye, p. 304. \'igoiiroux, ii., p. 501. ?4 Saussaye, p. 313 ; Schaltze, Gtschichtt des Untergangs dts griechisch-rom. f/eid., p, 263 seq I08 THE HAMliLS AiND isEMlTES. as Semites. In the Table of Peoples the Phcenicians seem to be set down as Hamites, but their language is undoubtedly Semitic. And, after all, it is uncertain whether the Table of Peoples is a table of races or of individuals. Were we called upon to point out the general characteristic of the Semitic religions, we should say that crude nature- worship, deification of natural forces and of such of the heavenly bodies as fall under observation (Astronomy and Astrology), together with spirit-worship as revealed in magic and divination (Chaldaean sorcerers) are their main features. This nature-worship serves as a stepping-stone to the r g n of savages. Moreover, as history tells, the worship of Gu^ as Providence was common to all the Semites.^^ This of course implies that the Semites worshipped personal gods and were originally monotheists.^^ Rens^n would have it that mono- theism is a characteristic of the Semitic race, which has asserted itself even in Mohammed. Deep reverence and submission to God's Almighty power ij inseparably bound up with belief in a lord and master and divine providence. Dyu, the name for God common to the Aryans, had its counterpart in the Semitic El, which attested the religious and linguistic unity of the race. Thus Babel means Gate of God, (the Babylonian being Ilu, and the Accadian An.) But an early decline to materiahstic polytheism set in. The different names given to God to designate his different attributes were gradually personified, and so distinguished from him. Among the Semites, as among other peoples, a further impetus was given to polytheism when the several local divinities were united in one Pantheon. For, in the beginning, every city showed special veneration to its own gods, without prejudice, however, to the divinities of other cities and nations.^7 xhe " twelve great Assyrian divinities," arranged according to the sexagesimal system are : Anu, Bel, Hea, Sin, Bin, Samas, Merodach, Nmip, Nergal, 35 Max Miiller, Re iir'ons7visi. p. 140. Kuenen, VolkiiteUgion, p. 24. 36 Fesch, p. 132. Vigouroux, i, p. 347. Theolog. QHarialtchri/t, 1887, p. 48. 37 Vigouroux, iv., p. 71. THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. IO9 Ruskii, Beltis, Istar.'^ Several were grouped in triads : Anu, Bel, Hea ; Sin, Samas, Raman (Bin). Belief in good and evil spirits was universal. I. Assyrians and Babylonians. Assyria and Babylon may be studied together, for they are divided neither in language nor in empire," although they fought long and hard till Babylon was finally con- quered under Sargon (722-705). Assur is an exclusively Assyrian name for God, but it is uncertain whether the god gave the name to the country or the country to the god. It is probable, however, that Assur (the good) is the second son of Sem, the deified progenitor of the Assyrians, from whom the country is named. The history of the two empires is usually divided into three periods : the old Babylonian, the Assyrian, and the New Babylonian. The first stretches as far back as about 3800 B.C.; thus its an- tiquity, though very remote, is not pre-Semitic. The sec- ond period opens in the 14th century, when the Assyrian power began to unfold its strength. The last and brief New Babylonian period dates from the conquest of Assyria by the Medes and Babylonians, about 606. The con- queror's name is Nabopolassor whose son was Nabucho- donosor, one of the most distinguished monarchs of the East. Under his successors the Empire fell into a rapid decline, until Cyrus, by the conquest of Babylon in 538, put an end to it. The cuneiform inscriptions on clay tab- lets, found in Ninive and its neighbourhood, belong to the seventh century B.C., but the originals, of which these are copies, are probably as old as the year 2000. The chief his- torical dates tally with those in the Old Testament, and with the Friigiiietiia of the Babylonian priest Berosus (300 a.d.), menlioned, according to the chronicles of Eusebius. by Alex- 38 Fischer, p. 182 seq. ; Saussaye, p. 334 seq. 39 Pesch, p. 8); Vigouroux, i., p. 265. no THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. ander Polyhistor and Josephus. Berosus is as great a name in Babylonian history as the Egyptian priest Manetho, quoted by Josephus,* is in Egyptian history. The difficulty of de- ciphering the triple cuneiform inscriptions in Persian, Median and Assyrian, and the uncertainty arising therefrom, render a complete view of the history and religion of these peoples at present impossible. The polytheistic religion of Assyria and Babylon evidently presupposes the existence of an earlier religion in the land watered by the Tigris and Euphrates, the nature of which it is difficult to conceive or describe. At present it is an open question whether the Accadians or Sunnerians, who owned allegiance to the ancient Babylonian kings, and to whom the oldest cuneiform inscriptions refer, were of Semitic origin or not. Scholars are still investigating the language of the Chinese and the Cassian branches of the Turanian stock for affinities to the agglutinative language of the Babylonians. Their chief god is said to have been Uruki. Ur is the moon- god. The Ur of the Chaldoeans (Mugheir) from which Abraham set out*^ points in the same direction. (Uruk = Erech). As far as we can judge, the Assyrians and Babylonians were originally light and fire worshippers. The supreme gods were Anu, Bel, and Asur. Historically Bel (lord) is the first king of Assyria; mythically he is the sun-god. Next in rank are Bellis (lady or mistress) the goddess of heaven, Semiramis, Aschera, Astarte, and Mylitta who is identical with the Iranian Anaites. Babylon, as the cuneiform inscriptions prove, was the cradle-land of Mylitta. There she is called Istar. The inscrip- tions graphically describe her expedition to hell for the water of life. She was the daughter of Hea (god of the waters of heaven and earth), or of Sin, the moon-god, and she was adored as the goddess of heaven (the planet Venus).*i As, under several names, she represented the female principle, she was worshipped 40 Pesch, p. 86. Vigouroux, I, 328. Saussaye, p. 3*1, seq. 41 Ebers-Guthe, it, 64; Vigouroux, i, 219-827; iii, iii, leq. 837, W, mji Sauksayei P- 339- • Contra A/i»K. THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. Ill as the goddess of the fertile earlh. She is endorred, moreover, not only with warlike courage, but also with glowing sensual love. This latter idea so overshadowed all others that, accord- ing to Herodotus, the worship of Mylitta was little else but a glorification of luGt. As the sun both quickens and destroys, and as death is the antithesis of birth, so Bel or Baal or Moloch grew into a hostile god, to be appeased with human sacrifices; and Aschera, goddess of love, was transformed into the goddess of death. We have only to pursue this train of thought far enough to see that Chaldsean theology was coloured with pan- theistic and naturalistic hues. The most startling discoveries, however, made by Assyriology are those which relate to ancient history, and in particular to the history of creation. There is an unmistakable similarity between these accounts and that of the Bible. At first men were so overjoyed at the discovery, that they fastened on the many points of resemblance, and overlooked the discrepancies. Next a feeling of disappointment supervened, when it turned out that the flood of light thrown on this dark subject was not as great as had been anticipated. Nevertheless, they are a valuable confirmation of the Bible narrative. The two accounts, being independent one of the other, tell strongly for primitive revelation and a very ancient tradition. Berosus is a reliable witness to the Chaldasan account of creation. In substance it runs thus : In the beginning there was water (the woman Omoroca or Thaualt, i.e., the sea), darkness and chaos. By dividing these Bel made heaven and earth. Then Bel cut ofif his own head, and from his blood mixed with earth the gods fashioned man, in a condition bodily and spiritually perfect. Thus was laid the groundwork of civilization ; for by creation, men were made participators in the Divine in- telligence. Conjectures rather than traditions are afloat con- cerning paradise and the fall. On these points we still need more light. Thus the cosmogony is at the same time a theogony,— a process which the severe monotheism of the II J THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. Bible narrative excludes. The account of the Flood we have already discussed.'*^ Noe, if the inscription is correctly deciphered, figures under the name Hasisdra. At God's bidding he built for himself a ship. After the great flood he sent forth three birds in succes- sion : a raven, a dove, and a swallow. Nor is the sacrifice of thanksgiving to the gods omitted. But then there is a battle of the gods, and the idea of punishment recedes into the back- ground. In spite of the discrepancies in regard to the ship (ark), the length of time, the birds, and other points, the resemblance is more striking than between the two accounts of creation. Was one borrowed from the other ? It is doubtful. No borrowing could have taken place during the captivity, for the Jews religiously cut themselves adrift from their oppressors; nor probably in the time of the kings. If Genesis really comes down from the time of Moses (on which more will be said hereafter) such an hypothesis is impossible. 2. The Peoples of Asia Minor. With regard to the religion of the various peoples of Asia Minor, such as the Cilicians, Solymians, Carians, Lydians, Mysians, Cappadocians, who exercised some influence upon the Phrygians, Lycians, Armenians, and other non- Semitic peoples, it is noticeable that, at a later period, a monotheistic pantheism pushed itself to the front, as it did among the Syrians, Phoenicians, and Canaanites. Thanks to the Phoenicians, who always carried their gods with them on their travels, the Semitic religion has left its mark in Cyprus, Malta, CreLe, Sardinia, Carthage, Marseilles, and many other foreign ports. It may be said generally that their gods are less sharply and hierarchically divided than those of the Babylonians. Worship develops a very pronounced astronomical side, and is characterized by 49 Vol. I. chapter xix. THE HAMlli.5 AND SEMITES. IIJ voluptuousness, cruelty and bloodthirstiness. The non-Semitic name for the one god, Baal, brings out in strong relief its naturalistic character. Baal existed as the primitive substance, and evolved the visible world from himself; hence the material world is the only primitive substance in which the primitive Baal is manifested. Since, however, the material world is made up •)f many individual beings, each one of whom represents Baal, the Baal, who in the beginning was one, is now split up into many (Baalim.) The phenomena of the visible world are a theogony and history of the gods. The world is a representation of the godhead, which embraces alike the beggar and the king. All existence is linked together in one chain. Nature's forces and the godhead are one and the same thing.*^ Man also, in his social capacity, as people, town, or nation, is a manifestation of Baal. Thus god is identified with nation- ality. Still the monotheism and simpler form of the Semitic religion are revealed in the meaning of Baal. For, as a rule, each city had not a Pantheon, but only its own god and goddess. God's name varied with place and circumstance. Baal, as presiding over contracts, was Baal-Berith ; as king, he was called Moloch, Milkom, Malkom ; as the lord of flies his name was Baalzebub. On Mount Hermon he was Baal- Hcnnon ; at Hazor, Baal-Hazor. But Baal was the father of the gods, and as such supreme Baal ; the others wore younger than he. 'I'he moon was the complement of the sun, wherever the sun passed as a manifestation of Baal, and both were regarded as persons. By Baal and Baaltis (Astarte) are signified the ever- lasting beginning and end; birth and death; a coming forth from Baal and returning back to him.** From this sprang the licentious worship spoken of above. The supreme Baal represented the earth and the sun, the other Baals the sun's influence on the earth. " In the worship of the heavenly 43 Friti. p. 2IO. 44 Scholzj/t'gii. .IS. Wrirzburg, i83o, p. ito, seq ; Vigouroux, in, 122, seq. 114 THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. " bodies is written the blackest nnge in human history. It tells ** how religious duty was misunderstt)od and distorted, and how "the noblest and holiest fecbngs were suppressed and sup- " planted by shameful my tei ies and ghastly human sacrifices."*^ Phoenicians, Ammonites a id Moabites held Moloch and Astarte in the liighest honour. Moloch was the sun-god in his malevolent capacity — the fire-god who destroys and purifies, and is appeased by human sacrifice. Astarte was the goddess of the waning moon and infertility. Her priestesses were forbidden all sexual intercourse. Youths and men were castrated in her temples on purpose to serve her as eunuchs. There was also a kind of sun worship known as Melkart and Adonis, which, like the Egyptian religion, has reference to the annual revolution of the sun in the zodiac. Melkart and Adonis disappear in winter and reappear with renewed youth in the spring. These religious ideas and customs were not lost on the Israelites who, however, far from admitting their correctness, most strenuously opposed them.'^s "ji^q q\(\ Testament paints the creed and worship of the Canaanites in the darkest hues, and the order to exterminate the race, which could not of course be stiictly executed to the letter, is thus easily understood. The sacred writers are ever reproving the Jews for holding intercourse with the Canaanites, and for taking part so often in naturalistic and f-ensual rites. The whole conception of heaven and earth; their symbolic localisation in certain cities and provinces ; fear and sensuality, combined wuth bloodthirsty and licentious rites, acted more powerfully on the character and imagination of a kindred race than a morally severe monotheism. For a long time the heights (Bamoth), on which the sun-god (Baal-Snmin) was adored, proved a snare and a stumbling-block to the Israelites. The observance of the seventh day by abstinence from servile 45 Reuss, Die Geschichte der heil. Schri/ten (Us A.T. 1881, p. 38. Saussaye, p. 22», seq. 46 Compare Scholz, Gd'tzendienst und Zaubefwesen bei dtn alttn Hebraetrn. Regens- burg, 1877. THE HAivilTES AND SEMITIS. II5 worl- f=: one of the most renin rk able in-titnlinns peculiar to the Semiiic :re, more especially to the Babylor-iaiis. Tl.ey called it Sablxiih. The worship of the stars (planets) supplies the likclie:^ explanation. The oldest TTebrew calendar fixes on seven as the astronomical number for the week, and tweh ■ for the new moons, 'ihis latttr fact shows that the phases of the moon coul.l mu determine the division of v/eeks. What the Assyrian'^ believed about a fu ore life is shown by their funeral rites. 'I'he Assyrian dead were conveyed to Chaldaea to be buried in that holy land. The body was sv/athrd in bandages, and each hand held a sort of ciub, vvhich vas with nut doubt a religious emblem. A supply of food and water wai. placed within rea>Mi of the dead. Tiie care bestowed on their graves and funeral ceremonies are a sure sign that Assyrians and Babylonians believed in immortality. *7 The legend anent Istar's expedition to hell is a decisive proof. Plence the Clreeks and Romans accounted for their belief in immortal life by tracing it both to S)'rian and Egyptian sources. Moreover, the Assyrians and Babylonians were deeply imbued with the idea of sin, to which they gave vent in their penitential psalms. One of their prayers reads like a penitential psalm from the Old Testament. It opens with the words: "O " Lord, my sins are many and my tranr,gressions great, and the "gods in their anger have smitten me with aflliction, sickness "and sorrrow. Do thou convert into righteousness the sins "which thy servant hath committed." ^^ -^g^'ihi, in all their public documents there breathes a S{:irit of piety, as well as the consciousness of sin. Their worship, with its sacrifices and offerings, and festive processions in which tho statues of the gods were borne along, was so liia^jnificent that the prophets wp.rned the Jews not to let it captivar: tiieir hearts.'* 47 Vijcuroux, iii, \i\>. 107, in, 119. 4u Kau en. AnyrUn und E<3.l}'~.'nicn, Freiburg, iL32, p, 145, seq ; Fcsoh, p. 551 * Bai-u( b, vi, 3, seq. Il6 THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 3. The Arabians. Hitherto no mention has been made of the Arabians, but we shall have to discuss them hereafter in connection with Islam. Their religion, however, does not call for much comment. It may be described in general terms as the coarsest and most uncultured of the Semitic religions. They, too, like other Semites, profess monotheism after a fashion. This much may be granted without accepting Kenan's view, viz., that monotheism is a racial character- istic of the Semites, and a sign of the penuriousness of their religious ideas. Allah, their god, answers to the El and llu of the other Semitic tribes. In later times they were much addicted to worshipping the stars. This sketch of so-called civilized races affords sufficient proof that their corporate action was negative rather than positive. It proves how helpless was the human will to frame for itself a proper rule of life, and how powerless was human reason to discern with certitude the end of man. Still their action was positive in so far as disgust with irra- tional polytlieism and nature-worship ultimately awakened loftier aspirations in noble minds, and prepared them to receive better things. Men had been searching for the true God when the true idea of God was hidden by a cloud of myths and errors ; they had been v/atching for the day of revelation to dawn ; they had cried aloud for help ; they had fondly believed that magic and divination were instinct with divine inspiration ; and at length they despaired of having their moral sores and bruises healed under the old order of things. All this fruitless search, this unproduc- tive faith, this hoping against hope, had filled the Jewish temples with proselytes, and cleared the course for the preaching of the gospel. Philosophy, too, in spite of its aberrations, had kept religious consciousness aglow, and awakened a yearning for immortality and an infinite ideal ; THE HA MITES AND SEMITES. 117 it had directed the gaze of men to a future lite, and had taught them to lean on hope. True, indeed, the great mass of Eastern nations are still outside the pale of Chris- tianity ; but it should not be forgotten that the time which Divine Providence has allotted for the development and redemption of the human race must not be measured by a human standard. CHAPTER IV. UNCIVILIZED RACES, It has already been made clear that the deification of nature in one or other of its many forms has been a factor in the religious development of most nations. The tribes inhabiting Western Asia were pre-eminently nature-worshippers. Their naturalism, however, is quite distinct from the religion of uncivilized races, whose idea of God scarcely rises above nature, and who are almo&t wholly destitute of moral and religious consciousne!=:3. According to modern naturalistic and evolutionary theories, all human development had its beginning in these '* savages." On the other hand, the philosophers of the eighteenth century, starting with an aesthetic conception of "pure nature" as opposed to corrupt nature, regarded the natural or uncultured man as the innocent and incorrupt ideal of humanity. Nowadays, of course, this theory has been universally abandoned. A better acquaintance with savage life in Africa and the islands of Oceania has completely dispelled the illusion. The natural man is often a refined and highly intelligent beast, swollen from top to toe with most brutal passions."^ He lives neither in an Eden of innocence, nor yet in patriarchal freedom and peace. He is often held in bondage by use and custom, by cruelty, and the lust of dominion; and thus the wretchedness of his life is many times intensified. Savages have no history. Nevertheless they do not live, as it I W. Schneider, Die NaturvSlker, etc. Paderborn u. Munster, 1883, I„ p. 3 s«q« UNCIVILIZED RACES. II9 were, from hand to mouth. For common custom is all- powerful with them. Fashion and usage are real tyrants, to whom the natural man bends the knee. From this it follows that there is no natural man, no original savage in the evolutionary sense. Not everything in the savage is or ever was savage. He is the man of nature only inas- much as he is satisfied with nature's bounty ; he is neither uncivilized nor semi-civilized. The bodily organization of savages is not of a lower order than ours. Moreover they are often quick-witted, though corrupt and degenerate. In the first volume^ we have already shown that no one of these peoples is wholly devoid of religion. But our information is so scanty, and our insight into their relig- ious life is so oblique, that it becomes no easy task to say in what their religion precisely consists. All attempts at classification have proved inadequate. For if we accept the three well-known stages of development : fetichism, nature-worship, and systematic pantheism,'' we must bring also the naturalistic religions of civilized tribes under the same categories. Some scholars, indeed, are disposed to set down the Phoenicians and the civilized tribes of America as " barbarians" and ** savages." This at least shows that there is no clearly marked stage between the two great classes, and that a rigid scale, whether ascending or de- scending, is unreliable. Generally speaking the creed of uncivilized tribes con- tains these articles : they believe in a superior being, whose realm lies more within than outside the order of nature ; in some kind of existence after death ; and in spirits, espe- cially evil spirits. The superior being is represented under the most varied forms, but he never takes a human form. It is always superhuman. Still we cannot say that honour is paid to the supreme being as such ; for, the supreme being in the abstract is inconceivable to the savage. Even the " Great Spirit" worshipped by the Indians, is no ex- 3 In chapter ii. and following chapters. 4 Drey, Die Afologetik als ivissenscha-ftliche Nachzvrisung- der Gottlichkeit des Christenthums in seiner Ercheinung, 2 Ed. Mainz, 1844, ii. 71. I20 UNCIVILIZED RACES. ception to the rule. In conception it is not so ideal as the word would suggest to us and as is sometimes contended ; nor yet so mean and despicable as modern evolutionists would make out.** Savages form their notions on concrete and singular objects, and seldom rise above them. These they seek to realize in the visible world. Here is the clue to the fascination that fetichism has for all Africans, Hot- tentots and Kaffres excepted, and to its widespread diffu- sion in America and Oceania. A fetich is not any mere natural object, but an animated being. Thus others rec- ognize the souls of the dead as fetiches. If fetichism did not actually spring from the ancestor-worship, which is very prevalent in Africa, it certainly received a consider- able impetus therefrom.* The charmers and medicine-men, who haunt all the ways and bye-ways, are supposed to hold constant and intimate converse with the souls of the de- parted. Fetichism nowhere stands alone pure and sim- ple ; the fact is that the child of nature is disposed to make a fetich of all things connected with his faith. Whatever happens, he refers to the divine being, to spirits, and the souls of his ancestors ; hence it is the divine being that brings good and bad fortune to him. But good and evil come to him from the outer world of nature. Therefore, he looks upon natural objects as the dwelling-place of god and spirits, and regards them as his fetich. The more he needs help in his struggle with nature, the more he is dis- posed to have recourse to spirits and magic, in order to repel the assaults of the evil spirits, who have gained a greater hold upon his imagination than the good. Many Negroes will neither begin the day's work nor go into bat- tle unprovided with a talisman or fetich from the charmer (Fetizero, Ganga, Chitome). By having fetiches as his companions he hopes, by craft and force, to secure their aid. In distress of all kinds the multitude have recourse to Shamans, fetich-priests, and medicine-men. Should 5 Saussaye, p. 192. Sec against him Schneider, ii., 375, $eq. 6 Gloatz, Speculative Theologie in Verbindung niit der Religionsgeschichtey Gotha, 18:3, p. 278, seq. UNCIVILIZED RACES. 121 their art prove unavailing they may be treated as ignominously as the impotent fetich. Here art steps in as an aid to nature. Some objects are regarded aj naturally and particularly suited to the divine operation, and are manufactured with especial care for the purpose. Although savages may rigard these artificial fetiches as gods, still, at bottom, there is but a con- fusion of ideas which is not quite unintelligible. Stoner, trees, plants, animals, though worshipped in houses and temples, were .lever in good earnest held to be gods, but rather forms or instruments in which superior beings manifested themselves. Even a nature-worshipper must invest his god with as much personality as himself, since he conceives him individually and in the concrete.^ The worship of god may be thrust into the background by a belief in haunting spirits ; but this would be a decadence not a beginning of religion. The Totemism, so common among the Red-skins, is also a deflection from the right path. An animal is held up and worshipped as a totem, that is, as a progenitor of the race. This animal cannot be killed (laws of abstinence), and is revered as a patron of his race. Joined to this custom is the institution of the matriarchate. It is the wife that determines all relationship (polyandry), and persons of the same totem are forbidden to intermarry (exo- gamy). From the connection between these two institutions it is clear that the favourite deduction as to the absence of marriage is untenable. Natural religion is set down as a religion of fear, because its dominant idea is that dread of natural phenomena, to which the child of nature is more subject than civilized man. By fetichism and magic and divination, savages seek to enlist the spirits on their side when battling with the adverse forces of nature. Tliey heighten the barbarity of their sacrifices — human sacrifices connected with cannibalism — in order to appease the offended and angry deity. lUit by sacrificing, as a rule at least, not their best gifts or their best men, but criminals f Schneider, ii, 378. I2i UNCIVILIZED RACES. and prisoners, they still show that the motive of their wor- ship is inspired by selfishness. It must, indeed, be ad- mitted that the religion of many negro tribes is full of im- perfections and superstitions. Some acknowledge a supreme being but disregard him ; others have neither idols nor temples, but see in the sun, moon, and stars an emanation of the deity. Yet in spite of all this, there is a grain of truth hidden amid a bushel of error. Nature- worship and superstition failed to wholly extinguish the light of that ancient religion which they had inherited.^ Savages, in so far as they give the past and future a thought at all, and are not wholly, like children, engrossed in the present, have their own peculiar solution of the riddles with which the universe and man are rife. They cherish many and sometimes elaborate stories about the creation. The comparatively high stage of development which these stories have reached among the Americans is especially noteworthy. Myths about creation, the flood and ancient civilization abound in America, and in the main agree. The supreme spirit is the creator. The world was snatched from the jaws of the enemy that was going to swallow it, — the water. Man grew out of trees, or came forth from caverns. But God gave him a nature worthy of men.' Some negro tribes also retain belief in a creator of the world, — an echo of that monotheism which was nowhere wholly stifled. New Zealanders and Hawai- ians are said to have myths about the creation which re- semble Orphic and Vedic poetry.'" But of a well-reasoned doctrine of creation there is, of course, no trace whatever. The next life, as a rule, is conceived after the analogy of the present life. Hence the common necessaries of life are put in the grave, and very often the living relatives are sent after the dead, either by being mercilessly slaugh- tered on the grave, or by being buried alive. Children often slay their parents, who impose this task on them as 8 Katholische Missionen, Freiburg, 1887, No. 3, p. 51. Saussaye, p, 71, 184, 191. 9 Saussaye, p. 193. Schneider, II., 374 seq. 10 Schneider, II., 370. Compare Kevue de Vhist. des Relig. 1886 (xiii.), p. i seq. Saus- saye, p. 200. UNCIVILIZED RACES. I23 a sacred duty. The grave is usually considered sacred, and is preserved from desecration. As the savage thinks death and disease are produced by wicked spells, he en- gages magicians to discover their authors. A drink of poison is considered an ordeal. Although signs of a lofty morality are not wanting among some uncivilized tribes,'' particularly among the inhabitants of Nicobar, as those who sailed round the world in the " Novara" testify, still the great majority are a prey to passions and licentiousness. Refined cruelty, heartlessness and animal sensuality are the melancholy characteristics of many savage tribes. Of justice and morality and family life in its nobler sense, they have often not the vaguest notion. The degraded condition of woman, and deep-rooted polygamy are the chief hindrances to missionary progress among the negroes. Unhappily, immorality is alarmingly on the increase, owing to the abuses and vices of the white man, — the Christian. The horrors which the white man, through his selfishness and greed of gold, has perpetrated, are indescribable. It would seem as though the utter ruin of these peoples were purposely aimed at. Only in Central and South America have the aborigines been in a measure preserved by min- gling with their conquerors and settlers. But the Indians seem doomed. In Australia matters came to a head even more rapidly, for the last of the Tasmanians died in 1880.'' Those on the mainland now number only a few thousand. To justify the course of events it has been alleged that sav- ages coming in contact with civilization necessarily go to the wall ; but the statement is as little justified as the paral- lel proposition, formulated in the like interest, concerning the inferiority of the negro race. The history of America gives the lie to both. For, as the history of the Reserva- tions under the care of the Jesuits proves beyond question, had not the white man introduced corruption, the Indians II Schneider, II., 373. |2 ControversCy 15, Mai 1885, p. 125. 124 UNCIVILIZED RACES. might have been reclaimed by benevolent Christian in- struction. Whether modern efforts to civilize Africa and Oceania will fare better, events vidll show.'' Though savages have but few wants, their lot is never- theless sad and gloomy. Their hard and joyless life has left its impress on their religion. They see more of the dark than of the sunny side of nature. By toil and sweat they earn their living. They are ruled by force and fear. Can it be wondered at, then, that the feeling of gratitude should be stunted in its growth, and find little or no ex- pression in their religion ? Is it surprising that they should ascribe to invisible spirits the same motives, caprices and passions as they find to be the springs of their own actions ? Is it surprising that, having no thought for the good God, they should give the lion's share to the devil, and impute all evil to divine wrath ? The sunny side of the divine government of the world is for them almost in total eclipse. For this reason all natural religions glimmer with deep streaks of melancholy. The feelings of dread and depen- dency preclude true joy. Life's true value is unknown, and death is peacefully welcomed as a deliverer.'* The cruel custom of tattooing is religiously observed by the South Sea Islanders, who likewise, in common with many negro tribes, were wont to practise circumcision. For a fuller account we must refer the reader to Schneider's " Naturvdikcr'' and the copious and useful lit- erature therein quoted. From its pages we extract the following summary on savage tribes.'^ ' * Uncivilized peoples generally stand on a higher religious *' scale than those few tribes which are held up as samples of " irreligion. Anyone who studies from reliable sources the " spiritual condition of savages, will be convinced, unless his •* mind be warped by prejudice, that the natural man is not «3 Schneider, I., 28. 14 Teichmuller, Religionsphilosophie , Breslau, 1816, p, 219. Somewhat milder, Schnei- der, II., 397, 403. 15 Schneider, II., 387. UNCIVILIZED RACES. I25 " comparatively poverty-stricken in religion, but that re- " ligion guides him at every turn. Semi-civilized tribes, " in private and public, in domestic and social life, are " fenced round by a complicated system of customs and ** conventionalities which, having in nearly every case a *' religious sanction, are observed with a conscientiousness " that might often put a devout Christian to shame. For " instance, there is the sanctification of the Tabu in Poly- *' nesia, and similar institutions in Australia, Africa and " America. The natural man, being a creature of sense, ** is the child of the hour, and a slave to his passions ; but " the free and untamed savage always stops short at the " barrier set up by the commandments and customs of his " religion. These he never dares to violate. He is in- " capable of committing a sacrilege. Nothing on earth " would induce him to touch anything that the consecra- " tion of the Tabu or the blessing of the fetich has with- " dravv'n from profaneness, or to break an oath, or the word " in which he has appealed to the gods. However hard " and barbarous the injunctions and prohibitions supersti- " tion imposes on him, he never evades or trangresses *' them. In his estimation there is no worse misfortune " than to incur the anger of the deity, and once incurred, " his greatest anxiety is to propitiate it. For this purpose " he shrinks from nothing, and he endures the most severe " penances with a heroism worthy of a Christian penitent." Everywhere the splendour of the divinity is seen to be on the wane ; myths are growing poor and thin in thought, and religious ideas are entering on a backward course. Instead of being bright and sunny, religion is growing mere and more burdensome and gloomy. None but a prejudiced mind can see aught but fallen greatness'^ in the supreme gods of the Australians, South Sea Islanders, Indians, and African Negroes. No impartial enquirer v/ill shut his eyes to the degeneracy that actually exists in sav- age tribes. Even Darwin assigns to primitive man a higher place on the moral ladder than to the savage. The so- 16 ibid. p. 405. 126 UNCIVILIZED RACES. called savage, he thinks, has gained in intelligence but lost in instinct. The first man was not so grossly sensual as many savages now are. Men cherished their wives and protected them from assault. Infanticide was unknown ; early betrothals and polyandry were forbidden. Women were not treated as slaves." It is now generally concluded that no portion of the human race is, strictly speaking, any longer in a state of pure nature ; that a sort of civilization reigns everywhere ; and that, consequently, such phrases as " tribes of nature" and " savages" are to be understood in a relative sense. ^^ It is therefore very risky to argue back from these to a state of nature. The cruel customs and sacrifices of American savages are not, in many re- spects without a parallel among the civilized tribes of Mexico, Central America, New Granada, Peru, and the territory watered by the Mississippi and Ohio ; but it is doubtful whence the civilization of these tribes was de- rived. Their buildings seem almost planned on Assyrian and Babylonian models. We know, indeed, from history that America had relations with Asia ; but, for all that, these civilized tribes are an enigma. Did the aborigines of America import a higher civilization from elsewhere ? or were these tribes later arrivals ? And if so, whence came they ? If writing be considered a work of civiliza- tion, then only the Mexicans can be numbered among civ- ilized tribes. The Incas of Peru traced their descent from the children of the sun, who were the first to bring civili- zation to the earth. In like manner, the Mexicans say that civilization and custom owe their origin to the god Quet- zalcoatl. His reign was the golden age : — unruffled peace, and no human sacrifices. But many famous men were offered up in sacrifices to the supreme god of the Aztecs, Huitzilopochtli, the war-god. Of the civilized Mongolian tribes (the Chinese and Japanese), we have already spoken. To define the religion of Mongolian savages is as difficult as to determine the Mongolian race. Their 17 Schneider, i., 69. 18 Saussaye, p. 24. UNCIVILIZED RACES. 127 numbers are so great that they have repeatedly influenced Western development; but they have no vitality, and are indifferent to reHgion. They beheve in Tengerc, the supreme god who dwells in heaven, and in Erlik^ a dangerous god who dwells in the lower world. The most distinguishing work of their religion is an advanced form of magic, called Shamanism, which is transmitted by inheritance. The Shaman throws himself into convulsions, and seeks, while in this state, to learn the will of the gods through the spirit of hi? forefathers. He can penetrate heaven and the lower world. It is his business to offer sacrifices. The victims slain in sacrifices are horses. When an oath is taken, or a vow or promise made, the blood of the animal offered in sacrifice is drunk.^^ The words spoken by the chief Mengku to the Franciscan Rubruk have become famous : '* We Mongols believe that there is a god in whom we " live and die, and to whom our heart is turned. But, just as *'god has endowed the hand with several fingers, so has he " pointed out divers ways to men. To you Christians he has " given the Scriptures, and you walk not in them. ... To " us he has given the prophets ; we do what they tell us, and •* therefore we live in peace." Eusebius thinks that the gradual growth of religion (which compared with the Gospel is gross superstition), is due to a period when the human race was in a godless and immoral state. It resulted either in star-worship or hero-worship.20 Prudentius has no hesitation in drawing a parallel between the development of the human race and that of the individual man. In the beginning man had an earthward bent ; ceu quad- rupes egit. By degrees he acquired a kind of education ; but he thus also awakened the vices slumbering within him. Then, he says, came the time for thinking of divine things, and pro- viding for eternal salvation. Modern Folklorists go still 19 Wutkt, Gesckichte des Heidenthums, i. 216. Weiss, Apologie, i. 5. ■o Praepar. Evangel. II., 5, 4. Prudentius, c. Symm, II,, 277 seq. 128 UNCIVILIZED RACES. further.2^ In opposition to philologists, who explain the formation of myths by the influence of language on thought, they contend that myths originated among savages, whose sagas and legends, they say, give us, so to speak, a peep into the workshop in which myths were forged, and disclose the psycho- logical basis of myths and religion. This would be all very well if we were dealing with an incorrupt state of nature, and with the simple, unspoilt child of nature. But, as the preceding sketch has shown, this is not the case. A continuation of the sketch, if extended as far back as prehistoric times, would undoubtedly reveal a lower order of civilizaticn ; but we should be no nearer a solution of the question as to whether this was the original or a degenerate condition of men. The bridge between savages and civilized races would still be wanting. History tells the dates of civilized peoples only. Of their previous early development we have no information. Nay, m'^re, since the very history that is known reveals a backward movement, it is clear that they have degenerated from a higher spiritual level. However much they may have grown in know- ledge, religious thought has made no progress, but has been sinking deeper and deeper into the mire. Morality fared no better, as Greece and Rome, and all the East that has not been leavened by Christianity, bear witness. In the days of yore, even Turanian civilization stood higher than at present. It is, therefore, hoping against hope to expect a higher civilization to spring spontaneously from natural religions. If civilized people are incapable of religious elevation, savages are still more so. Their preparation for Christianity was chiefly negative, and lay in revealing their miseries and utter helplessness, while that of civilized peoples was positive, inasmuch as it mightily awakened the consciousness of sin, and the sense of the need of redemp- tion. Civilized peoples have preserved more of the primitive revelation in connection with the natural knowledge of God, 21 Compare Revue tie Fhist., 1886 (xiii) 169, 107. As chief representatives are named : Schwarg, Der Ursp'-im^ der Mythohj^ie, Berlin, i860. Lang, Custom and Mythology, 2 ed. Reference is also made to the anthropological method of Tyler. UNCIVILIZED RACES. I29 On the other hand they also oppose great obstacles to the progress of Christian missions, especially in the East, by reason of the power inherent in custom and history, which resists innovations in religion. All heathendom, both in the Old World and the New, preserved the tradition of a happy age in the past, and cherished the hope of a brighter future, when the Redeemer to come should break and destroy the power of the evil spirit. Max Miiller's linguistic argument for the unity of the Indo-Germanic race has been already brought forward. The striking unanimity with which they designate the supreme god as " heavenly father," shows that in ancient times all the Indo-Germanic tribes not only spoke the same language, but also worshipped the same god. Modern ethnographers look askance at this proof, but evolution- ists, including Mr. Herbert Spencer, have no counter-dem- onstration to offer. We may even give it a still wider ap- plication. Not only Hindus, Greeks, Latins, Germans and Slavs, but Semites, Turanians, Polynesians, Negroes and Red-skins, have assigned the same rank to the supreme god, and honoured him under the title of " Heaven." What a wonderful coincidence !" »2 Revue, 1886, No. xiv., p. 108. CHAPTER V. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. One branch of the great Semitic stock still remains for discussion, — the people of Israel. In the beginning, its position in history was seemingly unimportant. In numbers it was greatly inferior to the powerful Oriental monarchies. Still it merits special and exceptional consideration, inasmuch as it was the chosen people. It possesses a sacred literat'iire that has no parallel m the Semitic family, perhaps none at all, save in Christianity. Its religion, taking its rise in a divine revelation, has worked effects that far outdistance those of all other pre-christian religions. Nowhere else do we find the great religious problems solved so clearly and so simply. One God created heaven and earth and all things, including man. And the Creator, in His goodness, endowed man, both in soul and body, with rich gifts. But man broke down under the test to which his free-will was put ; and thus sin and death, evil and misery, were let loose on the world. The temptation was the work of a fallen spirit, through whom sin and death came into the world. But the good God, instead of leaving His fallen creatures to their evil fate, forthwith implanted in their hearts hope in a future Redeemer ; and His fatherly providence guided them in their earthly pilgrimage. The effects of the first sin were not slow in revealing themselves : belief in the one true God became weaker and dimmer, as time went on, until it was all but lost, while the floodgates of moral corruption were opened. One seed, however, from which the new Israel was to spring up, was saved. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. I3I Cain slew his brother Abel in envy ; but Seth took Abel's place and perpetuated the god-fearing race. And when the Sethites had also fallen into sin and idolatry, Noe was just before God, and was saved from the general destruc- tion. Cham and Japheth soon forgot God's mercy and the terrible chastisement they had escaped, and were want- ing in respect to their father. Sem, however, a worthy scion of Noe, became the father of a generation to whom God entrusted His revelation. When the Semites, too, were on the brink of idolatry, God set Abram apart to serve the true God, and told him to leave home and kin- dred, and to go into a land that He would show him. The descendants of the patriarchs, after varying fortunes, were pining away in Egyptian bondage, and were compelled to serve false gods. At length God chose Moses, and made him His instrument in delivering the people from the bodily and spiritual bondage under which they were groan- ing. God revealed Himself to Moses by expressly declar- ing Himself to be Jahve (Jehovah). Him who is, — in con- tradistinction to the gods of the heathen, who are not, and by empowering him to defy Pharaoh and all his host. In the desert God renewed with His people, through Moses, the covenant He had formerly made with Abraham ; He gave His commandments, set up a special divine worship, and prepared His people, during forty years of wandering, for their entrance into the promised land. Only by slow degrees and after many a hard fight was the land of Canaan conquered. Not infrequently several of the twelve tribes were in danger of annihilation. But, just as frequently, God raised up "Judges" who mar- shalled the warriors of Israel under Jahve' s banner, and routed their foes. Under Samuel and Saul there grew up that theocratic and national unity which enabled the peo- ple to hold their own against foes who were pressing them from every side. In the Jerusalem that he had conquered, David planned, and his son Solomon built, with royal mag- nificence, a central sanctuary. The theocracy — such is the 132 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. name given by Josephus to the Israelitic form of govern- ment — had now reached its zenith. At Solomon's death the kingdom was broken up into two unequal parts. The ten northern tribes revolted, and formed themselves into the kingdom of Israel, and publicly professed idolatry. The small kingdom of Juda, to which the promises were given, held fast, with occasional breaks, to the service of the temple and the worship of Jahve. God sent the prophets to save king and people from idolatry and cor- ruption, and to keep alive in them the pure knowledge of Himself. But God's vengeance, long delayed, at last came. In 722 the Northern Kingdom was destroyed, and its people led captive into Assyria. In 606 (598) the same fate overtook Juda and Jerusalem, and the Jews were car- ried in captivity to Babylon. But while the ten tribes were absorbed in the population, a remnant of Juda and Benja- min was saved. Guided by the prophets Ezechiel and Daniel, the Jews did penance in Babylon for their past sins, and kept their hearts free from idolatry. After the Persian conquest of Babylon in 538, some returned to the Holy Land (536) and religiously remodelled their lives on the law. A century later a further contingent returned under Esdras and Nehemias. Under the second temple the leaders introduced reforms to regulate religious life, according to the strictness of the law. The school of exile and adversity had a wholesome influence upon the Jews ; it chastened and fortified their hearts. Belief in Jahve, the one true God, had now so firmly taken root, that no wind of doctrine could move it. At the time of the Seleucidse, many Jews gave their lives rather than transgress Jahve's commands. The Law was observed with painful exactitude. About this time a special body of learned men was formed in order to expound it. These were the " Doctors of the Law." To prevent the least transgressions the Law was fenced around with a number of petty ordinances. The evils consequent upon this step were further increased by the subsequent formation of parties — a thing quite contrary THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. I33 to the spirit of the theocracy. The Sadducees had become reconciled to foreign rule, while their antagonists, the Pharisees, insisted on the strict observance of the law. In the synagogues the law and the prophets were read aloud and explained ; and men were trained in scriptural knowledge in Rabbinical schools at Jerusalem. On festivals the whole nation assembled in the temple at Jerusalem, and their faith, their trust in God, and expectation of the Messias thus received fresh strength. The victories of the Hasmonaean dynasty again aroused a conscious- ness of political independence. In 63 B.C. began the Roman supremacy, which from 40 B.C. was exercised through the Idum?eans (Herod the Great.) Such is a sketch of the history of Israel, culled from the Old Testament, which, however, has been violently attacked in modern times. Peyrere, Spinoza, Richard Simon, Le Clerc and others had already called attention to the complex character of the Pentateuch. In 1753 Jean Astruc, a French physician, started what is called the doaoncniary hypoihesis, chiefly with reference to the historical portions of the Pentateuch (the Elohistic and Jehovistic informant). In 1805 Vater broached iht fragmentary hypothesis, in dealing especially with the legislative portions of the Pentateuch. A third hyjiothesis, which may be called the supplementary, attempted to fuse the fo^-mer two into one, and was advocated by Tuch, Stahelin, De Wette, Renan, Ewald, Knohcl, Fiirst. According to this theory the original document was from time to time enlarged by the addition of new portions, and Deuteronomy was entirely a later addition. English Deists, French Encyclo- paedists, and German Rationalists, the sworn enemies of reve- lation, attempted by every means to undermine the historical character of the sacred Scriptures, in order to show that it was made up of myths, which had grouped themselves round real or fabulous personages. In 1834 Reuss contended that the Prophets were older than the Law, and the Psalms more recent than both. I In 1835 Leopold George and Wilhelm Vatke p Reuss, Cfsghifhttderheil. Schri/ttn, A.T. Braunschweig, i8«x, p. viL IJ4 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. launched the same hypothesis independently, but it finally received its name from Graf, the disciple of Reuss. The theory of Graf runs thus : The book of Josue must be joined on to the five books of Moses, so as to form a Hexateuch, because the conquest of Canaan is clearly the closing chapter of the patriarchal history. Deuteronomy being set apart, the remainder can be traced to two sources : the original (legal) or Elohisiic document, and an historical or Jeho- vistic document, so called from the preponderance in one or other of the names for God, Elohim and Jehovah. The original or legal document is embodied in the main in Leviticus and parallel passages in Exodus and Numbers : Exodus, cc. xxv-xxxi. ; xxxv-XL. ; Numbers, cc. i-x. ; xv-xix. ; xxv-xxvi. Its purport is mostly legislative. It contains the ceremonial law and the quadruple covenant with Adam, Noe, Abraham and Moses, the last of which or the Mosaic law, indicates the proper scope of the writer. The historical document is essen- tially in the nature of a narrative. It begins with the creation of man, and is chiefly taken up with the history of the patriarchs. It touches on legislation only in so far as this last bears on history (Exodus, cc. xx.-xxiii. ; xxxiv.) Hupfeld argued that certain parts of the Pentateuch, which had been assigned either to the legal or historical document, were in reality traceable to a third source, the junior Elohist, or, as he is now simply called, the Elohist. While, however, Hupfeld assumed that these three streams were running side by side, till a later writer turned them into one channel, Noldeke main- tained that the Elohistic portion was merely an undercurrent of the Jehovistic stream. In this later form Grafs hypothesis has found a strenuous advocate in Wellhausen, from whom it has been called the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. In the latest edition (1886) of his Prolegomena to the history of Israel, where he admits that the researches of Kuenen have rendered some alteration in the theory necessary, he grapples with the " Problem." He decides THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 1 35 in favour of the opinion that there are two main divisions in the Hexateuch, although, he thinks, it is every day becoming more evident that both are complex in structure.^ Further, there are some spurious or posthumous elements, which will fit into neither. He labels the book of history, that is the Jehovistic narrative, as JE, its Elohistic source as E, the Jahve source as J, and the sacredotal (legal) codex or original document as P. Of this last he ascribes the authorship to Esdras, about 444 ; Deuteronomy he assigns to the year 621, and the book of Jiistory to the early days of the kings.3 Other writers agree with him, on the whole, as to the date of authorship, but they differ considerably in determining the amount of matter belonging to the several periods and authors. Dillmann, in his latest commentary on the Pentateuch, makes the Ephraimistic E anterior to Jeroboam II. ; but J, which is dependent on E, and of Jewish origin, was not composed before the middle of the eighth century. On the other hand Dillmann agrees with Noldeke, Schrader and others in thinking that Deuteronomy is a later production ; but he is firmly con- vinced that the sacerdotal codex is older than Deuteronomy. This is the chief point of difference between the two sections of the critical school. There are still many writers of this school who look upon the Elohistic document or the book of Origins as the oldest portions of the Thorah, while the first- named authors regard it as the most recent.* But all agree in rejecting the Mosaic authorship. " If one thing is certain in • Compare also Reuss, p. 251 seq. Collections of the Jehovistic portions on page »5i. History of the Patriarchs up to Exodus xxiv., and again xxxi., 18,-xxxiv. From Leviticus nothing. From Numbers x, 29-xii., 16 ; xiii., xiv., xv., xx. (tw« diflFer- ent sources); Again, xxi.-xxiv., xxv., 1-5 ; Some small portions in xxxii., and the last verses of xxxiii. From Deuteron. only fragments in chapters xxvii., xxxi., xxxiv. As regards Genesis, all his predecessors have ascribed the following por' tionsto the Jehovist; Gen. ii., 4-15 ; iii., iv. y,, ,9; vL, 1-9 ; vii., viii., ix., 18-27 : x'u, 1-9. 3 Kayser, Die Theohgie des A. T., edited by E. Reuss, Strassburg, 1886, p. i6r, where he assigns the year 444 as the very earliest date ; but compare p. 68. Ali« Reuss, p. 249 E. Schrader, Di« Keilinschri/ten und das A. T. t cd. GitiM% 1883, p 54. 4 Kayser, p. 169. 136 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL, " Old Testament criticism, it is that Moses did not write the " Pentateuch."^ The discussion of this hypothesis, which at present over- shadows the whole field of Old Testament criticism, properly falls within the province of exegesis. Apologists, however, cannot afford to ignore it, first and chiefly because, in Germany at all events. Catholic exegesis has hardly deigned to notice it,* and because general questions and principles of revelation are involved. In this respect French Catholics are in advance of the Germans, for they both saw the danger ahead and strove might and main to meet it. It is naturally more pregnant with mischief to French than to German theology. ** It is high time," says Broglie, a modern French apologist, " for Catholics to look full in the face the grave questions with which the Pentateuch and the history of Israel are bristling. It is time to take up arms in defence of a domain that is ours, which the enemy is threatening to wrest from us." Catholic theologians, therefore, cannot dispense with a survey of the method and results of this criticism, which aims at nothing less than revolutionizing the entire literary, historical and religious character of the writings of the Old Testament. Such are the momentous issues at stake.''' The first question, then, that presents itself to us, is the general question of the history of religion. Nor can we do better than make this question our starting-point. By so doing we shall follow both the order of things and the course of history itself The main issue is simply this: Was the religion of Israel in its beginning monotheistic or polytheistic ? The Law says the former, critics and religious historians the latter. Which is right ? Is the history of religion described in the Old Testament merely a branch of the religious history of the 5 Kayser, p. 31. Reuss, p. 71 seq. In the same way Hermann, Schultz, Popper, and lately also Delitzsch. 6 Compare Koenig, Alter, u. Entstshutigsiveise des Peniateuch. Freiburg 1884. Flunk Die ErgebnUse der negativcn Pentatiuchkritik. Zeitschr fUr Kaih. Theolog. ixi 472» 595' Selbst, in Kathtlik 1883 L 4. Kulten, .ffzw/tjVww/-, ii, 167. r Katkolih, L c p. as^* THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. I37 Semites, and to be treated according to the principles of evolu- tion ? Or must we recognise in it a supernatural element, a special revelation from God ? If a negative answer be returned to the latter question, then the Old Testament, as known to us, is incomprehensible. Nay more, without a primitive revelation the general course of all religious history becomes inexplicable. Polytheism itself, as a hypothetical beginning, would be in- comprehensible. Taking our stand, then, on the ground which our previous researches have cleared for us, we unhesitatingly answer, that Monotheism is the beginning, Polytheism is the decay of religion. This conclusion is not challenged from Old Testament History. That there should have been two polytheists and one monolheist among Noe's three sons, may well seem sur- prising.^ Again, of vSem's five sons only one held steadfast to monotheism, and polytheism found its way even into his family. Abram was forced to fly, lest he, too, should be infected with idolatry.^ From Abraham the true faith passed to Isaac only, not to Ismael and the sons of Cetura ; from Isaac it was transmitted to Jacob, but not to Esau. All this seems surpassing strange. The father must have instructed all his sons alike. All lived in the same house, and were witnesses of the same religious practices. And yet how uneven the results ! But cannot we all bring forward many paralled cases from our own strange experience ? What is there incredible in one remaining faithful and the rest falling away ? Is it true to say, that men from being religious may become indifferent, or may cast religion aside altogether, or may become faithless in observing its pre- cepts, but that they can never exchange one religion for a worse ?^^ And are we justified, on the strength of this principle, in regarding the history of the patriarchs as incredible? To me, I must confess, the first important principle that the I Kayser, p. si, 45. Reuss, p. 63. 9 Compare also Judith v, 6 — ^ 10 Kayser, 1. c Reuss, p. 6x. 138 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. critics lay down seems very questionable. The proposi- tion, " that all human ideas, even the most epoch-making, whether religious or otherwise, follow a regular psycho- logical groove, and are grafted on pre-existing ideas,"'' if true, would be equally applicable to all kinds of develop- ment whether proceeding in a straight or crooked, in an ascending or descending line. Are there, then, no aber- rations ? Is there no ebb as well as flow ? Has history always marched by a straight road that has no windings ? Does not the history of both religion and science reveal many deviations from the right path ? The history of the Semitic, Hindu, Iranian, Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions is the history of a continuous decline, which like a flood overtook and swept into its current the vast major- ity of men. The Old Testament is therefore right and quite in keeping with history, when it attaches the preser- vation of the true knowledge of God to a few particular persons and families. But it may be urged, does not a decline precisely prove that a lower stage of religion must have preceded ? Could men fall into polytheism unless it had been at one time universal ? Could the Jews have so far gone astray as to indulge in human sacrifices, if these had not been in early times a recognized and essential feature in public worship ? This genuine Darwinian idea'^ would make all historical development incomprehensible. For the principle would really tell both ways. Spiritual progress would be also spiritual decline. Is it not more likely that, if man, by his strength and natural power, can advance, he can also go back ? As the history of individuals and the race proves, human force and human passion is equal to the emergency. Hence to argue that Polytheism was formerly universal, because the Jews fell into it afterwards, is an unsound in- ference. All that one can conclude from it is the fact, that it is difficult to explain the existence of the pure monothe- ism of the Jews amid the mass of idolatry that encom- II Stade, Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1887. No. 9. la Schaaffhausen, Anthrtpol. Studien, Bonn, 1885, p. 552. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 139 passed them on every side. Even Teichmiiller'' is forced to confess that the existence of a pure and untainted mono- theism among the Jews is a phenomenon too unique to be explained by philosophy. For, he says, the beginning of moral consciousness does not all at once override and sub- due the natural force of our passions ; nor is it possible to connect the ideas of right and vi^rong with God, unless man's idea of God has been already obtained from a re- ligion of fear. It is an historical puzzle, he continues, to which speculation has no key, and which history alone can unlock. But history explains it by giving prominence to the person of Moses, who, having received pure monothe- ism by revelation, first indoctrinated the younger genera- tion in the wilderness with it. The subsequent relapse, he argues, is intelligible ; for the strength of concupiscence must in the long run again bring the religion of fear into play, and thus set the tide rolling in the direction of idol- atry. Any people, surrounded by heathen tribes, if thrown on its own resources, would assuredly incline to fall, with- out having previously passed through polytheism itself. As long as the sensual nature obtains the upper hand, as it does in ordinary men, a fall from a higher religious standard to a lower one, — even the abyss of sensual and naturalistic idolatry — is intelligible. This we could fore- cast as a natural consequence of sin, even if experience furnished no examples. Without a direct divine interposi- tion Judaism would hardly have remained monotheistic in principle ; still less could it have evolved its pure and clear idea of God from a reeking mass of universal poly- theism. What idea in the Hebrew mind could have given it birth ? Such a" spontaneous generation" is inconceivable.'^ In the first place it would have to be proved that monotheism,the goal whither all development in ancient times tended, roseup in the time of Isaias " like a brilliant constellation from the bosom of 13 L. c. p. tSg. Vigouroux, IIL, 34. 14 See Floekncr, Tkeol. Quartalschr.^ 1877, p. 5« »c 140 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. polytheistic darkness ; '' ^^ and when proved, the fact itself would still be unexplained. Indifferentism or atheism is not the only antithesis to true religion. Such a supposition is contrary to the idea and history of religion ; and may be possible in a people of modern education, but not in an ancient Eastern people. It is true that, in the beginning of ihcir life in Canaan, the Jews could scarcely avoid combining their own religion with that of their neighbours. But the change between falling off and returning back must not be measured by a wooden rule. In the people as a whole the event is intelligible. In many respects its religion is not very different from that of the Canaanites. It had divers gods : household gods (Terafim), gods of the stars and of heaven. Jahve was a national god, represented under various sensible symbols : men, oxen, and plants. In their immediate neighbourhood were Astarte and her college of priests, and the brazen serpent that healed diseases and the wounds inflicted by poisonous animals.^^ But even apart from extravagances, and in spite of the fact that Jahve was placed above all other gods, Holy Scripture brands their practices as simple idolatry. Nor are the supposed polytheistic reminiscenes of the writers sufficient proof to the contrary. We are as little warranted in concluding that human sacrifices were in vogue among the Jews, from the sacrifices of Abraham and Jephte, as from the sanctification of the first-born. It cannot be denied that human sacrifices are credited with a special propitiatory value * ; but such isolated instances, which have withal an historical explanation, are no adequate proof that the children of Israel were originally addicted to this practice. Later on they sacrificed their children to Moloch. Was not this manifestly a relapse into the idolatry of their neighbours and kinsfolk ? To say that imagesf were an integral 15 Fritz, p. 158. 16 Masj.ero, in his history of Eastern peoples, 4. Ed. Com^zrc Zeitschr. fUr kathlo. Tluol. 1887, p. 183; also Soury, Reiian and others. Kayser, p. 80. Vigouroux, III, p. 25. Flockner, TheoL QuartaUchr. 1887, p. 55, ■«(). • L Kings, XV. 33. II. Kings, xvi. a seq. Micheas, vi. 7. ♦ Judges xviii ; III. Kings, xii. a8 ; Numbers xxi 4—8. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. i4t part of primitive Semitism is incorrect. In Egypt, on the contrary, not merely living bulls, but even their images were adored. The serpent was the symbol of the healing art. There is still another point which might seem strange, and requires explanation. The Old Testament connects the apostasy with individuals, without taking historical development into account. But this objection also rests on no solid ground. It is quite true that the sacred writers are wont to embody a principle in conspicuous personages, and throw on them the consequences it entails. But, at the same time, they let it be understood that those individuals, who generally became the progenitors of non-Israelites, broke loose from Tradition, and it is only their distant descendants who figure as out- and-out idolaters. Other Eastern writers also, Assyrians and Egyptians for instance, are accustomed to link the history of a nation to the genealogical table of families and races. This custom is so thoroughly patriarchal that it constitutes an argument for, rather than against, the age of the narrative. Genealogies have ever been current among Eastern nations. Nor can the names by which God is designated be alleged as telling in favour of primitive polytheism. El, the commonest and most ancient name amongst the Semites, is the simple designa- tion for the idea of God common to all men. Ilu was probably also the Assyrian name for the one God. El was the one God of the Hebrews, El-Kana the jealous God. Elohim, the plural of Eloah, is in form an abstract name. It does not, however, imply a plurality of Eloahs, for in ancient Hebrew it was never used in the singular. The singular Eloah was used for the first time towards the close of the eighth century by the poets, Job, Isaias, Habacuc and others ; but even then the people had no scruple in continuing to use Elohim. Modern critics cannot, surely, take exception to this name, since, in their view, the Elohistic portions of the Hexateuch are the most recent, and the Psalms in which Elohim frequently occurs are subsequent to the captivity. Perhaps Elohim is a plural with an intensify- 14^ THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. ing force, to denote the majesty, omnipotence, and perfec- tion of God.* The plural is often used in Hebrew to ex- press the singular, unbounded, incomprehensible, and com- plex, as in Adonai, Schaddai.'^ Elohim, as applied to God, is always followed by a verb in the singular ; but when it is used to denote idols, even the golden calf, the verb is in the plural. To this rule there are only about a dozen exceptions, whereas the passages in evidence that Elohim from the beginning denoted the one only God who created heaven and earth, are many and numerous. Jahve, too, denotes that same one God, but as the God of the covenant, who revealed Himself under this name to Moses. '^ Yet both names are often used indiscriminately. For this reason some writers try to relegate the much-respected " Jehovist" to the shades, because his existence hangs on critical studies and theories that must now be considered inadequate or confusing. " Were it not so, we should surely expect to find different kinds of worship for the different gods in ancient times. But for this there is not a shred of evidence. Nor is there any mention or indication of mythology. If Jahve is put forward more frequently as the Jewish national God, this was done solely to contrast Him with the heathen gods, the bare mention of whom (e.g. Chamos, the god of the Moabitesf) does not imply recognition. In the eyes of the Jews Jahve was the God of Israel. The Jews still required a considerable amount of progress and education, before they were fully pene- trated by pure monotheism, so as to conceive Jahve as the god of the universe, and of all nations. The command God gave them to annihilate the Canaanites, and the help- ing hand He extended to them while battling with their enemies, would lead them to believe that Jahve was the loving father of none but Israelites. It is a most signifi- • I. Kings xxviii. 13; Ps. Ixxxii. 6. 17 Vigouroux, in.,46, Reuss, p. 77. 18 Exodus III.,i4, vi., 2, 3. Compare Haneherg, Gesc/ticAU der Bibl. (9^., Regens- burg, 1863, p. 197. Kaulen, p. 168, ig Reuss, p. 349. t IV. Kings xxiii. Jercm. xlviii. 7, 13, 46. Num. xxi., 29. See Kirchtnlexicon, art. " Chamos."— Tr. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. I43 cant fact that the Jews never recognized a goddess, while in every other nation natural religion degenerated into sexual dualism. At one time, indeed, they worshipped Aschera and Astarte ;* but this crime was very different from putting a goddess on an equal footing with Jahve. Although they set up statues of Aschera near Jahve's altars, they refrained from representing God in company with a goddess. Witness the severe decrees against prostitution and its wages, as compared with the hierodulia of the Gen- tiles."" Only if actual transgressions were inexplicable either by psychology or the example of the neighboring peoples, could it be concluded that prostitution had existed as a religious institution. Does the prohibition to kill im- ply that killing was previously lawful ? Might it not suffice to say that the command was intended simply to warn the people against the bad example of the Canaanites ? But it is furthermore objected that the sacred writers not only unconsciously and unintentionally introduced reminis- cences of an earlier polytheism into their narrative, but that they speak quite plainly and openly on the subject. Put away the gods which your fathers served in Mesopo- tamia, and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord, you have your choice : choose this day that which pleaseth you, whom you would rather serve, whether the gods which your fathers served in Mesopotamia, or the gods of the Ammonites, in whose land you dwell : but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."t This passage is supposed to prove that the Israelites, before the days of Moses, were polytheists. Moses, we are told, instructed them with monotheism, but the masses had not been leavened with this religion. Many held out against it in the wilderness, and in Josue's time were still cleaving to their old faith or superstition. In order to thoroughly wean them from it, it was necessary to make a law or decree. But, as we shall see, even this supposed decree • Deut. xvi., 21. 20 Vigouroux, III., 76, 230. t Josue xxiv., 14. 144 THE PEOPLE OP ISRAEL. proved ineffectual. Meanwhile, in answer to the above objeo* tion, let the reader in the first place peruse the whole chapter of this " very old Jahvistic section ;" he will then see clearly how hugely the passage has been misapplied. Josue first recalls all the benefits God had bestowed on His people. The God of Israel chose Abrani, guided him, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac. And to Isaac He gave Jacob and Esau. And He sent Moses to set His people free from bondage, and brought them through the wilderness into the land of the Ammonites, delivered them from the hand of their enemies, and protected them against the foreign kings who fought against them. And He gave the Israelites a land in which they had not laboured, cities to dwell in which they had not built, and vineyards and oliveyards which they had not planted. After this striking introduction Josue proceeds : Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve Him with a perfect and most sincere heart, and put away strange gods, and so forth. Thus Jahve is the God to whom Israel owes its prosperity and well-being. It is not a question of deciding wkic/i God they will serve. Josue does not mean to leave them a free choice, but to deter them from Egyptian idolatry, which he explicitly traces to the pernicious influence exercised on them by the Egyptians. Thus, according to this very pa sage, Jahve had been the one God of Israel at least since the time of Abram. Their fathers had, indeed, adored strange gods in Chalda2a, but it was precisely for this reason that Abram was withdrawn from their midst. There is nothing, therefore, in this passage that militates against the consistent view of monotheism presented to us in the Old Testament history. There is but one passage that seems to tell the other way, where Jephte says to the king of the Ammonites : " Are not those things which thy god *• Chamos possesses, due to thee by right ? But what the Lord "our God hath obtained by conquest, shall be our possession."* This declaration, however, is rather a diplomatic speech than a * Judges XI., t4. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 145 confession of faith. Anyhow, it cannot thence be concluded that Jephte put Chamos on a par with Jahve."^ Nor, again, is idolatry proved to be the primitive religion of the Jews, by the lamentations-^ in which the prophets bewail their fall into idolatry in Egypt, and during their sojourn in the wilderness. It is quite gratuitous to say that these passages suppose that the worship of Jahve was not the original worship, or again, to say that nothing is more natural than to transfer a later religious condition to an earlier date. The very purpose of the rebukes of the prophets, is to hold up the transgressions to men's gaze; consequently they must imply that the duty of worshipping Jahve was known. Until a general habit of dating back can be proved from other quarters, the simple logical and historical interpretation is in full possession. We may then fairly retort : how then came the prophets to be brought on tiie scene at all * to chastise f those who had fallen away from Jalive ? Had there been no one in the time of the Judges to safeguard the Mosaic idea and maintain the continuity between Moses and Samuel, the religion of Moses could not have endured. "At the cose of the time of the "Judges, at all events, the Mosaic religion had gained so firm a " footing that a priest of Jahve like Heli, and a prophet like ** Samuel, were most influential personages."^^ It was an axiom at that time that "Jahve was the god of Israel, and Israel Jahve's peoi)le." It may be that he, who first made this com- parison, admitted the existence of other gods also, but it cannot be shown that he put them in the same rank as Jahve. Jahve ever towers above all others ; and this fact shows the slight esteem in which others were held.t Monotheism, how- ai Vigouroiix III., 29. Compare Ruth, I, 15; I. Kings, xxvl., if. 93 Ezech. XX, 5 seq ; xxxiil, 8. Amos, v. 95 seq. • Judges, VI. 8. t Judges, I. ; Kings, ii, 37. •3 Kayser, p. 53 seq. Compare Wellhausen Geschichtt Israels, I, 9. Kmtfulik, 1887, 1, 463 Finsler, Darttellung und Kritik der Atuicht fVellAausens, Zvirich, 1887. Also Baethgen, in Theol. Lit. Ztg, 1887. No. 4. t P8. xcvi, 5 ; xcvii, 7. 146 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. ever, by no means precludes a belief in spirits, both good and bad. How the Jewish people, in the midst of Egyptian corruption, could retain force and energy to hold on high the idea of the true God, and to hold fast to it through thick and thin, in spite of many relapses, is utterly inexplicable without some special religious and moral foundation. The ancient civilized nations around were fast degenerating ; but Israel came forth from the crucible of affliction, destroyed, indeed, as a nation, but chastened and purified in religion and morals. "Apostasy, affliction ; conversion, peace ;" may be a somewhat monotonous melody, but there is a natural and historical ring about it, especially when we consider the difficulties that beset the path of a people that walked in the worship of a spiritual God, Jahve. The canticle of Deborah,! which admittedly comes down from the earliest times, supplies historical evidence in suppoit o( this view. Even Wellhausen is forced to admit, not only that an ideal notion of God's sovereignty existed in the earliest times, but also that religion was applied as a motive power to justice and morality, and that in no nation was the deity's relation to the fortunes of the people so mighty, and withal so pure, as among the Israelites. Again, the whole history of the Semitic religions has shown us that the ancient religion of Israel could not have been of a superficial kind, and a mere means of worldly blessedness. The Babylonian and Assyrian penitential psalms are in themselves sufficient proof that these nations were deeply impressed with the consciousness of guilt and the need of redemption. Would the Jews belie their past history by inter- polating this moral ingredient in their religion at a late period ? Would they, in the days of the Syrians and Assyrians, have invested with moral conditions a covenant that had existed between Jahve and Israel before the time of Moses? If so,, what remains of the work of Moses, "who has acquired an THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. I47 " epoch-making position for all time" in establishing and spreading the knowledge of God in the world ? That Moses taught a pure ethical monotheism no one will deny. For him Jahve is not merely that which is, but He who is, the Creator. In order to prove this we need not appeal to any controverted historical testimonies. Those of the recognized prophets are sufficient. They call Moses Jahve's ambassador,* and the first prophet. f They do not say that Moses was the first to propagate belief in Jahve, but that God sent him to set free His people. They, too, proclaim that Jahve is the God who brought Israel from the land of Egypt. All they sang in His praise culminates in this great central fact which, consequently, was an ancient popular belief. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; the God of the covenant made with Abraham. Moses is not the founder of the religion of Israel, but the mediator of the covenant that God made with His people. True, according to ancient notions, this covenant is represented as a compact, but then it is a com- pact on the part of God who, in return for fidelity, con- descends to shower graces and blessings on His people and to assure them of prosperity and peace. God chose Israel in preference to all other peoples, and gave them the promised land. On their side the people, as God's children, swore allegiance and fidelity to their Father and Creator. This covenant was the very life-blood running through all the veins of Israel's history. Even negative criticism is constrained to do homage to the book of the Sinaitic covenant, and to concede that Moses was, in some sense, a lawgiver." Josephus invented the word theocracy j but the thing which it expresses came from Moses, as the intermediary between Jahve and His people. Why should such a covenant be deemed impossible ? It has recently transpired that the idea of a covenant prevailed among other people besides the Israelites. Baal-Berith used * Micheas vi. 4. t Osee xii. 14. 24 Kayser, p. 31, 39, t48 tHE t^EOPtE OF ISRAELi to be explained as Baal who guards covenants or treaties (Zevs 6pK€i,os) ; but it is now seen to mean him with whom a covenant has been concluded." If this fact were quite certain, it might occur to some one to urge that it tells against the reality of the covenant with Israel. But this is not the case. Apologists contend that coming supernatural facts have cast their shadows before in nature and in history; and this contention is generally admitted. It is not essential to a supernatural fact that nothing similar should be found elsewhere, or that it should not fit into its environment. But it is essential and necessary that there should be absolute authority and full certainty in regard to the way in which such facts are developed and represented. Although th :• idea of a covenant with the deity is not peculiar to tiie Israelites, still in Israel it appears in the most beautiful and perfect form, and is so far unique. It could not have been thus developed just before the captivity. Nor again could it be the outcome of mere natural reflection and development. How could Moses have gained the ear of the people, if he had appealed to a God other than Him in whom they believed? Moses had grasped the meaning of Jahve better than many of his contemporaries, and preserved a purer idea of God ; but Jahve was not a creation of Moses. Hence Moses was highly fitted to be an organ through which God could reveal His will. Again, it may be granted that this higher conception of God also rested on a strong natural foundation supplied from his education. Moses, holding the people's destiny in the hollow of his hand, is a figure that so overtops all else in Israel's history, that his position is intelligible only on the supposition that he held a high place in Egyptian society itself. Whatever may be the verdict in other respects on the esoteric teaching of the Egyptian priests, this at all events may now be confidently asserted : *' Here we can see naught but a downward move- " ment,— the knell of consciousness of the unity of God. Mono- ts Genesis, xiv. ij. Compare Baethgen Lc THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. I49 " theism must have preceded this.'''^ It has been already remarked that the oldest papyri and inscriptions, and the Book of the Dead are pregnant with pure moral conceptions. If these were known before Moses' time to Egyptian priests, what historical ground can there be for calling in question either Moses' idea of God ; or the promulgation of the Deca- logue; or the antiquity of the whole Mosaic legislation ? If a nobler moral teaching and a purer idea of God could obtain among the Egyptians from the first, how can we argue that the subsequent degeneracy of the Jews is a proof that they were not perfect monotheists in the beginning ? The Decalogue, then, contained nothing but what Moses was well able to enforce.-^ But if this be so on the one hand, may we not also say, on the other, that it is hardly likely that he wished to issue these simple, moral, and religious precepts as something quite new and distinct from what had hitherto been in force ? The precision with which they are formulated is new ; the divine authority on which they are based is new; and the renewal of the covenant is new. Revelation supposes nature. If, however, there be a disposition to appraise Egyptian influence at a lower figure, we shall have little objection to such a course. " Moses certainly did not convert Egyptian wisdom " into the religion of Israel. His ^ork was creative, and its " monotheism of an original kind.''^^ This statement, however, is true only inasmuch as the " prophet refined and purified the ''old idea of God current among the people," and was, perhaps, the " first to deliberately cast it in a distinctly monotheistic " mould." For, at that time, as Genesis tells us, the people were inclined to idolatry. When the Israelites had been in bondage for five hundred years, Moses built them up into a people, instilled into them an idea of God purer than any known to the ancients, and laid the foundations of a civilization which «6 Strau2«-Torney, Essays, 1879. See Naumann, Iff/Z/utusens Method*. Leipzig, i884, p. 155- 17 Kayser, p 44. Reius, p 9a •S Kayser, p. 31. 150 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. has gained them an unique position among all ancient na- tions. But this in no wise proves that all the patriarchs before Moses were enslaved to polytheism. " Should it " not rather be asked whether Moses did more than restore *' the old heritage and hopes of his race ! Above all, did ** he not receive from his forefathers faith in the unity of *' the God, who alone really is, and who created all *' things P"'^' Though the historical difficulties be many and great, it will always remain next to impossible for critics ** to really grasp the subsequent history of Israel, *' unless they are prepared to see here a first mighty im- ** pulse given to it." We are specially concerned not to underrate the " pre- supposed foundation" of the Mosaic legislation, since it forms the very starting-point in the theories of our oppo- nents. Their appeal lies precisely to the religion, moral- ity, and civilization of the ancients in general, and of the Egyptians in particular. If, at that time, Egyptian civili- zation had really attained such a commanding height, then the Mosaic legislation can no longer be challenged on d />n'ori grounds. Then, again, it is no argument against the fact of a written legislation to say that oral tradition was the main channel of knowledge in ancient times. Since it is well known that ancient legislation was regu- larly written down, it is surely foolhardy to contend, after the manner of a later literary age, that Moses could have done no good by writing books at a time when the Israel- ites were certainly unable to read.'" We possess Egyptian papyri three or four thousand years old. At a time when the art of writing was little in request among the Aryan tribes, it flourished in the valley of the Nile. " It is char- ** acteristic of the Egyptians that they felt a need, or, one ** might say, a passion for writing." Hence the allusions in the Pentateuch to the art of writing go to show that the Pentateuch is a reliable history. As Moses, who had re- ag Reuss, p, 76, 84. 30 Kayser, p, 31. Compare Vigouroux, IL, p. 502 ; Kzulcn, A ssyrien und Baiylonitn. 3 Ed. p. S42. Also his Einleitung^ IL, p. 170. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 15I ceived an Egyptian education, must have learnt how to write, so the Jews had also been brought up in the man- ners and customs of the Egyptians. Even supposing that the common people could not read, would a written law on this account be inconceivable or useless ? Why were there Egyptian colleges of priests with a high-priest at their head ? In like manner Moses had to provide a way and means by which the priests and leaders of the people had a rule to guide them in teaching and judging. Oral instruction was the rule, even at a later period, when the wiitten law was certainly in existence. Thus, after the Captivity, the Law and the Prophets were read aloud in the Jewish Synagogues. In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord told his hearers : " It was said to them of old, thou shalt not kill." We are, however, far from denying that, as time went on, monotheism and the Mosaic religion, mainly through the instrumentality of the prophets, were further refined and deepened. For it may be easily imagined that a peo- ple, whose education and morals were then at a low ebb, in comparing Jahve with the heathen gods, would make but a relative distinction between the two, — a mistake that often actually occurred. But there is no ground for as- suming that such a modified monotheism and no other had existed up to the time of the prophets. As we have already pointed out, the main work of the prophets,'' even the oldest, lay not so much in teaching the true God, as in punishing apostasy, and condemning the folly of forsaking the living God who made heaven and earth, to worship dumb idols, gods of wood and stone, and graven things, the works of men's hands. The prophets found in exist- ence the idea of the one true God, however poorly it may have then been developed. It is labour thrown away to grope about for missing links that are supposed to mark the transition from relative to absolute monotheism. How could mere reflection have helped them to pass from the notion of a national god to that of the God of all nations t 31 Amos, II. 4. Mich. v. 12, Os. xiii. 4. Is, x. 5-15. 1^2 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. The characteristic idea in the Jewish monotheism, viz., that Jahve created the world, and is guiding its destinies in order to save His people, is older than the prophets. It dominates the whole history of Israel. It came by revela- tion ; for no people ever soared to so high and pure a con- cept of creation. Even the golden age under David would not have brought it forth ; still less could such a sublime thought have emanated at the period when the Jewish kingdom was on the decline. All the original Semitic names for God made some reference to power and domin- ion ;" but this only shows what was fundamentally implied in them, — it gives us a principle and no more. Still, how great the difference between the Jewish and the ordinary Semitic idea of God ! Let the keenness and intelligence of the prophets be appraised at the highest figure, they could never have effected a sudden transformation to monotheism. They were powerful enough, indeed, to make the moral order of the world respected ; but only on the basis of an older revelation, and, we may add, on the strength of new revelations vouchsafed to themselves. Had they not received a divine mission, their open and heroic conduct, their enormous influence on the people's destinies, would ever remain a puzzle. Now and again some great men outrun history ; but here we are dealing with an extraordinary institution that had endured for cen- turies. The stubborn opposition Moses and the prophets encountered from the people, of itself shows that rev- elation," and not the mere enforcement of common law and custom, was in question. Again, Moses and the prophets form one connected chain. What is true of them, is true also of him. The prophets saw in vision a new prosperous kingdom rise up in the future, which was to restore the peace and happiness that reigned in the beginning. This ideal future, to which relig- ious history nowhere affords a parallel, must have been modelled on an ideal past. The more we emphasize the steady and gradual character of religious develop- 3a Kayser, p. 83, 93, zia. 33 Reuss, p. 78. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 1 53 ment, the more impossible it becomes to understand the future, predicted by the prophets, without reference to the past. Upon what could the prophets, especially the later ones, ground the hope of political and religious restoration, if not on the cove- nant which God, through Moses, had made with His people ? Moreover, the moral education ^^ which Israel underwent, was only the development of a principle already contained in germ in the Law. Later on we shall have occasion to consider the pedagogical side in the development of the history of revelation. Even during the exile, when the people were down-trodden and oppressed, and their leaders held captive in Babylon, hope did not die out. It seemed to be hoping against hope, but the people were really full to overflowing with faith in Jahve, who had chosen His people, and had hitherto been their leader, alike in prosperity and adversity. They were buoyed up by the promise that God gave to Moses. As soon as they were set free from captivity they proceeded to restore religion. A cen- tury later, Esdras and Nehemias continued the woik of restoring the old religion of the people. The influence wielded by these two reformers was doubtless immense ; but even they would have been powerless to introduce a radical change of principle. Such a change, though highly improbable, might be conceivable immediately on the return from captivity, because the historical connection with the temple had been broken. But a century later, it would have been utterly impossible to enforce regula- tions so closely bound up with social and religious life, as those contained in the priestly codex, had they not pre-existed in the main, and long before been regarded as law. The priestly element undoubtedly predominated among those who returned ; but the priestly demands would not have met with general assent, had they not rested on an historical and divine founda- tion. Now that the voice of the prophets was heard no more, it is easy to understand why the Jews, after the hardships they had undergone during their exile, should have clung more 14 Wellhausen, ProUgom. 3 ed. z886, p. st. FriU, p. taft. 154 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEU tenaciously to the letter of the Law ; but their acceptance of a new law, under such circumstances, would have been difficult to understand. The scribes may have interpreted the Law in a way favourable to themselves, but the Law and the Penta- teuch must have been in existence, and recognized by the people. It is straining historical criticism beyond all limits, to ask unreserved aj^sent to the proposition that, in a short time, the influence of the scribes had saturated all classes of society, the common people included, with such a knowledge and love of the law, that a universal opinion soon prevailed that Moses had given the law, and that the order of things had been undisturbed and unchanged since his days. Then, again, this law, though weighted with minute ordinances regarding every detail of life, was felt so little burdensome that '* many psalms of the " time sang in praise of the blessings it brought in its train, " and, without prejudice to genuine pity and earnest faith in "the God and guardian of Israel, testified to the deep-felt joy at " seeing the beautiful service of the temple restored." ^^ And now the course of religious history we have been pursu- ing has brought us face to face with the second special problem with which we have to deal, namely, the authorship of Deuter- onomy and the sacerdotal codex. The traditional doctrine of the Church, according to which the Pentateuch is substantially the work of Moses, is still in possession, even from a scientific point of view. Hence the first duty incumbent on the critical school is to show that the Church's title is historically unfoun- ded. They must demonstrate with certainty that the belief in a divine revelation made to Moses, which percolates the whole history of Israel and Christianity, is a rope of sand. Gener- ally, however, the critics bring the problem within still narrower limits. What is new in the post-Mosaic legislation, they say, is not to be looked for in the matter written, but in the form of writing, because the whole question reduces itself SS Kayser, p. i6s. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. I55 to fixing traditional custom." The critics do not deny- that a levitical tradition in regard to ritual existed as far back as the days of the kings ; they merely deny that these existed in writing in a sacred official codex. " This important distinction should not be overlooked." More- over, it must be admitted that Moses regulated and ordered the divine service, in its main features at least, such as it afterwards existed in Israel ; in other words, it was he who began to make some of the oldest and sacred customs the vehicle of purer and higher religious ideas. This limited view of the critics removes one stumbling- block at least from our path. But this is not enough. It is equally indispensable to the traditional theory that the law of Moses be acknowledged as of divine origin. And yet, even apart from this, it would surely be surprising if people like the Jews, who held so fast to tradition, could have been gulled into believing that the book just com- posed by their scribes, had actually been written long ago by Moses. How a law, written subsequently, should have been received as the law of INIoses, cannot be explained either psychologically or historically, unless there existed a tradition to the effect that Moses had written down this Law. For Moses lived in historic times, in the full blaze of Egyptian civilization. In whatever light we may view the references to the Law, found in other books of the Old Testament, they certainly leave the impression that all subsequent written legislation had been built upon the Law. The first chapters of Deuteronomy quite bear out the supposition that the second law (Deuteronomy) is based on the Mosaic Law. The difference in formulating thQ Ten Commandments is no argument to the contrary, any more than different accounts of the same event, given by different or even the same authors, militate against the authenticity of their work. It tells neither against the writing of the Commandments, nor against the two Reuss, p. 76, 80. Wellhausen, Prolegomena^ p. 423. On the other side, see Baetk* gen, Theol. Liter. Ztg. 1887, No. 4. 156 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. Stone tables of the Law. It is precisely the fact that these tables were kept secret, which caused the knowledge of the Decalogue to depend on oral tradition. The prophets wrote down their revelations, and bore witness to the existence of good and able writers. At that time, again, judicial sentences were committed to writing ;* learned explanations and com- mentaries of the Law were in request,! which may be said to have prepared the way for the later Pharisaical school of inter- preters. J Is it credible that, in the days of the prophets, the old Law alone was unwritten, and handed down merely by word of mouth? Dillmann thinks it the most natural thing in the world to suppose that the ancient priests of the Central Sanctuary com- mitted their Thoroth (laws) to writing. It is absurd, he says, to suppose that the laws concerning the priests and divine service were first committed to writing during the Babylonian captivity, when no divine service was held at all. To this Wellhausen replies : " Absurd it may be, yet true. That " high priests succeeded kings, rabbis, and the prophets, was "not progress, yet a fact. It is supposed that traditional "practices occasionally happen, as a matter of fact, to be '* written down, only when they are in danger of dying out ; and " that books are, so to speak, as one returning from the dead." It is supposed ! occasionally ! ! to happen ! ! ! But we know for a certain fact that laws and ordinances regarding divine service were written down in early times. On Wellhausen's principle, the sacrificial tables recently discovered at Carthage and Mar- seilles (which are extracts from more comprehensive tables) might have been drawn up after the destruction of Carthage. Special interest attaches to these tables, because their contents exhibit many points of resemblance with the sacrificial legislation of the Old Testament. "The resemblance," says Bathgen, " between the sacrificial tables of Marseilles and Leviticus is most " striking. Both enumerate the victims in the same order : • Isaiu X. I. t Ibid, xxviii. 10, 13. Jeremias, viil. S. % Os«c ▼,<;▼!. <• Am«s >iii. is : >v. 5 Isaias Ixr, § THE PEOPLfi OF ISRAEL. 157 ** fat and lean kine, birds, fruits. The transcendent importance ** attached to the holocaust in A (primitive document) which "according to Wellhausen is a later innovation, finds here an " exact counterpart; for the first place on the Marseilles table is " assigned to the Phoenician ko/a/, which answers to the Hebrew " o/a/i. That the varying practice in regard to the priest's fees " was due to local differences, is clear from the fact that, accord- *' ing to the Marseilles table, the priests were paid in money and ** kind, whereas on the first Carthaginian table (which in other " respects resembles that of Marseilles) money is not mentioned " except in sacrifices of winged creatures ; but the hide of the *' slaughtered beast became the priest's perquisite, as in Leviti- " cus VII. 8. Still more important than these details is, in my " opinion, the fact that thsre existed in Carthage, for centuries " before its destruction, written sacrificial ordinances closely " resembling those of the Hebrews. It is a thoroughly modern /'idea that the technicalities of sacrifices were viewed with " utter indifference in ancient times ; it was precisely what the *' priests most jealously guarded. These technicalities were " first orally transmitted, then written down ; but the ancientg ** were never so unpractical as not to write down their laws " until they had fallen into disuse. Priests were the first to " learn the art of writing, and they naturally employed their •• science to further what lay next to their hearts ; and the priests " of Israel were no exception to the rule " Even the critical school allow that something was written in early times, although the sacerdotal codex vas not. The Jeho- vistic book is assigned to the time ot" Mauasses, or about the eighth century, and from the part played by Joseph it is sup- posed to have been composed in Israel. But if so, how came Juda to have adopted it? its adoption by Juda is intelligible on onr supposition only that it originated before the kingdom was divided. Nor is this supposition unlikely. After all, we cannot say that in Solomon's reign literature had no care or concern with ancient history. t^S THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. We learn from the historical books that there were annals of the kingdom. But, even under David and Solomon, the tribes were not so closely united, that such a history of the patriarchs could have been composed, unless earlier documents had been to hand. Its antiquity is also proved from the parallel period in Egyptian history. We must therefore go further back for the date of its composition. The discovery of ancient Epigraphy has enabled us to check the sacred books, by show- ing that they faithfully depicted the manners and customs of the times.^7 Such fidelity would be well-nigh impossible had they not been written at a very early period, almost contempo- raneously with the events they describe. A certain section of the critical school make a similar concession in regard to the books of the covenant (Exodus xx-xxiv.), " Israel's most ancient codex," as Reuss calls it ; and while Reuss ascribes it to Josa- phat, Dillmann sets it down as not later than Samuel. But, it may be asked, is not the traditional view contradicted by the clear testimonies of Holy Scripture itself ? That there are difficulties of detail arrayed against it, no one will deny ; but, on the other hand, any one who, w'th an unbiassed mind, weighs the evidence, will see that these difficulties are not half so great as those which the critics must encounter, who attempt to explain the history of Israel by the personality of Moses alone, — without the Law, and without divine guidance. The latter difficulty is one of principle, the former only one of detail. Let us begin by examining the two passages that may be regarded as the landmarks of the new hypothesis. In the 22nd chapter of the Fourth Book of Kings it is related that the pious King Josias (640609), ordered the Temple, neglected under Manasses, to be restored. " And " Helcias the high priest said to Saphan the scribe : I have " found the Book of the Law in the house of the Lord : and " Helcias gave the book to Saphan, and he read it. . . . And " Saphan the scribe told the king, saying : Helcias the priest 37 Vigouroux, iv. y THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 159 " hath delivered to me a book." Then the king ordered the Lord to be consulted for him, and for the people, and for all Juda, concerning the words of this book which is found : " for " the great wrath of the Lord is kindled against us, because " our fathers have not hearkened to the words of this book, to " do all that is written for us." The prophetess Holda being consuJted, first foretells the punishment of the Lord on the disobedience of the people. But to the King of Juda she is bidden to say : " Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel : " Forasmuch as thou hast heard the words of the book, and " thy heart hath been moved to fear, and thou hast humbled " ihyself before the Lord, hearing the words against this place, " and the inhabitants thereof. ... I also have heard thee, " saith the Lord." Then the king read before the assembled people all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the Lord, and he made a covenant with the Lord, and the people agreed to be faithful to Him, and to the covenant. And the king commanded them to cast out of the temple all vessels that had been made for idols, and he banished idols from Jerusalem, and destroyed the sooth- sayers, and forbade sacrifice to be offered upon the high places. Then the king commanded all the people : " Keep the phase to " the Lord your God, according as it is written in the book of ** this covenant. Now there was no such phase kept from the "days of the judges, who judged Israel, nor in all the days of "the kings of Israel, and of the kings of Juda."* As the prophet Jcremias was exercising his office and declaim- ing vigorously against idolatry in tlie time of Josias, it is conjectured that he had a share, not only in the work of restoration effected by Josias, but also in the renewal of the covenant. The folloNving passage in particular is quoted to show that the ceremonial law originated in his time : " For I "spoke not to your fathers, and I commanded them not, in " the day that 1 brought them out of the land of Egypt, con- * IV. Kings XXIII. aa. l6o THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. "cerning the matter of burnt offerings and sacrifices. But ** this thing I commanded them saying : Hearken to my voice, "and I will be your God, and you shall be my people : and *' walk ye in all the way, that I have commanded you, that it "may be well with you."* A further proof of this new theory is derived from the disparaging judgments passed by other prophets on the sacri- fices. While inveighing against the confusion of outward worship with inward religion, they acknowledge that in their time worship was carried out with great zeal and splendour, and was held in the highest esteem, but they trace it back not to Moses or Jahve, but simply to the belief that Jahve, like other gods, must be worshipped with sacrifice, gifts, and prayer. They make no mention of a command given by Jahve to offer these sacrifices. For Amos says : " Come ye to Bethel, and " do wickedly ; to Galgal, and multiply transgressions ; and " bring in the morning your victims, your tithes in three days : " for so ye would do, O children of Israel."* *' I hate, I have •' rejected your festivities ; and I will not receive the odour of " your assemblies. And if you offer me holocausts, and your " gifts, I will not receive them : neither will I regard the vows ** of your fat beasts. . . . Did you offer victims and sacrifices ** to me in the desert for forty years, O house of Israel ? " f In like manner Osee and Isaias^^ inveigh against the practice of sacrifice and the neglect of the Thorah, which would impart to them the knowledge of God, and lead them to a truly religious life. " Shall I offer holocausts to him, and calves of a year " old ? . . . I will show thee, O man, what is good, and what " the Lord requireth of thee : verily to do judgment, and to "do mercy, and to walk solicitous with thy God."|| One of the most important duties of the prophets, it would seem, was • Jeretnias vii. 32-23. t Amos IV., 4. J Amos V. 31. R Micheas, vi. 6. 38 Osee iv. 6, seq. ; viii. 11 ; Is. I. to; il. 3 ; v. 24 ; vHl. i«, so ; xxx. 9. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. l6l to separate religion from worship. " God has no pleasure tn sacrifices" (Os. vi., 6.) Let us begin by taking an exact survey of the situation. That Israel was set free from the bondage of Egypt is allowed on all hands. For this the proofs are many and overwhelming. It is attested by Joel, Amos, Isaias, Osee, Micheas, Judges, and Samuel,^^ whose authority is beyond question. Again, six out of the fourteen oldest laws have reference to the Exodus.* Deborah's ancient canticle sings the glories of the departure from Sinai, f Turn where we will in the Bible, whether to its prose or poetry, to the historical or prophetical books, the Exodus and the Conquest stand forth as luminous facts. Most of its details are ingrained in popular belief. It is furthermore conceded that the people were led through the wilderness, and that God gave them a Thorah, For Moses appears throughout the Old Testament as the sole mediator of the Covenant,*^ and where there is question of a written law, no name save that of Moses is mentioned as its author. Again, it is admitted that gifts and sacrifices were offered to Jahve long before the Book of the Law was published by Josias. But what is denied is, that the march through the wilderness allowed time and oppor- tunity for the Thorah to be fixed by writing ; that the Thorah contained any regulations for worship ; that the worship of God was limited to one central place. Both the historical and prophetical books bear witness, it is alleged, that sacrifices in the high places were lawful till the reign of Josias ; all that was forbidden was to offer them to strange gods, as a reference to the history of Elias will shew. From Solomon to Josias, we are told, sanctuaries were erected in the high places, even in Jerusalem itself, to sundry strange gods. And as regards the priesthood, it was not chosen exclusively from the tribe of Levi, • Exodus XV. ; Numbers XV. 21 ; Deut. XXXI. 33 ; Josue x. 31 t Judges V. 4. 39 Compare Annales de Philos. chrftienne, Paris. 1887, p. 113 seq, 40 Josue iv. 14; XI. 20 , Judges iii. 4; Kings xxi. 7 : Micheas ri. 4. J I. Kinga XII. 6, 8. See Hancbcrg, I.e., p. 188. 1 62 THE PEOPLE OE iSRAEU but each place, sometimes each house, had its own laws and priest. Such, for instance, were appointed to minister at the old Canaanite sanctuaries, which the Jews kept up. The priests of Jerusalem under David and Solomon were creatures of the Court, and figured side by side with the priests of the high places. Not till the reign of Josias were these deposed, and confined to Jerusalem. But there was as yet no distinction between priests and levites. The distinction arose only when the priests at Jerusalem refused to acknowledge the priests of the high places as their equals in rank, and tried to restrict them to the lower services of the temple. Thus the question about Deuteronomy is intimately connected with that of the sacer- dotal codex. The two questions dovetail one into the other. We have thought it expedient to discuss the general points of contact firjrt, and then show in what respects the two specifically differ. To confront these theories with testimonies from the Books of Kings * is to no purpose, as the historical value of these books is itself in dispute. Still in common with the Books of Samuel, Josue and Judges, the Books of Kings (the authorship of which is often ascribed to Jeremias) start with the assump- tion that Israel's worship was instituted by Moses. At this point the critics scent an interpolation. A later compiler, they say, borrowing from Deuteronomy and the priestly codex, so re-arranged the historical books that, by an anachronism, a subsequent stage of development is shifted t/ack to the begin- ning, and made the starting-poiat. Verily a violent hypothesis, especially when we bear in mind that the continuity of the historic records is thus broken, by a pre-conceived opinion and a mere hypothesis. And this in the teeth of the fact, that it is precisely the Fourth Book of Kings which has received signal confirmation from the inscription of Mesa (ninth century.) The agreement between the two documents as to events, • That i$, the III and IV. books of Kings. The Author quotes I. and II. Books •• I and II Books of Samuel, which, as he has said above, are not called in que&tioa. Tr. tHE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL, 1 63 geographical data, and even the style of writing, is most striking.*^ The hypothesis, however, fails to remove the main difficulty. For it is certain that an elaborate sacrificial ceremonial existed before Josias, and it neither is nor can be proved that he was the first to centralize the worship. We have no wish to underrate the efforts made by Hiskiah (Ezechias 727-698) in this direction. But divine worship received a permanent fixed form under David. In his last will he prescribed that the book of Moses should be honoured by the king as the fount of doctrine, morals, and law. And, although no great weight is nowadays attached to the Samaritan Pentateuch,*^ it takes for granted that a codex was even then in existence. Anyhow, the building of Solomon's temple gave such a mighty impulse to centralization, that Josias' enactment can only be regarded as a restoration, not an innovation. And if Solomon is represented as having been persuaded by his wives to espouse the cause of idolatry, does it follow that it is but a highly coloured account of the legality of worship in the high places ? Even in III. Kings III. 2, nothing is chronicled beyond the bare fact that sacrifices were offered on the heights before the temple was built. Still less trustworthy is the assertion that the sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan were recognized as legitimate, and that wor- ship on the heights was then perfectly allowable. It is, indeed, quite true that the prophets, even Elias and Eliseus, seemed satisfied if the sacrifices were offered to Jahve ; but the prophets were obliged to confine their efforts within the limits of practical possibility. Still they saw reason for strongly denouncing Juda's conduct and worship. Amos, Osee, and Isaias inveighed bitterly against the deeply-rooted practice of worshipping in the high places, which they regarded as most pernicious. But it by no means follows that it had ever been 41 Compare Smend and Socin, Die Inschri/t des K'oeni^^s Mesa VOH Mo»biU Freiburg 1886 CoHtroverse, iSS;, p 448 seq. Vigouroux v, 45 se<|. 4* Uaneberg, p 184, 19a 164 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. legitimate. Does it follow from their denunciation of idol- atry, or again, from their threatenings of God's punish- ment for the sins of the people, that these sins were previ- ously permitted ? On the attempts made by the Jerusalem priests to bring about centralization we can speak with less certainty, as they, unlike the prophets, have left no writ- ings ; but the building of the temple is itself conclusive proof that the current was gliding towards local union. But this unity of worship may be traced still further back. It was already symbolized by the ark of the cove- nant in which Jahve abode. In war, this brought defeat to the Philistines, and victory to the Jews. The Philis- tines could not keep it in their possession. David, indeed, first lodged it for three months in Obededom's house ; but his action was dictated, not by a superstitious motive en- gendered by the misfortunes that had just followed in its train, but by prudence and a calculating shrewdness. Some there are who, contrary to the common opinion, hold that the tabernacle was but a copy of the temple, and a mere device for projecting to the very beginning of his- tory the unity of worship inaugurated with the building of the temple. Who, then, was the genius that conceived this masterly idea ? What end had he in view ? Was it, perchance, the outcome of the law of " natural develop- ment," according to which the whole Jewish religion is said to have grown and expanded ? In that case the un- pretentious tent should have been the forerunner of the magnificent temple. One fails to see how development could have been furthered by a mere abstraction, however wonderfully conceived and drawn down to the minutest details ; or how it could have satisfied later needs and de- sires for dating the worship further back. Would it not be better to suppose that there existed in early times a sanctuary analogous to the temple ? But this is impossi- ble. Without the tabernacle, the sanctuary in Silo remains an enigma. The one natural and therefore sure explana- tion is that the tabernacle was both planned and executed at the time when the Israelites first became a people. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 165 " According to all sound principles of criticism, the exist- " ence of the tabernacle in the days of Moses, which it is " the fashion to brand as a fiction hatched after the captiv- " ity, is one of the most certain of facts, the denial of which " would lead to most unnatural suppositions."" " More- *' over, we should then expect the author's description to "exhibit clearer evidence that he had the temple before " his eyes, than is afforded by the very doubtful passages " that are alleged."** Even Wellhausen is constrained to admit that the ark without the tent is older than, and sug- gested the idea and form of, the tabernacle. Furthermore, it is urged that in Leviticus xvii. the Israelites were com- manded to do their slaughtering in front of the tabernacle, whereas Deuteronomy xii. left them free in this respect. From this it is argued that the command in Leviticus marks a reaction against the custom of domestic slaughter- ing which, as involving a domestic ritual and service, Deu- teronomy supposes. Is it not far likelier that a distinction was subsequently drawn between the slaughtering and the sacrifice of victims ? and that the slaughtering at home was permitted because it was found to be alike unnecessary and impossible both to slaughter and to sacrifice in the same place ? The history of the Paschal lamb furnishes a parallel case. Here it was found necessary to allow the lamb to be slain privately. Sacrifices outside the temple were long considered as offered to demons. This view, far from being new, is precisely that taken by the later prophets before the captivity. Lastly, if the contention is set up that Leviticus xvii. is part of a special legislation which, though at variance with itself in many respects, especially in the prohibition of pro- fane slaughter, was incorporated in the sacerdotal codex, then the balance of probability wholly inclines to the priority of Leviticus. It is almost superfluous to say that we do not expect in Semitic historians and sacred writers 4.1 Orelli, in Herzogs Real-Encyclop., vii., 173. Compare Delitzsch, Pentateuch-Krit. Studietiy in Zeitschr./iir Kirchl. Wissenscha/t, 1880, p. 57 seq. Selbst, in Kath- oltk, 1887, L, p. 474. 44 Riehm, Biil. h^'orterbuch, IL, 1567. Compare Os. ix. 6. I. Kings ii. *2 ; IV. Kings viii. 4. l66 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. the precision and critical acumen required of historians in the 19th century. Semitic writers loved repetitions with variations ; apparent contradictions would hardly strike them, and in the best of faith they would now and again insert additions from later sources, in order to explain and illustrate their story. *** In the days of the Judges we grant that the several tribes of Israel, as they were wanting in external organization, were not completely united. Nevertheless there were always some who bore about in their breasts the idea of the Covenant ; who worshipped Jahve, united the scat- tered tribes against the common foe, and inspirited them for battle. Who would expect to find worship as neatly centralized in that stormy age as in later times ? Nor, again, does the absence of perfect union prove the absence of a common religious legislation. The machinery of legisla- tion could not be got into full working order before the country had been in great part conquered. Even then it would have failed of its full effect had not the Jews been all along persuaded that the legislation had been given them by God Himself for their sojourn in Canaan. That a man Moses existed, is admitted as an undoubted fact even by the modern critical school, though his name is but seldom mentioned in the older documents.*" For, they argue, there is no difficulty in understanding how his name and person were gradually brought home to the people, chiefly through the instrumentality of the prophets. But what is true of his person may also be ap- plied to his work. ** Those who continued a work, at once " so genial, so forcible, and so epoch-making, had no need ** to disown its author, or to ignore his name. For to that " name a grateful tradition had linked every thing great " and useful that the power of one world-subduing idea " had accomplished and was still to accomplish in religion, ** state and society." 45 Haneberg, p. 193, Kaulen, 11, 164. 46 In Pre-deuteronomical time only. Mich. vi. 4. Compare, Judges I. 16. ao ; iii. 4 J iv. ii. I. Kings xii. 6. 8. Reuss, p. 69. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 1 67 For this reason, the narrative in the Book of Kings, concern- ing the legislation of Josias, might, at first blush, cause some surprise. But it will seem less strange, when we bear in mind that forty years of idolatry under Manasses preceded the reign of Josias. In such a lengthened period the book of the Law, here- tofore preserved in the temple* but accessible only to the priests, might easily have been forgotten. The books of Moses were never intended for the people ; they were entrusted to the clergy, to be used by them as evidence against the sins of the people. The people were enjoined to hear^ not to read them ; and if they had not been read aloud for many years, the memory of them, in a later generation, would be but faint and dim. And yet, even then, the people must have known that they existed. Otherwise Josias would have been obliged to appeal to a book, not recently discovered, but given there and then by God. In either case his assertion, unless l)acked up by further proof, would have found little credence. Tne more Josias in- terfered with existing religious rites, especially as regards worship on the high places, the more violent would have been the torrent of opposition, and a mere forgery would have been swallowed up in the angry flood. The reference to the law written in the heart,! is not meant to indicate its origin, but the ease with which it can be fulfilled. The hypothesis of a " pious fraud " is still less admissible, when the prophet Jeremias' name is closely associated there- with. The event happened at a time when he had received his prophetic mission. He was connected with those who took part in the promulgation, and he pledged his authority for the Pentateuch as the law-book which God gave through Moses. What he, in common with other prophets, says about the sacri- fices of the time,by no means implies that Moses gave no orders whatever for sacrifice. On the contrary,Jeremias is, in a manner, the connecting link between the reforms of Josias, and those • Deut. XXXI. S4. t Ibid XXX. U— 14. 1 68 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. instituted by Hiskiah (Ezechias)>7 " If," as Pascal says, " the " law and the sacrifices are the truth, they will necessarily please " and not displease God. If they are figures, they must both " please and displease Him ; and this is the case throughout ** Holy Scripture. Therefore they are figures."*^ In the light of this distinction, the discourses, otherwise self-contradictory and self-stultifying, are made luminous. Religion threatened to degenerate daily more and more into formalism. And as the people so often fell a prey to idolatry, the prophets had of necessity to shoot their arrows chiefly at the outward worship, which was but the means to an end. Thus they hoped to give prominence again to the religious and moral side of the Law. Hence it came to pass that the Thorah, which contains the manifestation of God's will, and the rule of life, was with them a matter of life and death. As long as the spirit of God was still in Israel, ever impelling the prophets to proclaim aloud His chastisements, ors.1 direction seemed in their eyes far more important than a reference to the letter of the law. The "organs" of oral instruction (Thorah*), which even Wellhausen must admit to have existed in the earliest times, were also in- dispensable for the written Thorah. Again, it is, to say the least, very probable that the Exodus and the legislation on Sinai*^ are the nucleus of the book of Osee the chief scope of which is to threaten the people with the punishments hanging over their heads for having fallen away from the Law. Osee is not merely familiar with the con- tents of the Pentateuch, but he and it agree in certain characteristic expressions. Until, therefore, the Pentateuch is proved to be dependent on the prophets, the traditional view must remain in possession — that the prophets, despite their con- 47 Compare III Kinjfs xv. la s«q. xxii. i scq. Katholik 1887, 1. 47a. Haneberc, p. 184 4I PtHsSei xiii, 2. 4f II. 4. 10; iy. 6 ; ix 10. 15, xi. i ; xii, 10 ; xiii; 4! 5; Coaipare Scholz, Commtntar turn Buche Nastas, Wurzburg 1882, p. xxi. and 108; Katholik, p. 458 •W»e Hebrew word "Thorah," derived, according to Gtseniui Ixam. Jarah, jacere, iMAX«tf0ai and in Hiphil institMere, docere, originally meant oral instruction, baching. The " Sepher Thorab" is the book containing the instructioas. Tr. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. l69 demnations of sacrifice, were acquainted with the text of the Law. They refer to the Law as something well known, and even as written.* To construe the prophet's appeal to the written Thorah as meaning " the words of my in- struction" is to give an arbitrary twist to the words, and to wrench them violently from the context. Missa [Massa?) not TJiorah is the name given to a prophetic utterance, f Even if we suppose that the passages quoted from IsaiasJ are prophetic and not sacerdotal instructions, they only prove that the spirit of the Thorah stands on a higher alti- tude than external worship,'^" not that the sacerdotal codex is irreconcilable with the Thorah of i. lo. Nor does Michixas exclude sacrifices from the Thorah ; rather he in- sists that they are not the chief, or the only thing. Well- hausen rejects the clear traces of the Pentateuch in the most ancient prophetic books with the simple remark : " These passages will make no impression on any one who is convinced that PC is the more recent of the two !" Truly a most convenient mode of procedure ! And yet the faintest signs of later composition are expected to make a telling impression on defenders of the Pentateuch ! And now the way is somewhat cleared for an explana- tion of the passage in Jeremias. According to Exodus xix. — xxiv., the decalogue was promulgated, and accepted by the people, on Mount Sinai (xxiv. 3). Then followed the promulgation of the order of divine service. Thus not sacrifice, but the moral law holds the first and chief place in the legislation. The scope of an author must always be taken into account, and in this case it is unmistakable. S. Paul's utterances on the Law may, without strain, be drawn out in a perfect parallel. Again, his words in the ist Epistle to the Corinthians, on the relations that subsist between the gifts and the theological virtues, charity above all, form an instructive 50 Knabenbauer, Erkldrung des Proph. Isaias, Freiburg, 1881, p. 49 seq. * 0seeVIILi2. t Ibid. viii. 10. X Is. I. 10. II. 3 ; V. 24 ; viii. 16. ao ; xxx. 9. I70 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. analogy. If this suggestion be demurred to, there still remains the alternative of narrowing the " day of the Exodus " to the events related in Exodus iv. 30. 31, and xix. 5, where the whole people promised, as they were bidden, to obey Jahve.^^ There is no gainsaying the fact that the actual institution of sacrifice goes back to the days of Moses. The theory, that sacrificial worship rested on tradition alone, is beset with as many difficulties as the opposite theory that it rested on written iegislation. In like manner, the fact of the priests of the high places being put on an equal footing with the Jerusalem priests is no proof that the distinction between priests and levites was a later creation. If priests are often called levites, their superi- ority to levites in the strict sense, though not emphasized, is not thereby denied. For the chief object in view, was to remind the laity of their duty to the clergy, and this purpose was best served by giving the whole hierarchy one common name. In any case, when the temple was built, provision had to be made for the lower offices. The priests of the high places being of the tribe of Levi, ranked as priests when transferred to Jerusalem. On the death of Josias they did not return to the high places, but amalgamated with the Jerusalem priests in a national priestly tribe of Levi. Such an intrusion would have been resisted, had not birth given a prescriptive right thereto. ^^ The name Levi also occurs in Genesis xxxiv ; * not, be it noted, as a name of office, but as a tribal or proper name. Now, since Wellhausen traces the leading features in the history of the patriarchs to the land of Ephraim, he is bound in consistency to explain Levi in the above passage to mean the tribe of Levi. Therefore the levites are prior to Josias. The priest of Ephraim, mentioned in Judges xvii. 13, proves nothing to the contrary, for, as the tribe of Levi was scattered all over the 51 Scho\z, J ertmias, p. 113. S* Naumann, p. 39. Haneberg, p. 199. * Se« xlix. 5. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. I7I country, there is nothing unhkely in his statement that he belonged to that tribe. Anyhow, the tribe of Levi is thus shewn to be one of the oldest. Of this tribe were Moses and Aaron; and in the time of the Judges some priests were levites.* Hence there is no prima facte improbability in the custom, in vogue among other nations, of one special tribe or family inheriting the right to perform public acts of worship. The " popular idea that Moses chose the tribe of Levi may " bristle with difficulties. Maybe also it is not transparently "clear. Nay it may even be granted that the original motive " in setting it apart, and its first fortunes in connection there- " with are, and perhaps always will be, shrouded in obscurity."^^ The violent encroachments of kings could not tamper with the institution as such. Distinct cities could not, indeed, have been actually set apart for priests and levites before the con- quest of the country ; this, however, does not preclude a previous plan of settlement. From the foregoing pages it is clear that the sacerdotal code, that is the Mosaic ritualistic legislation properly so-called, must be more ancient than Deuteronomy. For Deuteronomy is based on it, and takes it for granted ; and if, in parts, it is more concise, more definite, and more detailed, it need not therefore be later than Deuteronomy. This would only show that Deuteronomy is an adaptation to the circumstances immediately antecedent to the entrance into the promised land.^"* This ex- planation should surely commend itself to those who relegate Deuteronomy to the days of Josias; but it is likewise quite con- sistent with Mosaic authorship,- provided that the forty years sojourn in the wilderness, which critics, who scoff at the idea of God guidini; and protecting the people, reject on general and insufficient grounds, be maintained intact; and that Deuteronomy be assigi'ed to the latter end of this period. Here and there, 53 Reuss, p 63, 80 54 Haneherc:, p. 187 Compare v. gr. LevJL rrii. 3 — 9 with Deut. xi. 31 seq ; xiL *—%\ xiii— xvi, f Compare I Kings, 11. 37 ; vi. 4. 172 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. doubtless, the finger of a later writer is discernible. Thus, for instance, many enactments made in Leviticus for the sojourn in the wilderness, e.g.^ sacrifices in front of the tabernacle, are repealed in Deuteronomy, as a precaution against idolatry. In Canaan it was found necessary to forbid sacrifices on the high places. The command in Deuteronomy to offer sacrifices in the place that the Lord shall choose, is not to be taken in an exclusive sense, as, for special reasons, sacrifice might be offered elsewhere. Prophets and priests (Heliopolis) were not unacquainted with dispensations from the law." In like manner in the hypothesis concerning P, we find the key-note in one single passage of the Old Testament. In the eighth chapter of Nehemias (Esdras n.) we read that all the people were gathered together as one man to the street which is before the water-gate, and they spoke to Esdras the scribe, to bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had commanded to Israel. Then Esdras the priest brought the law before the multitude of men and women, and read it plainly and distinctly. And all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law. And on the second day the chiefs of the families of all the peo- ple, the priests and the levites were gathered together to Esdras the scribe, that he should interpret to them the words of the law. And they found written in the law, that the law had commanded by the hand of Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in tabernacles on the feast, in the seventh month. And they did accordingly. Again the ninth chapter contains an epitome of sacred history, which concludes with the words : ** And because of all this '* we ourselves make a covenant, and write it, and our '* princes, our levites, and our priests sign it." Does not this detailed history of the legislation of Esdras leave the impression that the Mosaic law, and the observance of feasts and religious rites, were then promulgated for the first time ? From the earliest times Jews and Christians have 55 Vigouroux, Controverse, 1887. Juillet, p. 321 seq. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. jj^ argued therefrom ihat Esdras, was inspired to compose anew the law that had been buried in the ruins of their city. Hence the school of Antioch credited him with Theopticustia}^ The Tews, on the other hand, thought him inspired in all his own writings, as well as in regard to the twenty-four Canonical Scriptures. But the impression thus created is only transient. A close ex- amination of the historical circumstances warns us to seek else- where a key to the narrative. Till now it had not been possible to weld into one community the remnant that returned from captivity and the Jews that had remained at home, or to restore the regular order of divine service. What then, if the chronicler, in the exuberance of his joy, extolled as a new creation the res- toration brought to a happy issue by Esdras and Nehemias ? Vv'hat, if the people shed tears of joy and sorrow, on seeing a peaceful revival of old memories ? It cannot surely be argued that the people had therefore never heard the law before, because in that case a long gradual preparation would have been necessary. For a people, that had experienced the hardships of exile, could Lot be expected to be enthusiastic in accepting radical changes on the strength of the highest authority in Israel, to wit Moses, without enquiring into the genuineness of the appeal. That iame people, described in the Old Testament as rough, sensual and stiffnecked, whose trust in Jahve had hardly saved them from annihilation, would not have allowed to be thrust on them an exalted and pure religion that rigorously enjoined holiness in life and trust in Jahve. Much less would they have sub- mitted to a law that laid so heavy a yoke on them. Finally, how comes it, that all the Jews, scattered as they were over the whole land and over foreign countries too, were induced to accept it? If Wellhausen^7 jg at liberty to think that the establishment of the Mosaic theocracy after the captivity, was due to an " ever memorable energy," we are surely within our right in conceiving that energy to have emanated from the renewal of an ancient 56 Klhii, TkeoiiorvoH. MopsnestiauHiiJ uniliui A/ricanus. Freiburg i83<^ p 8a 57 Prolegomena, p. <4i. 174 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEU and venerable Covenant. It was the energy of faith, and of an unquenchable hope. But for the belief in an ancient legis- lation, Esdras and Nehemias could ne\er have succeeded in their most difficult and most important task of bringing the Jewish community^^ to receive the Pentateuch as their code of laws. A clumsy forgery would lack the prestige of antiquity, and fail to curb and bridle "the heart's wild desires." The Jew- ish scribes might give the old law a new status ; they could not have invented a new law.^^ Tiie critics, indeed, assume a sort of preparation during t le Captivity, and make Ezechiel figure as the pioneer of the new movement. To him they also ascribe the so-called law of holiness.* Chapters xl-xlviii. of Ezechiel, they cay, give the clue to the Old Testament. But they thereby concede that the solemn change under Esdras in 444 was not, strictly speaking, an innovation. Rather it gave a full and final sanction to a previously existing practice, with a view to rendering the Jewish religion impregnable against all the assaults of a corrupt heathenism. The chapters in Ezechiel supply no clue whatever to the formation of P. On the contrary, both Ezechiel and the later prophets take for granted that Moses formed the entire law. To overthrow a tradition, strongly entrenched behind the prescriptive rights of centuries, the new theory needs to be armed to the teeth with unassailable proofs. Wellhausen strives to fortify his position with the following arguments : i — The Place of Worship. The historical and prophetical books make no mention of one Hebrew sanctuary in ancient times, to the exclu >ion of all others. The Jehovist (JE) sanctions a plurality of altars; while Deuteronomy (D) exacts local unity in divine worship, and the priestly code (P) taking this unity for granted, makes it date back, by means of the ark of the covenant, to primitive times. 58 p. 169. Fritz., p. 188. 59 Ryssel, Die Anfdnge derjUdischen SchriftgtUhrsamkiit^ in Studien u. Kritik. 1887 No. I. * Levit. xvii'XXVI. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 1 75 3 — Sacrifices, According to P, ceremonial is the chief object of the Mosaic legislation, but according to JE it ia pre-Mosaic. P mainly considers hmv worship was to be performed, while JE and D emphasize to whom it is to be offered. JE is backed by the historical books, but all the prophets down to Ezechiel are arrayed against P. Moreover, P discloses a tendency to introduce a material and spiritual refinement in the gifts offered. The meal offering makes way for the holocaust ; Jerusalem becomes the centre of worship, and sacrifices are withdrawn from the scene of rural life. 3 — Festivals. JE and D ring the changes on a trio of feasts: Easter, Pent.ecost, Tabernacles. The feasts are regulated by the first-fruits from flock and field. In the historical and prophetical books the harvest festival is the only one clearly and distinctly mentioned. In JE and D it is likewise the most important. But in P the feasts undergo an essential change, since they no longer have reference to the harvest and first-fruits. This change was owing to the cciUralization of worship, and its origin may be traced through Deuteronomy and Ezechiel to P. The great day of expiation, originating in the fast- days of the captivity, is added. 4 — Priests and Levites. According to Ezechiel xliv. none but the levites of Jerusalem, the sons of Sadoc, are to be priests in the new Jerusalem, the other levites being degraded to the rank of servants. In the same way, according to P, the priestly dignity was confined to the sons of Aaron, that is the sons of Sadoc, to the absolute exclusion of all levites. But in the earliest period of Israelitic history, the distinction between clergy and laity was unknown. Anyone who pleased might slaughter anrj offer sacrifice. Official priests were found in none but the greater sanctuaries. In the oldest part of JE priests are not mentioned. In D the levites are priests. Except in Judges xviii seq., priests as such make their first appearance in the literature of the captivity. 5 — The Endowment of the Clergy, The sacrificial dues are 176 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. levied at a higher rate in P, and the first-fruits, now transformed into donations to the priests, are doubled. Cities, specially set apart for levites, are now mentioned. In the second paragraph of his work Wellhausen deals with the " History ©f Tradition," and tries to show that it lends support to the hypothesis which an analysis of the law had suggested. He confesses, however, that the chief argument lies in the first paragraph. The history of Tradition, he says, begins with the Books of Chronicles, which were a deliberate and studied attempt to model the historical books of the Old Testament according to the religious bias of P. The author of Chronicles names, besides the old historical books, certain other independent sources from which h« drew. Wellhausen, instead of crediting him with these, calmly sets down all discrepancies as part and parcel of a system of misrepresentation which these were designed to further. On what ground are these wholesale clearances effected ? If an author directs his attention mainly to religious history, and views history more under this aspect than authors who had gone before, does it follow that he must be swayed by a spirit of misrepresentation ? The later the time of the composition of Chronicles, the more difficult this supposition becomes, because the eyes of all would have been fixed on the writer. The very tenacity, with which the Jews clung to the law, would prevent such a reconstruction of history on an entirely fictitious basis, unless their ancient history, except under this particular aspect, was not generally known to them. This is, indeed, the case, as is abundantly shown from Josue downwards, and by nothing so clearly as the fact, above indi- cated, that critics persist in declaring all the books to be interpolated. Whatever tells in favour of an earlier existence of P is necessarfly a later addition brought about by P. If this were so, is it not amaeing that these authors, bent on remodelling, and with misrepresentation ever in view, should have adopted only one verbal quotation from the Thorah (IV. Kings, xvi., 6=Deut. xxiv., 16), whereas the influence of Deuteronomy is THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 1 77 perceptible on every page ? Had they in sober earnest been bent on proving that the legislation contained in the new P was really old, they would have brought the Thorah more into requi- sition. The greater frequency with which the older books refer to D, and the steadiness with which they keep it in view, is accounted for by the fact, already mentioned, that Deuter- onomy adapted the law given in the wilderness to the new set of circumstances in Canaan. The restoration under Josias gave the finishing stroke to the work of adaptation. Not until this restoration had been accomplished, could the law, in its fulness and entirety, be urged so strongly as it is urged in the Books of Chronicles. The restoration under Esdras had this very object in view. This distinction, it must be added, is not strictly applicable either to the more ancient or the more modern books. Wellhausen himself is constrained to admit that, though a recension on the lines of the Deuteronomical law was clearly made, the authors at times had older documents to hand.^o It is next suggested that all changes, which new compilers introduced, may be detected by being subjected to one test : they do violence to the traditional matter. And will this sub- jective opinion constitute a valid test for discriminating the true elements from the false in Semitic history ? This is impossible, especiahy if "sacred history be considered no more "than an extra coat of paint daubed on the original picture;'* for to detect the separate colours that enter as ingredients into this universal picture would defy the skill of man. If all these books bear a uniform stamp derived from the history of tradition, and if, moreover, the Books of Samuel and Kings show that the pro[)hets were the real source of religious influence, it cannot surely be erroneous to say that the prophets had a great deal to do with a written history of Israel. But if this much be admitted, the alleged composition of the histor- ical books after the captivity is shown to be unfounded, and the 60 PrvUgvmtna, p. 393. 1 78 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. books must be set down to the time of the prophets, whose spirit they breathe. The prophets appeal again and again to the guiding-hand of God, so manifest in Israel's past history ; they paint the future on the past. With these facts before us we may rest assured that they not only breathed their own spirit into tradition, but they carried their solicitude so far as to commit the whole to writing. How could they have come forward as the champions of God's law (Thorah), if a written Thorah had not been in existence ? There are some, we are aware, who do not regard Assyriology and Egyptology with favour, and who demur to all reference to these studies. But, in view of the root-and-branch rejection of Chronicles, we cannot refrain from noticing a modern archaeo- logical discovery. In 1828 Chc^mpollion found, among the ruins of Karnak, a wall on which was an inscription recording the grand deeds of Sesak, and within the inscription the likeness of a Jewish King, who was no other than Roboam, son of Solomon. Thus, on Egyptian soil, Champollion found confirmation of the story told in the twelfth chapter of Chronicles. This discovery caused Cardinal Wiseman to say : No monument hitherto brought to light has afforded such a new and convincing argu- ment for the genuineness of Holy Scripture. Origen, in writing against Celsus, had said that evidence of the long wars waged betweeen the Jews and Assyrians was forthcoming from writers on both sides. The statement has received more striking con- firmation from the most recent explorations than Origen ever dreamed of. Names and dates, heretofore found nowhere but in Holy Scripture, and consequently called in question, have been unearthed. Thus Assyriology, not to mention other ser- vices, has helped to save the honour and reputation of the Books of Kings and Chronicles.^^ What Assyriology tells us about Assurbanipal confirms, strikingly though indirectly, the narrative in the Second Book of Chronicles of the transportation of Manasses to Babylon, and his restoration to his throne in 61 Origenes c Cels. L 14. Vigouroux, iv, 22. 242. Reuss, p. 231. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. I79 Jerusalem. As even Reuss allows, the narratives in Chroni- cles very often bear the stamp of genuineness. Is it only the religious history in Chronicles that bears a thoroughly ungenuine stamp ? As the new hypothesis avowedly derives very little sup- port from the History of Tradition, we may also infer that the speci2l objections, urged against the antiquity of P, cannot be historically established. There is far too much flirting with conjectures, probabilities, and possibilities. In a period extending over three or four thousand years, and rife with ever-varying opinions and views of the world and history, mere general considerations, as the reader need hardly be reminded, are only of secondary impor- tance. Apart from revelation, we cannot estimate the probabilities as to what Moses might, could or would com- mand in the wilderness. Of this the later Old Testament writers, who stood midway between tradition and history, were the only competent judges. Moses legislated more for the future than for th^ present. Hence time was needed before many ordinances could take full effect. The exact description of the size and appointments of the camp of the Israelites, and the regulation of sacrificial wor- ship down to the minutest details, were not without sig- nificance for the future. Anyhow, no argument can be drawn from them to show that this great nomadic people were always encamped on the same spot. Prescriptions as to ritual were absolutely necessary. No ancient Semitic tribe was without a cultus. Moses would have been unable to keep his people apart, ^- if he had not regulated divine worship. Circumcision is older than Moses. It was even obligatory on Egyptian priests. After falling into disuse, it was renewed as a sign of the Cove- nant ; for, henceforward, the whole people was to be a holy priesthood. The Egyptians were also familiar with the distinction between things dean and unclean^ and ail that appertained thereunto. Thus the law of holiness, 62 Renss, p. 80. l8o THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. which appears as a dominant ideaP in Ezechiel, Leviticus (xvii. — xxiv.), and P, is in great measure explained. The idea of sanctity lies at the root of the ancient Egyptian re- ligion. The ancient Egyptian ritual, the sacerdotal puri- fications, the libations, the burning of victims, the white vestments of the priests, circumcision, and above all the ritual of the dead,^* are built up on this foundation. Purity of body symbolized purity of soul. These prescriptions in P must therefore date back to a high antiquity. In the Sinaitic book of the Covenant, sanctity is coupled with the prohibition to eat unclean foods.* It was, therefore, necessary to issue new ordinances for slaughterings, for sacrifices, and for the levites. The two sides of holiness, the negative and the positive, must correspond. The posi- tive side found expression in the whole life, especially in the cultus, of the nation. "Be ye holy, as your God is holy," is a command found not only in P, but in Jahve's Covenant with His people. The people are a priestly peo- ple, holding intercourse with God through Moses and the priesthood. Sanitary reasons also rendered its minute ob- servance in the wilderness absolutely necessary. The dis- tinction between clergy and laity, priests and levites is also perfectly intelligible. For, on the one hand, the exodus v/as undertaken for a religious end, and, on the other, Moses was wholly engrossed with his duties as civil gov- ernor and leader in war. In Egypt the priesthood was a specially organized body. Is it not, then, extremely prob- able that Moses created a similar organization ? The proof which our adversaries gather from the feasts is the very slender argumentum ex silentio. Originally, it is true, the feasts referred to agriculture, and were instituted in thanksgiving for the harvest, and other joyful events. But what place had agriculture in the wilderness ? To what pur- pose, then, were the feasts .? Of what use was the Sabbath as a 63 Wellhausen, p. 441. 64 Naumann, p. 60. • Exod, xxii., 30. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. l8l day of rest? The Jews had been sojourning four hundred years in the corn lands of Egypt, and were thoroughly conver- sant with the mysteries of agriculture. But, as they were to enter into a land admirably suited for agricultural purposes, the feasts instituted in the wilderness by Moses, to be observed in the Promised Land, had reference to agriculture. A reference to Jahve's leadership was also necessitated by the history of the exodus. Naturally, in the beginning, the feasts were not generally observed in Canaan, and the reason is plain. Their historical and religious importance was not fully appreciated till the building of the temple gave an impetus and a common centre to the worship of Israel. Unwarrantable conclusions as to the age of the feasts have been drawn from the passages quoted above in reference to the solemnization of the Pasch un- der Josias, and of the feast of tabernacles under Esdras. An extraordinary festival on a special occasion supposes rather than excludes an ordinary festival. As regards the feast of the Pass- over, including the feast of unleavened bread (Mazzoth), it may be laid down as certain, that " all extant sources, even those " which critics pronounce the oldest, make definite and express " reference to the deliverance from Egypt ; nay more, the various " special customs in use date from the exodus. Otherwise, the "very name Pasch (passover, spare), would be inexplicable. "Again, the order to sanctify the first-born was issued "in connection with the exodus,* but was wholly dis- " connected from the Paschal lamb, which holds an unique " position. In like manner the Jahvist and Deuteronomist never " class the unleavened bread among the first fruits,t but des- " cribe it, in remembrance of the Egyptian bondage, as the "bread of affliction. "^5 Pentecost, on the other hand, continued to be the harvest festival ; its significance, as a commemoration of the giving of the law on Sinai, dates from Christian times. 6s Orelli, in Herzog's Real-Encyclop. lad. Compare Katholik 1887, I. 565. • Exodus xiii. i, xxxiv. 18. t Ibid, xxiii. 19 lS2 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. Osee* gives the p^ilm, in point of antiquity, to the feast of Tabernacles, as the harvest festival, and as commemorating the march through the Desert. As to the feast of Trum- pets, and the day of Atonement, there v^as no need to men- tion them in Deuteronomy, because they had no reference to the congregation assembled before the sanctuary/^ Lastly, the Sabbath, as stated in another place, existed long before Moses. Shepherds, indeed, may have known nothing of the Sabbath in the sense of religious rest, yet they may have originated it for astronomical reasons.^' Therefore, its institution in the wilderness is not impossi- ble ; but its strict observance was possible only in the camp. Concerning the Scriptures little more need be said. The fundamental proposition on which critics and philosophers love to dwell, namely, that sacrifice arose from the custom of common meals, is historically untenable.®^ Sacrifice was offered to appease and win the Deity ; and was there- fore a meal for the gods. Consequently, the fact that in P the religious idea pushes the idea of the meal into the background, does not demonstrate its later origin. So again, when we read in IV. Kings xn. i6 (17), and in Osee IV. 8 of " the money for trespass and the money for sins," this manner of speaking implies that there were two kinds of sacrifice, and both generally known. f Now let us, for argument's sake, assume the hy- pothesis that P in its entirety, in contradistinction to the book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy, is to be described as desert legislation. Suppose, that is, that it makes no account of the real conditions and motives of actual life in Canaan, and that it builds up a sacred hierarchy, with the bold statutes of absolu- tism as its corner-stone*^^ on the tabula rasa of the desert. 66 Vigouroux, Ci'M^rtfZ'^ri-^, 1887. Juillet, p, 341. 'BxogXiQ, Annales de Phil, chret. iZij, p. 120. 67 Reuss, p. 81. 68 Saussaye, p. 102. 69 Wellhausen, p. 105. * xii. 10. t See I. Kings vi. 3 ; iv. 8. Isaias liii. 10. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 1 83 Suppose, moreover, that this legislation was given in Canaan, the scene of the history of this agricultural people, where they were peacefully spending their lives in agricultural pursuits. Finally, imagine that some one in the year 444 successfully attempted to frame the entire legislation of Israel on the mere fiction of a legislation in the wilderness. Now we ask, is it not more likely that Moses formalated the laws in the desert, with a view to the promised land for which they were destined ? ]\Iust we not rather suppose that the above view of feasts and sacrifices, this distinction between nature and w^orship is defective and falls short of its aim ? For, if feasts and sacrifices were ever devoid of religious significance, such a legislation would have been as impossible in the days of Esdras as in the days of Moses. Furthermore, how was it possible so to dovetail different groups of writings into one another, that they should be universally reputed one ancient work ? No ancient saga, remarks Well- hausen,'^ is so closely connected as the Bible. This close connection is, in the main, common to all the sources. The Jahvist and P run throughout on parallel historical lines, other- wise the two could never have been blended in one as in the the Pentateuch. The plan of the two documents is almost identical. But we no sooner infer from this admission that a subsequent compilation is all the more inconceivable, than we are met by the reply : The n^^^eement of the sources in plan is hard to understand ; nay, it is surprisingly remarkable. In fact nothing but literary dependence of one upon the other can account for it. And yet, a moment ago, these sources or rather the Hebrew story was extolled for being so closely connected ! Where then are the joints ? Nowhere, it is allowed, is religion applied as a motive power to justice and morality with such purity and force as among the Israelites. The corner-stone of their historical development, from first to last, is the theocratic principle. Jahve is the one God in the whole Bible, from 70 Page 308. 184 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. Genesis to Machabees. It is further admitted that the his- tory of creation is nowhere given so clearly as in P ; that the story of the creation of man, of Paradise, the Fall, and so forth, as told in the Jahvistic or older service, contains, under a simple form, a philosophy that is at once the noblest and most beautiful of its kind."'' Both documents are, in their way, unsurpassed in grandeur, and in lofty conception. They leave all other religions far behind. Both profess to be an ancient revelation ; an J neither can be conceived as anything else. Where would the fictitious compiler have acquired his skill ?" Different sources may underlie the narrative. But the splendid harmony between the parts proves that they were originally made for each other, and not subsequently fitted together by literary skill. In many passages, too, the grandeur is coupled with singular precision of details. The similarity of names and numbers, the minute technicalities, the graphic de- scription of scenery during camp life, constitute, even with the critical school, the real tests of authenticity. These signs cannot be dismissed as the product of imagination. For Jewish fancy, in later times, busied itself, not with painting or moulding, but with constructing and calcu- lating. Anyhow, such documents must have been the out- come of the same traditional stock, at times more diffuse, at times more concise, but certainly never arranged for this special purpose. Wellhausen is bound to produce proof positive for his position. The more he deprecates an appeal to the argumentum ex silentio^ the less can the apologist afford to dispense with it, when there is question of a fundamen- tal proof. It would certainly be the height of unreason to demand positive evidence for a fact that never occurred ; but we are undoubtedly within our right in holding fast to the view, upheld by the tradition of 3,000 years, until the op- posite view is conclusively established with positive proof. Here is no question of theory, but of hard facts of life and 71 Reuss, p, 257. 72 Compare Welle, Nachmosatsches, li^o, p. 97. Katholik^ 1887, 1. No. 4-5. Weiss, Moses und sein Volk^ I'reiburg, 1885. Vigouroux, 11. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEU 1^5 history, and of explaining the entire history of revelation preparatory to redemption. In Wellhausen's words :''^ " Very " weighty reasons are needed to weaken the probabihty, which *' rests on very positive testimony, that the Mosaic ritual was " codified after the captivity." We also are entitled to demand reasons, quite as weighty, to say the least, for the complete overthrow of the Old Testament as it exists in actual history. It may have already occurred to the reader to ask, whether our view of history derives any support from, or can be justified by, a critical and comparative examination of the language. Is not the colouring in the language a sign that P was com- posed after the Captivity? Here, indeed, we meet with a strange, though interesting phenomenon. Distinguished scholars like Riehm, Delitzsch, Dillmann and others, precisely urge this argument against the Graf-Wellhausen theory. And what has Wellhausen to urge in reply ? Very little, amazingly little, especially when we consider what an immense influence the Captivity brought to bear on Jewish modes of thought and writing, notwithstanding the conservative character of the Hebrew language, which remained substantially the same from Moses to Esdras. 7* The language in which P is couched, he says, has recendy been put forward as a bulwark that is proof against all the assaults of destructive criticism. Unfortunately, he continues, the veto of language is as little backed up by proofs as the veto of critical analysis, and a contention, he scornfully adds, unsupported by argument, needs no reply. A solution, in truth, at once facile and brilliant ! an admirable and expeditious method of shirking the real question at issue I He condescends, however, to offer a few "remarks at random." The language of the Jahvistic document, he says, is *' in the main " clearly akin to that of the pre-captivity period, but the language of P is " quite foreign." At the same time he cannot deny that this is capable of explanation even if P were 73 Page 347. 74 Han«b€rg, p. aoo 1^6 EHE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. more ancient. This explanation is, in fact, most natural, considering that classical religious writings are wont to exert an immense influence on literature in general. The Koran is an instance in point. Wellhausen ^^ himself, modestly enough, does not attach much force to his few remarks on this point. Linguistic science, he says, as far as Hebrew is concerned, is still in its infancy. Moreover, he insists that the tendency to re-model and re-edit the Scriptures was almost universal. Next he urges that the caprice of writers (e.g., ani and anoki) has so disturbed the original state of language, that in this case lexicons are of little use, and furnish only approximate data. From these admissions the uninitiated will rightly infer that linguistic studies are not favourable to the school of destructive criticism. Certain words, which would seem proper to inhabi- tants of Canaan,"^ are more archaeological than philological, and may be considered as glosses. Anyhow, passages are not wanting which betray an acquaintance with the ground-work of the Pentateuch. ''And they do not depreciate in value " because they fail to impress men who are already convinced "that the groundwork is more recent."^^ As no Hebrev/ literature, except the Old Testament, has come down to us from pre-christian times, comparison is impossible. We are, however, not without non Jewish writings. In the front rank stands the inscription of Mesa, to which reference has already been made. " In comparison with the "books of Judges and Samuel, with the poetical and older "prophetical books, the text of this inscription seems more " recent in point of language. Hence we may rightly conclude " that the language of these books has remained unchanged " since the days of the early kings. Similarly, if it be com- " pared with the books of Moses and Josue, these latter will be " seen to retain certain archaic peculiarities which are signs of 75 Page 408. 76 Reuss, p. 53. Haneberg, p. 191. 77 Baethgen, I.e. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. iS/ " an older form of language. Thus their text, in part at least, "has remained intact for a much longer period."78 Then, again, from ancient Phoenician inscriptions it is quite clear that the later books of the Old Testament, Ezechiel, Daniel, Chron- icles, Esdras, Nehemias, and Esther, are considerably anterior to the third century B.C. For the oldest of these inscriptions, from the beginning of the third century onwards, exhibit such a degenerate style of writing that, however great the influence we allow to a sacred language, these books, even as worded in modern editions, must be far more ancient. Now we are in a position to appreciate the generous advice '^ not to lay stress on the argument from philology and literature, as these supply equally weighty arguments for both sides, but to take our stand on the history and ideas of religion. For here, to be sure, we are on the favourite platform of modern religious historians of the evolutionary school. And now the apologist's task, in theology and exegesis and the history of religion, is finished. Further details belong to special exegesis. We have shown that the hypothesis which is spreading its roots far and wide, and which, as the works of Delitzsch, Dillmann, Kahues, Kurtz and Klostermann shew has already penetrated deep down into the strata of positive theology, is still far from being proved to the hilt ; and it never can be so proved. Even Wellhausen confesses that it is only an •* historical probability," beyond which there is a veil that no man can tear down. Kayser and Reuss acknowledge that many theologians of the critical school are persistently challenging what are set forth as the latest results. On the age of P most sound critics disagree with Graf and Wellhausen. The follow- ing words written by Reuss, the grandfather of the radical hypothesis, show that a word of caution is more than justified: "Amid the chaos of opinions, and the whirl of hypotheses, " which spasmodically rise to the surface and again sink under 78 Kaulen, Einleitung, 2 Ed., L, 47. 79 S\.3.dc, Theol. Lit. Zeitung, iZZj No,p l88 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. " water, from out the heap of decisive denials and indeci- '* sive assertions piled up in ordinary * Introductions,' it is " exceedingly difficult to say what net gain has accrued to " historical research from the lucubrations of even the " weightiest critics." Dillmann, who casts the Hexateuch overboard, thus candidly speaks out : " When critics rise " to a higher level than literary niceties, and start from " some other point to make a bold attempt to determine " the respective ages of the several parts of the document ; " when, for instance, they try to draw a hard and fast line " in the development of religious ideas, or to grapple with " the unproved assertion (e.g.) that the story of the flood " was first brought from Babel in the seventh century " B.C., they are putting to sea without rudder or compass, *' and their craft is in danger of springing a leak."®" At the same time, it should not be forgotten that the positive view of Old Testament History is not yet shorn of all its difficulties. A later influence is not to be always (e.g. in Deuteronomy) point blank denied. There are some good Catholic commentators in France who consider the second part of Isaias more recent than the first, and relegate Daniel to the second century,^' because, on this head, the Church has pronounced no decisions. On the whole, however, the history constructed on the Wellhausen hypothesis is far less satisfactory than that set forth in so natural a way by the sacred writers. There is no reason for assuming that the sojourn of the Jews in Egypt was owing rather to accident than to famine, as history can furnish parallel cases. The friendly attitude of Joseph best explains their sojourn in the land of Goshen. The exodus of the whole people, and the passage of the Red Sea, are only improbable when all miracles are rejected at the outset, and when the letter, as too often happens, is unduly strained ; for the wording of the Old Testament, 80 Wellhausen, p. go. Kayser, p. 13. Reuss, p. 22.71. Y^\xtx\Gn, Hist. Krii. Einleitung in die Bucher des A.T.i.i: Die Enistehtm^ des Hexateuch : Leipzig^ 1887, p. iit. Dillmann, Die Biicher Numeriy Deuter. und loszia, 2 Ed. Leipzig, 1886, p. 632. 81 Controverse, 1882, p. 598 seq. Compare Broglie, Annales de Phil. ckr. 1887, x^ Haneberg, p. 190 seq. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 89 as is well known, is generally exuberant. The same may- be said of the 40 years' wandering in the wilderness. Mi- raculous food is repeatedly mentioned. But the herds of cattle are passed over in silence. During the thirty-eight years of peace, the tribes may have led a nomadic life. The apparently two-fold account of the Conquest in the book of Josue is quite intelligible, if we bear in mind that the first general assault could not be followed up and brought to a close except by a number of long-continued petty conflicts and conquests. The lands were not fully allotted to all the tribes till after a long period. The con- quest was not effected in one war. In the time of the judges progress ebbed and flowed, the bond of union be- tween the tribes slackened, and religious life was on the wane. Even the chosen people were men with human natures, subject to natural influences. But, to sum up our enquiry, it may be confidently affirmed that the history of Israel, apart from a divine revelation and a divine guid- ance, is utterly incomprehensible. A direct solution of the problem can hardly be looked for in the New Testament. That it, however, indirectly recognizes the traditional history of the Old Testament is too clear to leave room for doubt. Christ and the Apostles set out from the Jewish Canon, and comprehend all Old Testament revelation in Moses and the prophets.'^ John says : " The Law was given by Moses."* By the Law he can only mean the Mosaic legislation, for the modus loquendi in this Gospel and in the New Testament warrants no other meaning. Some books of the Old Testament are men- tioned by name or expressly quoted : the whole Pentateuch, Josue, II. Kings, III. Kings, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Osee, Joel, Amos, Micheas, Habacuc, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Mala- chias, Job, Psalms, and Proverbs. Reference is made to the following : Judges, I. Kings, IV. Kings, Esther, II. Paralipomenon, II. Machabees, Ezechiel, Jonas, Sophonias. 82 Matth. xxii. 9 ; Acts xvili. 24 ; IL Peter ii. 20; Rom. i. 2; IL Tim. iii. 15 ; M. v. 17 ; L. xvi. 29 ; xxiv. 27, 44 ; Acts xxviii., 23. * John I., 17. ipo THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. Ruth, Esdras, Nehemias, Abdias, Nahum, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. The Deuter-canonical books are not alluded to in the New Testament.*' We are, then, justified in taking our stand on the tradi- tional Canon, with the Septuagint as the foundation. The more the critical school try to reduce the age of the He- brew Canon, the less they are entitled to judge the deutero- nomical and proto-canonical books by different standards. The connection of the Sapiential Books with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Psalms, and indeed with Job, shows clearly that one and the same principle of development was at work in Palestine and Alexandria. In like manner the later historical books are connected with the books of Chronicles. One and the same spirit conducted the de- velopment of Judaism by different paths to one and the same end. The Christian Church preferred the Septuagint on linguistic grounds. It is the version mainly quoted by Evangelists and Apostles, although, as men of Pales- tine, they followed the Hebrew Canon. In order to form a true estimate of the relations of Juda- ism to Christianity, the Messianic prophecies must be duly appreciated. The Old Testament gives us the history of divine revelation, which was a divine " paedagogia" pre- paring the chosen people for the Messianic kingdom. Be- lief in one God, in Jahve, is indissolubly linked with hope in a promised Redeemer. This hope is the point in which all revelation centres, from the Prot-evangelium in Para- dise to John, the Precursor. A detailed explanation will be dealt with later on ; here we only wish to emphatically insist that an unshaken hope in a future Messianic king- dom and, generally, the idea of a Messias in connection with the Theocracy, is the key-stone of the arch on which the whole history of Israel rests. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judas and David ever bore this idea in their breasts. Even in the hour of darkest tribulation, when hope in a glorious Messianic kingdom must have seemed to a dispassionate 83 Kaulcn, I.e., p. 20. Comely, Introd. Special, in II. V. T., Paris, 1887. IL 1-3 seq. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. I9I looker-on the flimsiest of chimeras, this flickering spark was acquiring a brighter glow. The prophets strove to deepen and to purify these hopes in a moral crucible. They stirred up the sense of sin, laid bare man's moral helplessness, and forcibly brought home to the people the need they had of a redeemer. They instilled into them the dispositions necessary for spiritual and moral renova- tion. They contrasted the law written on tables of stone with the law of the heart ; they humbled the pride of princes, and bent the stiff necks of the people. All, in a word, who were unfaithful were rebuked. They pro- claimed that legal ceremonies, and sacrifices, and external cleanliness, unless accompanied with a conversion of the heart to God, were insufficient. They did not, indeed, utter the name Messias, but they one and all held out the prospect of a Messianic age, — an age of peace and pros- perity, and loyalty to Jahve. Some describe the form the new kingdom is to take, and are overjoyed, as in vision they see the people united, and keeping the covenant. Others fix their gaze on a person, a scion of the house of David, who is to set up a new empire. The warm colour- ing they imparted to the picture was borrowed from the splendour and magnificence of the kingdom of David and Solomon. But their eyes were turned to the future, and pierced the veil that enveloped the ideas of their contem- poraries. Thus they dug deep foundations for unbounded confidence in God, encouraged the people in the hour of their deepest humiliation to hope for better things, spurred their drooping spirits to fresh moral efforts, and paved the way for universal monotheism and universal charity. Prophecy joins together things that are far and near ; it represents as fulfilled what is being gradually accom- plished. In this lies its significance for future ages and generations. Long years rolled by before the teaching of the prophets bore fruit. Prophet succeeded prophet, threat followed on threat. But the people hearkened to the false flattering prophets who tickled their ears and their fancy, rather than to 192 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. the true prophets sent by Jahve in His vengeance. Not infrequently the prophets were persecuted and put to death. The more the people felt Jahve's chastening hand heavy upon them, the more they remembered their trans- gressions and the divine promises. With the Captivity all danger of apostasy had passed away. Thus revelation had in the main attained its purpose. Belief in the one true God, obedience to His law, and hope in the Messias were the very heart's blood of the people. God's law was their sanctification, and their comfort in trial. The prophe- cies Vv^ere their sheet anchor. Whatever be said of their morality, it is futile to deny that in this respect they stood head and shoulders above their heathen neighbours. They feared God and v/orshipped Him with greater purity ; they followed a higher moral code, and lived more chastely. God, who in furthering His own divine plans knows how to bring good out of evil, turned the misfortunes of the chosen people to the profit of mankind. Israel was thereby purified and strengthened. But more than this, being dis- persed among heathen peoples they helped to make the true knowledge of God and hope in a Messias more widely known. Alexander the Great, by conquering the Medes and Babylonians, and penetrating as far as Egypt, assisted in blending Jewish and Greek civilization. From Alexan- dria revealed truth travelled to the Greek and Roman em- pires. Jews settled at every grand emporium. They built synagogues, and began to make proselytes. Many hea- thens, earnestly longing for truth and redemption, frequent- ed the synagogues, and there learnt God's love and Jahve's promises. The one word " Redemption' was enough to draw men open to conversion. Thus Israel, while unfurl- ing the banner of revolt against the Messias,"^ was an in- strument in God's hands for bringing the heathen to Christ. The sacrifices offered at Jerusalem had a large shaie in keep- ing alive the consciousness of sin. At this period, at all events, * Romans, ix.-xi. THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. 1 93 sacrifice was a function with a religious aspect ; otherwise it is unintelligible. During the Captivity circumcision and the Sabbath were the shibboleth. After the Captivity, when the Temple was rebuilt, sacrifices were again offered. On the three chief feasts the men of Israel made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and all the people sacrificed to the Lord. Israel was so saturated with the idea that they were God's people, and that Jerusalem was the centre whence salvation was to go forth to the whole world, that the yoke of the Lord appeared to them sweet, and its burden light. No people ever had their God so near to them as Israel. Their feasts and sacrifices had a typical as well as an historical significance. Of the former we shall speak later. The Jews were too firmly persuaded that the law was to last for ever to see this typical significance. Of the fulfilment of the law, they were conscious only in part, and that on the outward rim. In many points the natural obser- vance of the law had become impossible. When Solomon's temple was destroyed, the divine Schechina, the sacred fire, the ark of the covenant, and the Urim-Thummim of the high priest disappeared. The prescriptions relative thereto had also become absolete. During the Captivity prayer had been substituted for sacrifice, and this usage was afterwards trans- ferred to Palestine. The building of synagogues indicates a change in the law, while the creation of doctors of the law and the rise of sects and parties constitute a new departure in religious life. The letter was saved, but the spirit was killed. The superiority of the chosen people degenerated into national vanity, and was dwarfed to an illusion. And yet this self- righteousness could hardly satisfy earnest souls, who could not but feel how their outward behaviour gave the lie to their professions. Accursed was he who did not keep the whole law 1 Who would attempt it I All things, both in politics and social life, combined to intensify the yearning for a Messias and king, who should deliver men from sin and evil, and rescue them from bondage and misery. The Jewish Apocalypses before '94 THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. Christ (Henoch, IV. Esdras), and in particular the Jewish Targums (Jonathan) of the ist century, boldly declare that a change must come. They say that the Messias will both chasten and forgive sin, and bestow justification and peace. Jonathan points out that the Messias will exercise a triple office, — prophet, priest, and king.** 84 Langen, Das Judenthum in Palestina, zur Zeit Chrtsti. Freiburg, 1886, p. 433 seq. CHAPTER VI. NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. As an appendix to the history of the Jewish and Semitic religions, we will now deal with two phenomena in religious history, which have endured to our own day : Talmudistic Judaism and Islam. I. Talmudistic Judaism. The work of Judaism did not finish with its preparation for the Messias. The Jews believe that the Messias is still to come. They beguiled themselves with false and worldly hopes in the Messias, which grew in strength and rose in height, as the Jewish state was hastening to its fall. The more they were down-trodden and crushed beneath the for- eigner's galling yoke, the more their thoughts took wing to the bright and glorious future, which they believed to be in store for them. It was these false, worldly hopes that caused them to forfeit the Messianic salvation. Never- theless, those revealed truths, whose foundations lay in the Old Testament, were not to be wholly without effect on the blinded people of Israel. Though sorely afflicted and almost annihilated, once under Titus (70 A.D.) and again under Hadrian (136 A.D. or 130?), this determined race were still possessed of enough sinewy vigour to inaugurate 196 NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. a religious reformation. Though driven from Palestine, and scattered over the broad world, they still looked upon the Old Testament, the tradition of the Synagogue, and hope in the Messias as their joint inheritance. These were the beacon-lights that guided them amid the rocks and shoals ; the hope that buoyed them up in a stormy sea ; the magnet that held them together in unity of faith and morals ; the elixir that fostered in them a spirit of exclu- siveness towards heathens and Christians. Talmudistic Judaism came into being in Christian times. It dates from the destruction of the Temple, — the central sanctuary of the national worship. Hence it is peculiar in having neither priesthood nor sacrifice. All these neces- sarily fall or stand together. For centralization would brook no sacrifice or priesthood outside the holy city, Jeru- salem. The scribes who, in the last centuries before Christ, had overspread the law with a network of human ordi- nances, became heirs by default of the priesthood. Prayer- meetings and preachments in the synagogues were the sole remaining shred of the ancient glory of the temple. Tradi- tion had been broken in bits by direful calamities ; but the scribes gathered the fragments, lest they should perish, and welded them together in writing. And while the paraphrasts (Onkelos, Jonathan) and Alexandrine philoso- phers were diluting Jewish belief with rationalism, and seeking to sauce it according to the palate of the age, the scribes were codifying existing traditions. Thus they fondly hoped to erect a breakwater powerful enough to stem the flood of rationalism and unbelief, and to arrest the current of foreign ideas. After the destruction of Jeru- salem they founded a school of scribes at Jamnia (Jabne). Similar schools were subsequently opened at Tiberias and Babylon. Towards the close of the second century the collection of the legal portion {Halacha) was complete. To this collection the name Mischna (d£vr£pGO(n?, sec- ond legislation) was given. In Palestine the Mischna was explained and supplemented by the Gemara (comple- tion). The two go to make up the Jerusalem Talmud. NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. I97 The Babylonian scribes also drew up a Gemara, suited to their particular circumstances. This, combined with the Mischna, forms the Babylonian Talmud. The work was not finished till about the year 500 A.D., or thereabouts. From first to last the Talmud contains nought but human ordinances, generally in the form of anecdotes told by famous Rabbis. Imbedded in heaps of dross are a few grains of gold. Let him find them who can. Christian reminiscences are spiced with a bitter hatred of unbelievers — i.e., Christians. The Midraschim (com- mentaries, explanations) are a string of pithy interpretations, of special texts, — being either exquisitely subtle reasonings or a mere play upon words, suggested by accidental resemblances bet A'een words in different places. Whole pages are a chain of puzzles which none but the initiated can solve. A translation without the key of historical and objective explanations, is useless. Still more mysterious is the Kahbala (accepfio) or secret tradition of the Jews, which was afterwards utilized for extract- ing a hidden meaning from Holy Scripture. While many Jews during the Middle Ages were held captive by a kind of mysticism in regard to numbers, due, probably, to the influence of Neo-Piatoni-^m, a rationalistic school was growing up at Cordova. The origin of the Kabbala may be traced to pre- Christian times. As a commentary, it is most artificial. Besides pretending to discern divine secrets in every letter of the law, and appealing to a tradition that is said to stretch back to Abraham and Adam, it propounds a system of emanation which, though of Eastern origin, has a strong family likeness with Valentinianism.^ The Jews, on their side, maintain that Talmudistic Theology has spread civilization and opened out rich ores in the Old Testament. As, indeed, Jewish learning stood Origen .ind I Denzinger, Vier Bucker von dtr religiostn Erkenntniss. Wiirzbiirg, 1856, I, p. 308. See also the articles in the Kirchenltxicon ; also Schiirer, Neutestatnentltc'it Zeilgeschichte, 1874. 2nd Ed. 1886. Haneberg, Ceschichte der Offenbarvng. 4tb Ed. 1876. KriiKer, Aritn SchUchter Fr6mmigktit im TmlmutL Thtolog, Quart. 1887, Nos. 3 4. 198 NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. Jerome In good stead, so many converted Jews in the Middle Ages employed their Hebrew and Tahnudistic lore to defend Christian truth. Other scholars, Nicholas de Lyra for instance, enriched their commentaries with the learning they had acquired when sitting at the feet of Jewish Rabbis. And yet the gain was formal rather than material. Christian theologians in the West had long been independently engaged in studying the Old Testament, although, as is easily understood, they took less account of the original text. Mayhap, R. Gerschom (b. 960) gave some impetus to Jewish studies, but Venerable Bede, Rabanus Maurus, Walafried Strabo, Paschasius Radbertus, and others had written commentaries on the Old Testament, long before any independent Jewish exegesis existed in the West.' During the Middle Ages Judaism, in a narrow spirit of exclusiveness, held aloof from Christian surroundings, but, later on, especially when quickened by the spirit of reform, it allowed Christian influence wider scope. This, however, was a con- cession rather to rational philosophy than to positive Christianity. The more educated Christians belie the Christian spirit, the more easily the Semitic spirit gains the ascendent in the spiritual as as well as in the material sphere. It is far more to the purpose to quicken the Christian spirit than to foster Anti- Semitism. The Jews have plainly once more secularized their Messianic hopes ; but the secular colouring is not of the same tint now as it was in the days of Christ. Humanly speaking, the day on which Romans xi. 25 is to be fulfilled is still dim in the distance. 9. ISLAM. A religion, far transcending in importance this tattered remnant of the religion of a people at once chosen and rejected, IS Islam (perfect resignation to God's will).'^ Originally it ■ Revut d« Thist. des re I. i83o. ii. p. 222. Compare also Diestel, Geschichte dts Alien Testamentes in der cktist lichen Kirche, Jena, 1869. t Compare Surah, til. T. 5., in Ullmann's edit. p. 36, A. i. 77. NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. I99 branched off from Judaism. It numbers many devotees, and has for centuries wielded a fascinating power over millions of men. Even in our own day, when its foundations are tottering, it is displaying a great power of expansion in Africa, Southern Asia, and the South Sea Islands. Judged by the number of its adherents, and the area over which it is spread, it might be classed as a world-wide religion. Islam now embraces within its folds 175,000,000 men. Islam had for its founder Mohammed (the praiseworthy),* who was born at Mecca in 570 (571) a.d. Having lost his father before he was born, he was brought up with his four uncles as the foster-son of his grandfather Abdulmotaleb, who was the representative of the Haschem line of the tribe of Koreish. As such, it was at once his privelege and his duty to entertain all who made a pilgrimage to the Kaaba, or temple which Abraham and Ishmael^ according to tradition, built at Mecca. It was in the days of Abraham that the black stone, now so greatly prized and venerated, fell from heaven, and lodged in the temple. In this way, and also by accompanying the family merchants in their expeditions to the northern confines of Arabia, the religiously-minded Mohammed became deeply versed in Arabian traditions, and in Jewish and Christian doctrines. At that time there were in Arabia Jews, Christians and Ishmaelites, who, in defiance of the dominant polytheism and superstition, paid homage to Abraham (Ibrahim) the mono- theist. The chequered struggles, carried on with alternating fortune between Jews and Christians, had filled the country with Abyssinian and Persian mercenaries. So Mohammed had exceptional opportunities for studying these religions. Nor had the ill-feeUng existing between the several factions escaped hi.* 4 For the more ancient literature see KirchenUxicon vii. i88 ; v. 845 seq. For the mor« recent, A. Muller, Der Islam im Morjien und Abendland, Berlin, 1885. Krehl Das Leben des Mohammed, Leipzig, 1885. Hirschfeld, Btitriige zur Erkidrungde, Koran, Leipzig, 1886. Goldziher, Le culte des Saints chtt Us Mutulmam Rei'ue de f/tisf. 1880, p. 257. Himpel in Quartalschrift, 1882, p. 86, 206. Mohler, Uebtr das Vtrluiltniu tUs Islams sum Evangelium. G€samm. Sckriften, 1839, i, 248, seq. 900 NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. notice. He was familiar with the Old Testament, the Gospels, and Jewish tradititions. In the Koran he appeals to the Scriptures. All his knowledge he put out at interest from the very first. He set out in bold relief the contradictory construc- tions put upon various passages of Scipture, especially all having reference to the Messias. And he was not slow to make capital out of the differences. In his twenty-fifth year he took to wife Chadidscha. A relative of his wife, Waraka by name, is said to be largely responsible for the religious training of Mohammed's mind. He is said to have been not only a Christian, but a priest (perhaps in the sense of the Nazarenes.) But the Scriptures and the personages just named were not the sole factors in Mohammed's religious development. The chief factor, no doubt, was his subjective disposition of soul. His nature was cast in a musing meditative mould. His force of inward concentration soon burst into flame and exploded in ecstacies and angelic visions. And he saw in vision Gabriel, — the angel whom the Koran identifies with the spirit of God. At first his mind was troubled, like a fountain stirred, and he himself saw not the bottom of it. Chadidscha strove hard to pacify him. But she found it a heavy task. Even she feared that it might be a delusion conjured up by evil spirits. At length, when Mohammed was forty years old, the angel beckoned him to Mount Hora, placed a scroll in his hands, and bade him read. And thus spake the vision : " O Moham- "med, thou art the ambassador of God. I am Gabriel." This incident is recorded in the 96th surah or chapter of the Koran. Hence interpreters set this down as the oldest portion of the Koran,5 and regard this revelation as the first revelation. The vision was followed by feverish convulsions and nervous paroxysms of such violence, that his enemies, with some show of plausibility, taunted him with being possessed. Mohammed now assumed the prophet's mantle. But few believed in him, S As to the further development compare Surah 74, 1-7 ; 51, 5a ; 26, 192-195. NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. 20I and he made only slight headway. When he was fifty years old, death snatched from him the faithful Chadidscha and his uncle Abu Tab, who had been his mainstay and arm of defence. Disappointments rained upon him thick and fast, and his nostrils were stretched with strugghng against misfortune. The so-called journey to heaven wrought a complete chano-e in him.« That it was a reality and no dream, he was firmly convinced. Fear and vacillation gave way to a determination more stubborn-hard than hammered iron. The ecstatic visionary, and nervous enthusiast vanished in the sunbeams, and there remained only the cool, shrewd and calculating founder of a religion. But the hostility of his foes at Mecca was so unrelenting, and their hatred so bitter that he was driven to take up his abode in Medina, where he had a large following. This took place in the year 622 A.D. Hence this year, with which the Moham- medan era begins, is known as the year of the Hejra or Flio-ht At Medina Mohammed began to legislate. He pre^.cribed a liturgy. He ordered mosques to be J^;/^^' -'' which all others should be modelled. AOout thi^ime he organized filibustering expeditions, known as the sacred wars, for despoiling his enemies, the Jew and the Chris- tian All who kill a foe or lay down their lives in the holy wars are accounted in the Koran as worthy of all honour, and as the heirs of great promises. But the armed pil- grimage in the eighth year of the Hejra invested these raids in the eyes of the Arabs with a sacred character For he then gained possession of the central sanctuary of Arabia Violent measures now became the ordinary means of propagating his teaching. The Greek emperor was specially marked out for vengeance, because, the year be- fore, he like other princes, had ungraciously received the ambassadors Mohammed had sent to plead ^or recognition. His mightv projects, however, were nipped in the bud. For sickne'ss attacked him, and he died at Medina on June the 8th, 632 A.D. 6 Surah, 53i » seq. 202 NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. The judgments passed on Mohammed vary with the tem- perament of historians. On the whole, however, they in- cline to acquit him of the charge of wilful imposture, and credit him with good faith. His intercourse with women excepted, it is argued, Mohammed lived plainly and fru- gally, and died poor, — facts utterly unintelligible, had am- bition been his only guiding star. Such is the argument on which the biographers lay most stress. The suggestion that Mohammed was a conscious impostor, who degraded religion to an instrument for self-seeking, is, in Mohler's eyes,' wholly without historical foundation, and fit as men- tal food, only for such as accept Voltaire's poems and Goethe's plagiarisms as history. Mohammed's relations with the monk Bahira (though somewhat mythical), his passionate love of solitude, his age when he assumed the role of prophet, the critical attitude of the intelligent Chadidscha, the loyalty of his uncle and nearest relatives, unshaken amid the most trying circumstances, — all this reveals the common impostor as little as the fact that a few mules and camels, an hundred sheep and a domestic cock, constituted the entire personal effects of the con- queror of Arabia. Furthermore, Mohammed's biographers tell us that he sat on the ground, milked his goats, mended his clothes and shoes, passed a whole month without a fire in his house, and that, when he was dying, he had not a bit of barley bread to allay the pinching pangs of hunger. Dates and water were the only food of which he and his wife and children partook. Nevertheless Mohler, like Mohammed's latest biog- raphers, though for other reasons, seems to me to judge both Mohammed and the Koran too leniently. In the beginning Mohammed was undoubtedly convinced that he had been constituted a prophet. And seeing, in sor- row, the crude superstition to which his kinsfolk were enslaved, he deemed it his duty to restore faith in the one God of Abraham. Still it is equally clear that he subsequently played the false prophet. Mohler himself 7 L,c.,p. J67. NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. 20$ directs attention to certain appeals he made to revelations on purpose to soften the jealousies of the harem, and to banish strife from the household. Bona /ides is put out of court by surahs 36 and 66. The glorification of such ugly episodes as these, which are in themselves a stain on Mohammed's character, may palliate their heinousness, but cannot establish bona fides. They are by no means isolated instances. The Koran's monstrous connivance at sensuality, and the alluring prospect of " untouched women " in Paradise (held out as a special inducement to join the crusade against unbelievers) are such astounding excrescences in the history of religion that they cannot have been grafted on good faith. Besides, such a conclusion, even speculatively considered, is unwarranted. In order to prove his prophetical character and to establish an analogy with Jewish history, Mohammed asserted usque ad nauseam that Jews and Christians had falsii^.ed the Scriptures, by expunging all the passages that pointed to himself as the long-promised prophet. In proof he was surely bound to produce a genuine and unfalsified copy of the Scrip- tures. Unless a genuine Scripture were in existence, Moham- med's charge is both unproven and unproveable. But Mohammed never tried to prove it to the hilt by producing the copy. The complaint, made in olden times by Jews and Christians, thai the Scriptures had been falsified, had at least some outward semblance of truth, because two versions were at hand. But Mohammed could never advance the same plea, and his charge is demonstrably unjustified. Whatever may have been his dispositions at the outset, it is certain that, as time went on, his prophetic conscience melted into thin air. The Koran, in great part, can be ascribed to none but a false prophet. Of course, Islam's widespread dominion is not the outcome of religious imposture ; but the man, who was at first the dupe of ecstasies and visions, gradually became nolens vlenso a more or less conscious impostor. His own avowedly gensual nature contrived to allow a wide berth to sensuality, 204 NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. and made it spread like wildfire among sensual tribes with flickering moraUj. The violence that characterized Mohammed's later life, his hatred of his enemies (of which we catch a glimpse in the Koran), his war of extermination, may explain the swift propagation of Islam, but they hardly enhance the prophetic dignity. His appeal to the sensual worship of the ancient Semites is an extenuating circumstance only in so far as it shows that he knew how to mould the dispositions of his people to the best advantage. But as Judaism and Christi- anity were known to him, those poor idolaters were entitled to a nobler religious ideal at his hands. But he inaugurated a retrogade movement. "He destroyed all the bairiers that " Arabian manners and customs had carefully erected against " what even his kinsfolk called licentiousness, transgression, "and crime." ^ An unselfishness, dictated by circumstances of prudence, cannot outweigh these considerations. How well Mohammed knew to combine ambition with unselfishness! Mohammed's teaching is set forth in the canonical book of the Moslems,- -the Koran (the Reading). Unlike the sacred books of Jews and Christians, the Koran repeatedly sings its own praises. It consists of 114 surahs or chapters. Mohammed, even if he did not encourage the compilation of the whole work, certainly ordered all the revelations vouchsafed to him after his fortieth year to be noted down. In the " book that came down from heaven " he saw the best proof of his mission. Abubekr, the first Kalif, bound together the stray leaves and notes, without attempting to arrange them chronologically. The several copies began to show such considerable discrepancies, that Osman, the third Kalif, ordered a recension to be made. Copies of this were scattered broadcast, and it still remains the official text. Maybe the original abounds in pretty poetry; maybe, also, as connoisseurs maintain, it is religion-inspiring. Perhaps.; too, its contents, which sound strange to Western ears, improve on acquaintance when viewed from an Eastern stand- i L,c. p. 378. Compare Surah, 33. Kuenen, Volksreligion p. 31. NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. 205 point, and in connection with the body of Islam tradition. Be this as it may, I must own that these bright sides almost wholly escaped my observation amid the tedious and prolix repetition of trivial ordinances, and irrelevant details. The deep religious foundation is buried under an avalanche of wars and domestic broils. The ever-glowing fire of religious fanaticism casts a lurid light on the passages, with a true Christian colouring, that preach patience and benevolence. However, lest I should seem biassed, I append the verdict of Derenbourg, an eminent Koran scholar ; " At least two-thirds of the Koran," he says, " are taken up with silly apostrophes, attacks on other religions, "incitements to anger, impatient murmurings over one's lot, " war-bulletins, written in a careless style at a time when the prophet so lost heart in his trials and struggles that he hardly believed in his own divine mission. "^ To gain a clear idea of the doctrinal and moral teaching of the Koran, we must start from the first principle of Islam, i.e., from absolute, abstract, exclusive monotheism, which represents the divine being as independent and helples?;, and the creature of fate. This is the " central idea of Judaism transferred to Arabian soil." God's omnipotence is caprice; man's power consists in being a blind tool of the Almighty ; thus he is to attain with certainty the goal marked out for him for all eternity. Angels, indeed, are recognized as intermediaries, but they figure like menials >t the court of an Oriental despot, falling down on bended knee before the newly created Adam.^o Mohammed learnt the Trinity from the New Testament ; but he conceives it as Father, Son, and Mary.^i He impugns it rightly in this form, but wrongly in its correct form. Like wary Orientals, he starts with a materialistic idea of Father and Son, and tries to explain the universe purely and simply by the power of the one lord. For the rest Christ is a prophet and 9 Rei'ut de Thist. i836. xiii. p. 294. lo Theol,Qua.rtalschr.'i'i>^■2,^^.^^.. Kusnen, VoiXis re l!£-ioH, p. 97' IX Compare the Egyptian Trinity in chapter 111. 266 NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. the son of Mary ; he dwells on high, but has no claim to divine honours. Christ is to Mohammed what Moses is to Christ, that is he predicted the coming of Allah's prophet, " the seal of the prophets." Then by degrees Mohammed ousted Christ, and thrust himself into the office held by Christ, that is as mediator between Allah and the faithful. Allah is great and Mohammed is his prophet. God and the forgiveness of sins are obtainable only through the prophet. No one who believes in him can be lost for ever.'^ But Mohammed was sent to all men, and not merely to the Arabians, and therefore special envoys were sent to all princes to obtain his recognition. Thus Mohammed set himself above Christ, and exalted the intrinsic value of his message above the gospel. The prayer for protection and intercession now addressed to the prophet contradicts the essential principles of sound theology. Mohammed was powerless to produce any proof in sup- port of his claim. It was not simply modesty that caused him to dispense with working miracles. In his life time tne absence of divine credentials was keenly felt. It is related in the Koran that the Arabs wished to see a mir- acle wrought by him. The believers said, we are told :" The Koran is a sheer lie, in the fabrication of which others (Jews) had a hand. * * * They say also, it contains nothing but fables about the men of old, which Mohammed ordered to be written down, and read out every evening and morning. * * * They say : what an envoy is this ! He eats food and walks in the streets as we ourselves. Unless an angel comes down to him and accompanies him to preach ; or unless a treasure is thrown down to him, or he receives a garden from which to draw nourishment, we will not believe. To this Mohammed puts in Allah's mouth the words :'* " Noth- " ing prevents us from sending thee with miracles but " the fact that nations that have gone before charged even 12 Surah xxi., 7 ; xxi., 14 ; xxii. 14 ; and Theol. Qua-rt, I.e. 13 Surah xxv. i seq. 14 Surah xxvii., 92-96. Comp. UUman, p. 2333. NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. 207 " them with deceit. ♦ * ♦ We send i o more envoys, with " miracles, except to strike terror." Besides being evasive this answer shows how little bona fides remained at last. Nol Mohammed stands out in his true colours as the crafty founder of a religion, with his aims clearly in view. From the first it was a fixed idea in his head to unite the religious and political power, and to make physical force his chief weapon. This reply is in nowise analogous to that given by Jesus i° to the taunts of the Jews, concerning Him and John; for, Jesus could truly point to the fact that wisdom was justified in her works. As Mohammed aimed at being a perfect man, ^' and nothing more than a man, he laid no claim to special mysteries. He is but a " follower of Islam," a " good example to all who place their trust in God." He possesses none of Allah's treasures. Of things that are hidden he knows neither more nor less than other men. He makes " no pretension to being an angel." He claims to be not the " father of the faithful," but only the ambassador of God, a prophet, and the last of the prophets, who stands in closer union with God than the prophets and legislators of other religions. In this lies his greatness. " Islam's tremendous and overpowering idea of the greatness of God has been the only obstacle to Mohammed's being raised above humanity — to a share in the Godhead; for this would be "an encroachment on God's absolutely i»accessible domain.^7 Not the littleness of the prophet but the infinite greatness of Allah compels Islam to make its prophet a mere man. For the rest the faults of his race were so fully revealed in his person that he could with perfect justice lay claim to all that is human. We will not discuss the alleged assassinations, but his conduct to his wives and female slaves, his boast about his generative powers, his theoretical and practical teaching of blood revenge, his fanatical bloodthirsty wars, and much more beside are fact! t5 Math. xL, i6-i9. See Luke xtL, flgt 16 Surah tL 17 Rtvntt p, t6o 2o8 NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. which show that he was guided by right reason when he renounced all claim to divinity. No prophet in the Old Testa- ment, or saint in the New, has so many dark spots on his character. When Mohammed appeals to God's revelations to beat down all opposition, it is not the abstract notion of monotheistic unity that forced him into this position. The stress thus laid on God's power and man's helplessness, on the incomprehensibility of God's counsels and the capricious fate overhanging man could not possibly, as it seems to me, have proceeded from an unconscious ecstatic tendency. The character of the founder should be put in the witness box. Without the person of Mohammed, Islam is utterly incompre- hensible. The despotic monotheism of its faith can only be understood after other causes have frozen the heart against the gospel. Of revelation or inspiration from above there is not a trace. To this fact the human soul cannot close its eyes for long. Despite all efforts to the contrary, the dogmatic teaching of Islam has held fast to the truth that Mohammed's call was not due to his perfections. His vocation was purely an act of God's will. Tradition, however, has thought otherwise. Later writers have keenly felt the necessity of exalting him above ordinary mortals into a supernatural sphere, of ascribing to him a higher knowledge, and of investing him with the power of working miracles. In their eyes he is the prophet who repudiated higher powers and superhuman knowledge ; he is a Thaumaturgus, and a divine being. They were keenly alive to the necessity of putting him on an equal footing with other prophets. While Mohammed had charged Jews and Christians with falsifying the Scriptures, later writers strove to show that Scripture, even in its present form, pointed him out as the Paraclete.18 A full-fledged prophet was soon ready to hand. The multitude wanted not only a God, but something wonder- ful and supernatural besides. At first they did not believe in s8 Deuteron. p. xxxiii. See Moehler, p. 3S4. NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. 209 Mohammed's death, and dogmatic teaching went in search of speculative proof for it. But " in this case, as in many " others, it has distorted the simplicity and grandeur of '• the original Islam idea, and stuffed a Mohammedan re- " ligious philosopher with Mussulman notions."'^ Begin- ning and progress may be more closely distinguished in Islam than in any other religion. By contrasting the lowly beginning of a parvenu with his subsequent haughty as- cendency, the religious historian will find the clue to a clear historical appreciation of a great religious movement. Judaism and Christianity, on the other hand, betray no de- sire to hide their true origin, but appear from the first, stamped with a supernatural seal. Veneration of saints is another means of filling in the gap between heaven and earth, between God and man, and of satisfying the natural yearning of the heart for a mediator, and union with God. Of such the Koran knows nothing, for it directly contradicts the idea of the one un- approachable God. Man may worship and invoke none other but the one God. The Koran allows no other being to be worshipped. The martyrs and the just, though happy in Paradise, have no concern with the living, and are not entitled to veneration."" And yet, how quickly the worship of saints gained a footing in Islam,— a wor- ship not only of dead but also of living saints ! A true worship of man ! Images, indeed, Islam forbids ; but even here it contradicts itself by accepting the Kaaba. The chapels erected over the graves of men who, though not canonized, are saints in popular estima- tion, were visited in pilgrimage. In like manner, relics were also venerated. Saints were invoked as most effica- cious guardians of the faithful. Legends, too, have played a conspicuous part in Islam. True to their Oriental origin, they abound in exaggerations and improbabili- ties, and swarm with monsters and giants. Thus by heaping miracles on miracles, a grotesque Hagiology of ig Revuty p. 264. 30 Surah xi. 13. N 2IO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. Mussulman adventurers was formed. The saints arc chiefly taken from among men ; still not a few women are also venerated. To this day saints, Weslis^ occupy a very prominent place in the worship of Tslam. The Mussulman enjoys this life, but his future and fatalistic hopes are turned to the next life, to Paradise, which all true believers are sure to enter. Promises of reward in the next life are as numerous in the Koran, as threats of everlasting fire in hell ; but these latter are mostly reserved for unbelievers. The joys of Paradise are of a sensual kind, and conjure up reminiscences of the harem. Mohammed also taught that Christ will come again. This sufficiently indicates the drift of Islam morality. It takes its stand more on the Old Testament than on the New, though the Koran has many fine passages on this head. The good works enjoined in the Old Testament, especially the protection of widows and orphans, are recommended as occasion offers. This is the standard according to which rewards and punishments are measured. Here the righteous Moslem and the Jew meet on equal terms. External works are to the front ; but humility, repentance for sin, and the nobler feelings of the heart are violently and mercilessly suppressed. Selfish enjoyment of possessions is the sole motive, and sensuality the centre of the moral life. This finds its chief expression in polygamy which, significantly enough, regulates the number of a Moslem's wives in proportion to his fortune, just as he may keep a greater or less number of camels according to his means. The Koran, indeed, though sanctioning only four wives, allows an unlimited number of female slaves. On this point Mohammed cannot be exculpated on the plea of ignorance. For the directions, repeated over and over again, are most detailed. Such minuteness shows how well he foresaw the consequences of this institution, and how shrewdly he had calculated its advantages to his policy. But still it may be urged that the precepts of the Koran must not be confounded NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. 2I1 with the detestable abuses perpetrated by certain Mussulman tribes. The Koran not only recommends that women be well treated, but it puts them almost on an equal footing with men. " For Moslem men and women, for believing men and women, " for true, patient men and women, for those who give alms and " fast, for chaste men and women who often think of God, God " has prepared reconciliation and a great reward."2i True, but is not the law honoured more in the breach than in the observance? Are not the numerous abuses rooted in the institution ? What redress has a woman even among the " civilized " Turks, against the whims and caprices of the man ? The miseries of family life and Islam's hostility to civilization, are part and parcel of this institution. The Japanese are not far wrong in regarding all attempts at civilization fruitless, so long as the status and education of women are unchanged. All this in addition to a demoralising slavery which Islam admits in principle, and extensively puts in practice, conjures up a heart- rending picture of the frightful errors to which a great mass of human beings are a prey. Revenge for bloodshed has been already mentioned. On other " moral " questions little need be said. Circum- cision, though not explicitly prescribed in the Koran, has the force of law. Out of compliment to the Jews pork was forbidden, and, in the seventh year of the Hejra, Moham- med extended the prohibition to wine. Prayer is ordered five times a day. At first Mohammed ordered the face to be turned during prayer towards Jerusalem; then worshippers were bidden to look towards Mecca (to the Kibla); but facing in other directions was also quite allowable. Fasting was prescribed chiefly during the month of Ramadan ; but the spirit that should accompany fasting was not a necessary adjunct. H^nce, as has been remarked, even on fasting-days everything was allowed at night. Contrast with this St. Paul's delicate and dignified treatment of such subjects. * Sacrifice xxiii. Ullman, p. 969. Cor., >u. 213 NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. and priesthood have no place in their worship, which never alludes to sin or remorse of conscience ; a pure heart and a moral sense are its object and aim. Everything is made to turn on the will of a despotic, capricious, and absolute God. No other religion has created such insurmountable barriers between the infinite God, and weak, finite man. The dervishes, with their senseless dances, lend enchantment to the view, but cannot bridge over the distance. The five "pillars" of religion are ablutions, prayer, fasting, pilgrimage (to Mecca) and almsgiving. 22 " The pivots on which Islam turns are " rewards and punishments, sensible pleasure and pain, power "and dominion, fear and hope." In his dealings with Christianity Mohammed was not consis- tent. In many places the Koran enjoins peace and forbearance towards Christians. The envenomed hostility which ordered Christians to be exterminated was of later growth, and has no precedent in the Koran. Mohammed declares that the theory which teaches that only one religion can be true, is a gigantic error. The diversity of religions, he says, is founded on the nature of God, and only in the next life will it appear which has truth on its side. It behoves all — Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans — to live according to the word that God has made known to them, and to be prepared to render an account on the day of the inexorable judgment.^^ But there are other passages in the Koran not less numerous, which speak in an opposite sense. There is a formal command to outlaw Chris- tianity, and to destroy it root and branch.^* Whence comes this contradiction ? In matters of casuistry, Mussulman doctors tell us, the majority carries the day. But this answer will not remove the contradiction. Perhaps the difference of time will. What then about the difference of time? This is not easily decided, as internal grounds are our only guide as to the consecutiveness of the surah. Next it should be explained aa Surah li. 180. Kirchenhxican, v. 845. Teichmuller, p. adg. 83 Surah v. ai, 56 ; iv 105 Moehler, p 36a seq a4 Surah ix NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. aij why Mohammed changed his mind. Mohler argues very plausibly that this was brought about when the religion, which was originally national, becam_e universal, and the national monarchy was converted into an universal monarchy. From belief in one God he argued to an universal religion ; the union of religion and politics, of Church and state, egged him on to an universal monarchy. In this as in other matters we feel bound to demur to this lenient judgment. Tn our opinion other considerations were not wanting. Jews and Christians were too numerous in Arabia to be proscribed at once. But with success his pretensions, his intolerance, and his lust of dominion grew apace. And, as history is witness, Christianity has had no more formidable foe than Islam. Mohammed's toleration was born of political sagacity rather than of virtue for religion. It extended only so far as circumstances required and after all it was a very low degree of toleration, as Christians were everywhere without rights and power, and were liable to be violently persecuted. Here we have a clue to the progress made by Islam, which still continues to spread in Africa, Thibet, China, Turkestan, and the Oceanic Islands.^^ Its dogmatic basis is so broad, that room can be found for every pet view and crotchet. Only three fixed dogmas are of faith: The unity of Allah, the prophetical character of Mohammed, Allah's ambassador, and the resurrection on the day of judgment. The moral ordinances are in part so natural, in part so human, that almost everything is allowed. Sensuality and happiness, both in this life and the next, joined with a fatalistic trust in Allah, have raised Oriental fanaticism to fever heat, and given it a prodigious power of physical development which sweeps down all impediments in its path. At first, none but a few young relatives of Mohammed had a spark of enthusiasm. But when enticing earthly promises were sounded in every key, and a fine prospect of plunder and enjoyment was opened out, enthusiasm abounded. la the •5 Saussaye. p i86, aoj 214 NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. dcx:trine of fatalism princes find a ready-made excuse for their faults, and a prop of despotism ; to subjects it serves as a cloak for passions, and encourages them to spend n^rrily a life over which they have no control.^^ Then, again, the circum- stances of the time were favourable to Islam. Oriental Chris- tians were halting between the traditional sensual religion and the ethical requirements of Christianity. Driven hither and thither, uncertain whether to take refuge in a human Christ or in the etherial Christ of the Docetist, weakened by the inter- minable disputes between Arians, Gnostics and Catholics, they were shaken in faith, and split up into hostile parties and factions. Such a Babel of discord would have given Moham- med the impression that Christianity was divided into sects, none of which professed Christianity in its original form. The Greek empire was in a rapid decline, and was compelled to defend itself against its aggressive foes in the East. Hence Islam, with a most varied assortment of weapons, among which force was not the least, had not a formidable task to make itself master of the East. The Christian historian fs forced to lament and weep over the devastation of flourishing Christian provinces in Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa; but Mohler thinks, not without reason, that these peoples were as yet hardly ripe for Christianity. The disputes between Gnostics and Montanists, between Arians, Nestorians and Monophysites are a proof that the spirit of Christianity had not taken deep root. If this was the case in the towns, what must have been the case in the country ? The epistles of the writer of the Apocalypse give some idea of the state of Asia Minor. In the course of its history Islam also conquered many heathen tribes which, in great part, were in a lower scale of civilization, and were still less ripe for Christianity. Whether the tribes of Central Asia are to be so classed is doubtful, for there is much to be said for the view that they once stood higher ; and this is absolutely true of Africa and the South Set •• Rtxmt, p. 324. Kuenen, p. 37. , NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. JI5 Islands. Islam is certainly an improvement on horrible super- stition, combined with human sacrifices and cannibalism. In a certain sense Islam stands higher than Judaism. It recognises the Gospel, names Christ with great reverence, and even honours Mary as the Mother of Jesus. Moreover, it is also more successful in its missionary efforts than the Jews, who gain no proselytes. Its universality is other than that of the Jews (although not the spiritual and moral universality of Christianity). It is an universality of the imagination rather than of the mind. Its present attitude, we regret to say, is not, as sanguine minds would hope, that of preparation for Christianity. On the contrary, the nations addicted to Islam are, as a rule, lost to Christian Missions. These poor savages, indeed, now worship one true God. This may be progress, but much still remains to be done. Polygamy not only flourishes, but is even sanctioned. The reins of despotism are being tightened rather than slackened in the family and in the state. Thus the gate is spread wide for the passions. The fanaticism with which Islam inspires all its followers, makes the future fraught with anxiety. Maybe Islam's blind fanaticism will lose its fury, when its political connection with the Sultan shall have been wrecked ; but so far the hope is slight. It is a question of force. One thing, however, may even now be safely affirmed. Were it not for an indwelling divine power in the Church, she would never have been able to withstand the powerful assaults of unbridled sensuality and brute force. If, in the teeth of such weapons, she has overcome Islam as she formerly overcame the Roman Empire, if she has saved civilization and morality from being trampled on by barbarians (and in the present stationary condition of Islam, the enemy of progress), then the Church is certainly a work of God. " Instead of saying : If Mohammed " has succeeded, Christ could well succeed, we must say : If •* Mohammed had succeded, Christianity, unless upheld by t 2l6 NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. " divine force, would have inevitably perished."" Survey the historical situation. Arabia, Syria, Persia and Pales- tine quickly succumbed to the blows of Islam. From Africa it pressed onward victoriously into Spain, France and Italy. Asia Minor, Greece, and the Greek Empire fell with a crash. The Balkan States and Hungary capitu- lated. In 1683 the Islam host appeared before the gates of Vienna. And now ? Who is afraid of the " sick man" now ? Had not the nations been wrangling over the dis- tribution of the spoils, his life, in Europe at least, would have long since been crushed out. But Islam, even viewed scientifically, is fast approaching dissolution. Not only is the bond that holds together the some 60 sects, into which it is broken up, extremely loose, but Rationalism and Pantheism have battered its foundations. The Wach- habites in Arabia wish to restore Islam pure and simple, in all its unbending stiffness, without veneration of saints and Sufism (mysticism) ; but does not this alone show Islam's incapacity for culture and civilization ?^* In vain they hope for a Mahdi, a Messias. Their messianic ideas are even baser than those of the degenerate sons of Israel. Islam can never revive again, can never become a true universal religion. 27 Pascal, Pensies, xvii. 7. 28 Kuenen, p. 49 seq. CHAPTER VII. THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY, Christians are the disciples of Christ. From Him they derive their name. Christianity is an institution founded by Christ, professing the doctrines that He preached. ** At Antioch the disciples were first named Christians."* This is the easiest and simplest answer to the questions : What is Christianity ? and whence comes it ? That Jesus Christ lived, that He died in the reign of Tiberius ; that the great religion called Christianity began with Him, are facts that no earnest-minded enquirer now calls in question. Hence there is no need to offer proof for these points, seeing that no one denies them. Even were the testimony of Holy Scripture not unimpeachable, the history of the first three centuries would shatter every objection. But the problem we propose to unravel is more difficult. We are not con- cerned with the bare historical fact of the origin of Chris- tianity. But we are to assign to Christianity its true place in the history of religion, to probe its origin, to examine how it arose, and how far it was swayed by existing ideas and influences. And first we shall set forth the verdict of men who, though outside the pale of Christianity, lived near the time when it first saw the light. The Talmud tries as far as possible to ignore the unpleasant fact, and merely records some silly and hateful fables about Christ and the * Acts xi. 26. 2l8 THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY. Mineans. But, besides the Talmud, there are four notable writers: One Jew, Flavius Josephus, and three pagans: Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. In his work on Jewish antiquities, written about the year 94 A.D., Josephus thus writes r^ "At that time there lived " Jesus, a wise man, if, indeed, we may call him a man. For he " was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of men who were "willing to receive the truth. He drew about him many •* Jews, and also many heathens. He was the Messias. And "when, on the accusation of our chief men, Pilate con- "demned him to be crucified, those, who had before loved "him, did not abandon him. For on the third day he "again appeared to them alive; and the prophets had fore- "told this, and many other wonderful things concerning him. " Even now the race of Christians, who are called after him, "has not yet died out." This passage is quoted first by Eusebius,^ and afterwards by Christian writers generally. Eusebius had previously cited a beautiful passage from Josephus on John the Baptist, in which the defeat of Herod, in his expedition against Aretas, the king of Arabia, is represented as a judgment of God on him for his murder of John. For, says Josephus, John was an excellent man, who moved the Jews to virtue, and baptized them in justice * *lovSaLKrj apxatoXoyia, Antiquitates Judaicae 1. XVHI, c. 3, nr. 3 : FiVerai Se Kara tovtov tov xP^^*^^ 'It](tov