b'^W\'^-\'- \n\n\n^ \',,\xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x96\xa0* \n\n\n\n\n\n\nl^fe\'t^ii\' \xe2\x96\xa0\'\xe2\x80\xa2:-\'*\xe2\x80\xa2 \n\n\n\n\n^^^^m\'\\f^>^ \n\n\n\n\n^^^^B^* \n\n\n\n\nm^ \xc2\xbb."\'\'. *i "\'.*\'\xe2\x96\xa0-\'= 4 \n\n\n\n\n\n\np\'fc\'^^v-.^ \xe2\x96\xa0.\xe2\x96\xa0\xe2\x96\xa0.\xe2\x80\xa2\'\xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nlc^^^r-.\'.r\'\xe2\x96\xa0: v^.- ^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n< \n\n\n\nl^N\'JW\'^ \n\n\n\n^ t ^ \xe2\x80\xa2 . , . . . \xe2\x80\xa2 4 .. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Sphere^^^ \n\n-\' OF Religion \n\n\n\n\'i.;vp \n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2/ i:< \n\n\n\n^\'n \n\n\n\nf \n\n\n\nHoffman \n\n\n\n\n\nClass ^ij\xe2\x80\x9eSj\xc2\xa3. \nBook M-I\xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT DEPOSIT; \n\n\n\nBy FRANK SARGENT HOFFMAN \n\n\n\nTHE SPHERE OF THE STATE : or, The \nPeople as a Body Politic. Cr. 8vo. $1.50 \n\nTHE SPHERE OF SCIENXE : A Study of \nthe Nature and Method of Scientific In- \nvestigation. Cr. 8vo. . . . $1.50 \n\nPSYCHOLOGY AND COMMON LIFE : A \n\nSurvey of the Present Results of Psychical \nResearch, with Special Reference to their \nBearings upon the Interests of Exery-day \nLife. Cr. 8vo. Net . . . $1.30 \n\nTHE SPHERE OF RELIGION: A Con- \nsideration of its Nature and of its Influence \nupon the Progress of Civilization. Cr. Svo. \n\n\n\nG. P. Putnam\'s Sons, New York & London \n\n\n\nXhe Sphere of Religion \n\nA Consideration of its Nature and \n\nof its Influence upon the \n\nProgress of Civilization \n\n\n\nBy \n\nFrank Sargent Hoffman, Ph.D. \n\nProfessor in Union College, author of *\'The Sphere of the State," **The \nSphere of Science," etc. \n\n\n\n^ Truth, by whomsoever uttered, is from God.\'\' \n\n\n\nG. P. Putnam\'s Sons \n\nNew York and London \n\nCbc l^nlcherbochcr prcBB \n\n1908 \n\n\n\n\n\n\nTwo Copies Rece\xc2\xabv >. \n\nFEB 101908 \n\nCOPY a. \n\n\n\nCopyright, 1908 \n\nBY \n\nFRANK SARGENT HOFFMAN \n\n\n\nILtz "Rnfcfeerbocfter J>rees, "ftevp Igorft \n\n\n\nPREFACE. \n\nThis book is written for the express purpose of in- \nteresting thoughtful young men and women, especially \nthose in our colleges, in the study of religion. It is \nthe author\'s firm conviction that no other study offers \nto the student so many and such varied attractions, or \nexerts such a broadening and uplifting influence upon \nhis mind and life. \n\nAnthropologists of to-day are unanimous in the \nopinion that religion came into the world with the \nvery dawn of history, and that in all lands it originated \nthe first signs of a civilized life. It has always in the \npast been a dominating factor in human development, \nand there is every reason to believe that it will con- \ntinue to be so in all time to come. \n\nNo man or nation can dispense with religion, or keep \nit in the background. For every person is so made \nthat when he has progressed far enough to distinguish \nhimself from the world about him, he must recognize \nthe existence of a power above himself and manifest \nsome feeling of dependence upon that power. No hu- \nman beings have yet been discovered upon this planet \nwho do not possess a religion of some sort, and the only \nserious question any man has left to ask himself on the \nmatter is this : How can I so improve the religion I \nalready have as to make it of the highest possible \nworth ? \n\nIt would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a sub- \n\n\n\niv Preface \n\nject that in recent years has undergone greater or more \nradical modifications as to its nature and mission than \nthe subject of religion. President Harris of Amherst \nCollege put it none too strongly when he said in his \nbaccalaureate sermon to the class of 1907, *\' I venture \nto say that the Protestant Reformation itself did not \nwork a greater, though, perhaps, a more violent \nchange, than the last quarter of a century has marked \nin religious thought, belief, and life.\'\' \n\nNo person in our day has any right to consider him- \nself a fairly well-educated individual who is ignorant \nof these changes, or has intentionally ignored them \nas of slight account. For no other matter so vitally \naffects his own welfare and that of the community .at \nlarge. \n\nIn trying to elucidate in some degree the present-day \nposition regarding the sphere and significance of re- \nligion, the author has endeavored to give an impartial \nhearing to the different forms of religion that have at- \ntained any special prominence in the course of history. \nHe assumes that the reader will have little difficulty in \nselecting the one that, by its own inherent reasonable- \nness and adaptation to actual human needs, is most \nworthy of the acceptance of his intellect and the service \nof his life. \n\nTwo of the chapters, the first and the ninth, have \nalready appeared in the North American Review, and \ntwo others have been printed wholly or in part in the \nProceedings of the associations before which they were \nread and discussed. They are here reproduced with \nthe consent of the publishers and at the suggestion \nof fiiends. \n\nIf the readers of this book secure from its perusal \neven a fraction of the pleasure and profit that the author \n\n\n\nPrefc \n\n\n\nace \n\n\n\nexperienced while investigating the topics discussed, \nhe will feel himself amply repaid for his eflforts in \ntrying to compress the treatment of so great a theme \ninto so small a compass. \n\nF. S. H. \nUnion Coi^lege, \n\nJanuary, 1908. \n\n\n\nCONTENTS \n\nCHAPTER I \n\n\n\nWhat is Rkugion ? \n\n\n\nCHAPTER n \nStkps in thk Evolution of Religion \n\nCHAPTER in \nSacrkd Books and How They Originate \n\na. The Sacred Tablets of the Baby- \n\nlonians \n\nb. The Egyptian Book of the Dead \n\nc. The Vedas of the Hindus \n\nd. The Chinese Classics \n\ne. The Iliad and the Theogony oi \n\nTHE Greeks .... \n\n/. The Avesta of Zoroaster \n\ng. Buddha\'s Tripitaka . \n\nh. The Bible of the Jews \n\ni. The Christian Sckipturks \n\nj. The Koran of Mohammed \n\nk, Joseph Smith\'s Book of Mormon \n\n/. Mrs. Eddy and "Science and \n\nHealth" .... \nm. Madamk Blavatsky\'s *\'Isls Un \n\nveiled" \n\nvii \n\n\n\n37 \n\n37 \n\n60 \n\n71 \n\n77 \n\n94 \n\n100 \n\n107 \n131 \n150 \n165 \n\n188 \n210 \n\n\n\nviii Contents \n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV \n\nThe RKI.ATION of thk Fine Arts to Religion 232 \n\nCHAPTER V \nREI.IGION THE Key to History . . . 256 \n\nCHAPTER VI \nWhat Rei^igion has to Do with Education . 278 \n\nCHAPTER VII \n\nThe Church and the Right to Property . 307 \n\nCHAPTER viii \nThe Church and the Modern State . 320 \n\nchapter IX \nThe Scientific Method in Theoi^ogy . . 338 \n\nchapter X \nHuman Immortai^ity and its Rei^ation to \n\nReIvIGion 352 \n\nchapter XI \nThe Present- Day Conception of God . . 368 \n\nIndex 389 \n\n\n\nThe Sphere of Religion \n\n\n\nTHE SPHERE OF RELIGION \n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. \n\nWHAT IS REI.IGION? \n(First published in the North American Review, Feb., 1908.) \n\nNo one at all acquainted with the tendencies of \nthought at present can fail to be impressed with the \ngreatly increased interest now being taken in the study \nof religion. Thinkers of every shade of opinion upon \nother subjects are fast coming to recognize the fact \nthat religion has always held a vitally important place \nin the development of every race and individual, and, \nwhether we like it or not, is certain to remain a most \npotent factor in the civilization of the future. \n\nFor a number of years the most persistent eflForts \nhave been put forth by a small army of able investi- \ngators to find out the actual facts of man\'s religious \nlife in all times and countries. Not only have the \nsacred books and rites of the nations of the earth been \nsubjected to the most rigid scrutiny, but the folk-lore \nof all lands and even the crudest superstitions and \nmost repulsive practices of savages have been carefully \nstudied. Every possible means has been taken to dis- \ncover what ideas man has had in all conditions of his \nexistence concerning the powers that rule over this \nuniverse, and also to determine to what extent these \nideas have afiected his thought and life. \n\n\n\nThe Sphere of Religion \n\n\n\nBut nothing is more apparent in this awakened in- \nterest in the subject of religion than that the old view \nof what constitutes religion has undergone, in some \nrespects at least, an actual revolution. The narrow \nsectarian position of a generation ago has been shown \nto be wholly untenable ; and religion, instead of being \nthe possible acquisition of a few, we now see reaches \nits roots deep down into the very subsoil of humanity, \nand cannot help giving itself some sort of expression, \nfor good or for ill, in the experiences of every indi- \nvidual. Hence the chief inquiry of our time on this \nsubject is not any longer whether a man has any re- \nligion, but whether the religion that he does have is of \nany real value ; whether it is a help or a hindrance to \nhis own progress and the ultimate triumph of truth \nand right. \n\nBut before this question can properly be taken into \nconsideration, we must make a careful scrutiny of an- \nother, namely, what exactly is to be meant by religion ? \nOn this point there is still great confusion, and in the \npresent state of the study of religion no need is more \nimperative than to have this confusion cleared away, or \nat least reduced to a minimum. \n\nWe may be greatly helped to the attainment of this \nend by observing in the first place that religion is \nnot to be confounded with religions. Religion is that \nout of which different forms of religion grow or de- \nvelop. It stands related to religions about as the first \nman stands related to the whole human race. It is the \ngerm or principle which lies at the foundation of all \nreligions and out of which they all proceed. \n\nNo error can be greater than to begin our present \ninvestigation with such a definition of religion as ex- \ncludes by its very terms all other religions than the \n\n\n\nWhat is Religion f \n\n\n\none that we ourselves most approve. This error is not \nan uncommon one among writers on the subject even \nin our own day. A distinguished Oxford professor, \nSir Monier Monier- Williams, recently maintained that \n**a religion, in the proper sense of the word, must \npostulate the existence of one living and true God of \ninfinite power, wisdom, and love, the Creator and De- \nsigner and Preserver of all things visible and invisible," \nbesides other doctrines which he specified. Then he \nproceeded to exclude at once Buddhism from the list of \nreligions as *\'no religion at all." Manifestly, a defi- \nnition of religion should have in it what is applicable \nto all forms of religion from the lowest to the highest, \nand not merely what is true only of one. \n\nIn the second place, religion should not be identified \nwith a belief in the existence of superhuman spirits. \nWe are not here concerned with the question as to \nwhether the first known variety of religion actually \ntook on this form. It may be admitted at once, how- \never, that most of the religions now current in the \nworld do make a great deal of this belief. But what \nwe maintain is that if the belief should turn out to be \nunfounded, religion would not be destroyed thereby. \n\nIt was formerly held that the wind is an immaterial \nspirit; that the sun, moon, and stars are gods and god- \ndesses with their own separate ambitions and whims; \nthat the tides ebb and flow and that plants grow and \ndecay in direct obedience to spiritual powers. But \neverybody at all acquainted with the physical science \nof to-day is of course well aware of the fact that no \nsuch supernatural beings exist, and that these objects \nand their activities are satisfactorily accounted for on \nquite other grounds. \n\nThe untutored savage, when he awakes from a \n\n\n\nThe Sphere of Religion \n\n\n\ndream, believes that lie has been away on a journey, \nor that other people have visited him. But as he takes \nit for granted that his bod}^ does not make these ex- \ncursions, he naturally concludes that his phantom or \nimage makes them ; and when he beholds his shadow \non the ground or sees it reflected on still water, he \nnaturally infers that his double self is following him \nabout. But no psychologist of to-day would of course \nadmit the validity of such an explanation for these or \nany similar mental states that might come within the \nrange of human experience. \n\nThe realm of alleged superhuman spirits is con- \nstantly being lessened by modem research, and we \nhave no way of telling at present where exactly this \nlessening process is going to end. Our point is that it \nis immaterial to our inquiry after the essential thing in \nreligion as to where it does end. Many existing vari- \neties of religion may have to go as many have gone \nalready, but religion will remain. The doctrine of the \nexistence or non-existence of superhuman spirits is not \nfundamental to its continuance. \n\nOne of the ablest advocates of this view of religion is \nProf. E. B. Tylor. In his Primitive Culture (vol. i., \npp. 424-5), after very properly insisting that the first \nrequisite in a s^\'stematic study of the religions of prim- \nitive men is to lay down a rudimentar}- definition, he \nproceeds to criticise those generally in vogue. He \nfinds the chief error of them all to consist in identifying \nreligion with particular developments, rather than \nwith the deeper motive which underlies them, and \nconcludes by saying, *\'It seems best to fall back at \nonce on this essential source, and simply to claim as a \nminimum definition of religion the belief in Spiritual \nBeings." \n\n\n\nWhat is Religion ? \n\n\n\nNow it is admitted that this belief may be a charac- \nteristic of all primitive religions ; and, if we were merely- \ntreating of the histoiy of religion, we might find this \ndefinition of much use. But we are looking for the \ngerm or common principle of all religions, and that is \nsomething for which this conception of religion does \nnot adequately suffice. \n\nAgain, we should not regard religion as primarily \nresting upon a belief in human immortality. Even so \ngreat a philosopher as Kant maintains that " without \na belief in a future hfe no religion can be conceived to \nexist" ; and John Fiske in his very helpful book, \nThrough Nature to God^ asserts that the "belief in \nthe unseen world in which human beings continue to \nexist after death" is essential to religion. Both these \nthinkers forget that the early Jewish religion was with- \nout such belief, and that in many religions where it \ndoes exist it forms no important part of either belief or \npractice. Among the ancient Greeks immortality \nmeant the immortality of the family or state rather \nthan that of the individual. \n\nIn many religions whole classes are formally ex- \ncluded from it and the doctrine is by no means univer- \nsally held to-day. As Howerth well says in a recent \narticle {Internat, Jour, of Ethics, Jan., 1903, p. 190): \n"What has the conception of immortality to do with \nthe religious philosophy of those who hold, with the \nlate Prof. Huxley, that religion is reverence and love \nfor the ethical ideal, and the desire to realize that ideal \nin life? or with that of the philosopher Herbart, who \nconsidered sympathy with the universal dependence \nof men as the essential natural principle of religion? *\' \n\nImportant as this doctrine may be to some concep- \ntions of the ultimate nature of tlic universe, religion \n\n\n\nThe Sphere of Religion \n\n\n\nwould not perish if it should turn out to be erroneous. \nFor what may happen in eternity cannot be the de- \ntermining cause of the existence of a thing here and \nnow. If the doctrine of conditional immortality, advo- \ncated by so many in our day, should become a general \nview, the universal acceptance of the doctrine would \nnot annihilate religion. The idea of immortality can- \nnot therefore be regarded as its final basis or ground. \n\nNor can we clear up this subject of religion by mak- \ning it primarily dependent upon the belief in one per- \nsonal God. This belief is, to be sure, the dominant \nform of thought on the subject of religion in all civil- \nized lands, and that much must be admitted in its \nfavor. But by holding to this as a satisfactory defini- \ntion of religion we should exclude the vast majority of \nthe human race from the category of religious beings. \nFor many maintain that no primitive races have this \nidea, and the Buddhistic religion with its almost un- \ntold number of adherents teaches just the opposite \ndoctrine. Of course, we are not concerning ourselves \nwith the truthfulness or the value of this belief Our \nonly contention now is that those who deny this doc- \ntrine do not destroy religion. \n\nWhat man in history was ever more sincerely relig- \nious to the very core of his being than the philosopher \nSpinoza ? His whole life was devoted to the advocacy \nof the doctrine that the only thing in this world worth \nstriving for was to love and know God. \' \' Our salva- \ntion,\'\' he says, *\' or blessedness, or liberty, consists in \na constant, or eternal love towards God." Yet he dis- \ntinctly and deliberately rejected the personality of God \nas wholly out of harmony with a sound philosophy. \nNature, or the World- Force, was the object of his \nreverence and love. \n\n\n\nWhat is Religion ? 7 \n\nAs a matter of fact, belief in the existence of many \ng\'ods has been far more prevalent in the history of \nmankind than the belief in one. Suppose polytheism \nshould ultimately prevail over all lands, or pantheism \nshould become the universal doctrine. That would \nnot do away with the existence of religion. It would \nonly be changing its form of manifestation. \n\nIf the positions already taken are sound, we have \ngone far enough to see that religion in the truest and \nmost profound sense of the term is not primarily de- \npendent upon any specific set of beliefs. It does not \nrise and fall with these beliefs, or go out of existence if \nthey cease to be. The greatest variety of beliefs have \nbeen held by the religious leaders of the world from \nConfucius and Zoroaster and Socrates down to our \ntimes and ntry, but few, if any, specific articles of \nbelief are taught by them in common. No one of the \ncreeds, even among Christians, is established beyond \ncritical investigation, and many of them may yet be set \naside or at least greatly modified by advancing thought. \n\nE. Ritchie, after a very satisfactory discussion of \nthe relation of creeds to religion in a late number of the \nPhilosophical Review (January, 1901), clearly states \nthe true position in these words : \'* We must conclude, \nthen, that there is no particular belief as to what the \nultimate reality of things is, or as to man\'s relation to \nthat reality, which is either essential to, or incompati- \nble with, the possession of religion." This position \ndoes not imply, however, that religion has nothing at \nall to do with belief ; for the opposite is true, as we shall \nsee a little later. \n\nNor are we to find the ultimate ground of religion is \nsome particular feeling or set of feelings. In the sys- \ntem of the famous theologian, Schleiermacher, religion \n\n\n\n8 The Sphere of Religion \n\nwas regarded as neither a knowing nor a doing, but a \nfeeling ; and it was made to rest fundamentally on \' * a \nfeeling of absolute dependence. * * Several able modern \nwriters seem to hold this view, of whom Prof. Lester \nH. Ward may be taken as an example. In an able \narticle in the Internat, Jour, of Ethics (January, 1898), \nhe says : *\' It is this sense of helplessness before the \nmajesty of the environment which if it is not religion \nitself, is the foundation upon which all religion is \nbased.\'\' The error here is not in holding that religion \nhas to do with feeling, but in maintaining that it is \ngrounded primarily on feeling alone. For it is psy- \nchologically untrue to fact that any human feeling \nsprings up of itself. It is always preceded by some act \nof knowing of at least some degree of clearness and \nforce. \n\nFinally, for the negative side of our inquiry, religion \nis not primarily a doing. It is not based alone upon \nthe will. There are no acts the performing of which \nmakes a man religious. Even \'* being good and doing \ngood," though a good thing in itself, will not account \nfor religion. Nor is it adequately defined as obedience \nto the commandments of God or as the subjection of our \nfallible wills to a higher will. All these positions con- \ntain an element of truth ; but they do not lead us to the \nessence of religion as in the Ught of modern knowledge \nit ought to be considered. The apostle James was \nevidently not speaking of the ultimate foundations of \nreligion, but of a local and temporal condition, when \nhe made pure and undefiled religion to consist of this : \n**to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, \nand to keep himself unspotted from the world." \n\nWe must look for a satisfactory definition of religion, \ntherefore, not to any specific belief, or kind of feeling, \n\n\n\nWhat is Religion ? \n\n\n\nor set of voluntary acts, but to the whole of man as a \nknowing, feeling, and willing being. We should not \nidentify religion with any one of these three kinds of \nmental phenomena, but with them all. The psychology \nof to-day teaches that these phenomena in all proba- \nbility never occur separately ; that the unit of con- \nsciousness includes in some measure the activity of all \nthree. Every act of perception is accompanied by a \nfeeling, and every feeling by an act of will. Nor can \nthe order of their occurrence be changed. Every voli- \ntion is preceded by a feeling, and every feeling by \nsome sensation or intellectual act. Pfleiderer is right \nwhen he insists that in every religious act the whole \npersonality participates. \n\nHence a correct definition of religion must be deter- \nmined by the way we put these three elements together. \nOur problem is a problem in psychology. It is not in \nthe study of theology or ethnology, but of this science \nthat we shall find the data for the proper solution of it. \nReligion exists because man exists. It grows up out \nof the normal development of his powers, and in tr^-ing \nto define it no basal element in his nature should be \nleft out of account. \n\nReligion shows itself just as soon as man has devel- \noped beyond the mere satisfaction of his animal appetites \nand begins to exercise his higher powers. There is a \npartial truth at least in Prof. Ward\'s position that \'\' re- \nligion is the substitute in the rational world for instinct \nin the sub-rational.*\' No new-born babe or full-grown \nidiot has any religion, but every normally developed \nhuman being has. WhenevxT a man knows enough to \ndistinguish the outside world from himself, and tries to \nact in accordance with this knowledge, he begins to be \nreligious. \n\n\n\nlo The Sphere of Religion \n\nThe first element, therefore, in religion is the recog- \nV nition of the existence of a power not ourselves pervad- \nl|. ing the universe. And another is the endeavor to put \n^ ourselves in harmonious relation with this power. Of \ncourse the feeling or aflFective element is presupposed \nas coming in between the other two. For without it \nthe endeavor would lack a motive, and could therefore \nhave no existence whatsoever. Every sane man believes \nat least that he is only a fraction of the sum-total of \nthings. He also feels some dependence upon this sum- \ntotal, and he is obliged to put himself in some sort of \naccord with it. This is what Caird has condensed into \nthe statement, ^\'a man\'s religion is the expression of \nhis ultimate attitude to the universe" {Evolution of \nReligion, vol. i., p. 30). \n\nEvery growing man is continually changing in some \ndegree his conception of the universe and the mysteri- \nous power that it manifests, but at no time in his career \ndoes he arrive at a final and completed conception of \nit. This is due of course to the fact that his experience \nis limited and can never be anything else. One of the \ngreatest reflections upon a man\'s character in this age \nwhen so much is being added to our knowledge of the \nuniverse is that his views about religion never change. \n\nStill, we must not forget that religion is a great per- \nmanent reality. It is not something that comes to-day \nand goes to-morrow. So long as man endures, it will \nendure ; and as man advances it will grow in import- \nance and power. \n\nHere we need to note the fact that the permanence \nand reality of religion can never be afiected in the least \nby the teachings of any science. For science is only \none of man\'s imperfect ways of looking at his know- \nledge. It can never make or break any reality. Re- \n\n\n\nWhat is Religion f 1 1 \n\nligion was in the world long before any of the sciences \ncame into being, and it will stay here whatever may \nbe their future development. \n\nFor science is a means to an end, and when the end \nis attained, when a perfect comprehension of the truth, \nsuch as we might suppose a god to possess, is arrived \nat, there will be no need of science. But so long as \nman remains finite, science will have a great deal to do \nwith the various forms of religion that from time to \ntime make their appearance in history. For it is the \nbusiness of science to investigate and criticise all kinds \nof beliefs, and particularly all beliefs that are proposed \nfor the acceptance of mankind concerning the nature \nand attributes of the supreme power that pervades the \nuniverse. Not infrequently science has had to combat \nwith vigor such beliefs, for they have often been out of \nall accord with carefully ascertained truth. \n\nAt certain periods in the past the greatest enemy of \nreligion has been theology, and in certain localities this \nis the case at present. For theology is almost always \nthe last science to yield to the incoming of new truths. \nBut whatever may be the teachings of theology or any \nother science, the essential thing in religion is not \ndestroyed thereby. The germ is always present and \nis growing with some degree of vigor and bearing some \nkind of fruit. \n\nIf the view of religion taken above be correct, we are \nled to the observation that every man is by nature re- \nligious, and unless he twists his growth out of its \nnormal course of development, he will always remain \nso. Irreligion is not the state or condition of having \nno religion at all. It is rebellion against what one \nreally believes to l)e the best religion, and the setting \nup of vSoine inferior religion in its stead. Ivvcry sane \n\n\n\n1 2 The Sphere of Religion \n\nman must have a god of some sort. He is so made \nthat he must worship something. He must put some- \nthing over and above himself and pay that something \nhomage. Modern students of the subject of religion \nare now everywhere admitting the great truth con- \ntained in the statement of the ancient Psalmist that \nonly a fool can say in his heart, *\' There is no God./* \nThey are willing to go much farther and accept with- \nout hesitation the recent assertion of President Eliot \nof Harvard, that the true test of any man\'s progress \nin civilization is his idea of God. \n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. \n\nS,TKPS IN THE EVOI.UTION OF IxEUGION. \n\nThe most remarkable thing yet discovered about this \nplanet is the fact that human beings exist upon it in \nlarge numbers, scattered almost everywhere over its \nsurface, who pay homage to super-terrestrial powers. \nBut this fact, remarkable as it is, is only a portion of \nthe truth. For the most searching and unprejudiced \ninvestigation has failed to reveal any time in human \nhistory when it was otherwise. However ignorant and \nforlorn man may have been in the past, we have no \nevidence that he has ever been so low down in the \nvScale of being that he did not look upward wdth some \ndegree of reverence and awe to higher powers. \n\nNot many years ago this fact of the universal pre- \nvalence of religion among men w^as seriously called in \nquestion by no less weighty writers than Sir John \nLubbock and Herbert Spencer. They quoted at length \nfrom the reports of certain travellers and missionaries \namong the Eskimos of North Greenland, the Hottentots \nof South Africa, and the Indians of Lower California, in \nsupport of tlieir position; and they stoutly contended \nthat in these documents we have proof positive that \nthere are communities now in existence that have no \nreligion at all. This challenge lead to a careful and \nthorough study of the status of these tribes by compe- \ntent anthropologists, and in every case an extensive \nmythology was discovered among them, together with \n\n13 \n\n\n\n14 The Sphere of Religion \n\nelaborate religious rites. A false idea of the meaning \nand scope of religion, a short stay in the countr}% or a \nlack of knowledge of the native language, had been the \ncause of the mistaken judgment. Probably no scholar \nof repute to-day would hesitate to accept the statement \nof Prof. D. G. Brinton in his work on The Religions of \nPrimitive Peoples (p. 30) that \'\' there has not been a \nsingle tribe, no matter how rude, known in history or \nvisited by travellers, which has been shown to be desti- \ntute of religion under some form." \n\nThe reason for this historical fact is a psychological \none, and has never been more clearly or forcibly ex- \npressed than by Dr. Edward Caird. \' \' Man, \' \' he asserts \n{^The Evolution of Religio7i, vol. i., p. 77), " by the very \nconstitution of his mind, has three ways of thinking \nopen to him : he can look outwards upon the world \naround him; he can look inwards upon the self within \nhim, and he can look upwards to the God above him. \' \' \nAnd he ver)^ appropriately adds, ** none of these possi- \nbilities can remain utterly unrealized." \n\nFor the fact is that man is a self-conscious being. \nAnd inasmuch as he is endowed with some degree of \nreason and will, he cannot stand still and passively \ngaze at the objects about him as though he were a \nmere brute. He must at least exert himself enough \nto form some kind of a conception of the powers around \nand above him, and put forth some degree of energy \nto place himself in harmonious relations with them. \nBut it should not at all surprise us if at the outset \nof his career as a religious being, he shows the same \nconfusion of ideas about the objects he worships as he \ndoes about all the other matters that come within the \nsphere of his experience. On the contrary, we should \nnaturally expect to find him growing and developing \n\n\n\nSteps in the Evolution of Religion 1 5 \n\nin his religious ideas as he grows and develops in all \nothers. \n\nAs a matter of fact, this is actually the case, and it \nwill be our present purpose to trace out in a general \nway some of the principal steps that he has taken as he \nhas advanced from lower to higher conceptions on this \nsubject in the course of history. \n\nIt is now generally agreed by careful students of an- \nthropology that the most primitive form of all religion \nis best characterized by the word Spiritism. This is \nthe naive and unreflective belief that most objects in \nthis world, especially those that are capable of motion, \ncontain an unseen being, which, for the lack of a better \nterm, we will call a demon, or spirit; that these spirits \nhave superhuman powers and can affect for good or ill \neverything that concerns the ongoings of nature and \nthe lives and happiness of man. In this stage of de- \nvelopment human beings attribute all their pleasant \nexperiences to a friendly demon, and all their disagree- \nable ones to just the opposite source. Hence they make \nuse of every means in their power to win the favor of \nthe good spirits, and ward off the envy and wrath of \nthe bad. \n\nThe reason for this state of things is not hard to find. \nFor when the primitive man first begins to give form \nto his religion, he is himself the only being that he \nknows anything about that possesses the power of \nspontaneous action. He cannot help attributing the \nsame power to all the objects with which he in any way \ncomes in contact. He acts just as every little child \nacts in a similar condition. Any object that constantly \ngives a baby pleasure it pats and caresses with affection. \nThe one from which it gets a hard pinch or knock it \nwants to pound and kick with all its power. It spon- \n\n\n\n1 6 The Sphere of Religion \n\ntaneously assigns to the object the same sensations and \nfeelings and will as it is itself conscious of. Its experi- \nence is so limited and crude that it does not know \nenough to do otherwise. So it is with primitive \nman. To him every other is another, and he attributes \nto that other all of his own powers. In his opinion the \nworld about and above him is made up of a vague, in- \ndefinite host of superhuman demons or spirits, and the \nform of his religion is determined by that fact. \n\nAnother thing that confirmed the primitive man in \nthe belief that he was surrounded by a world of super- \nsensuous beings was his experience in dreams ; when \nhe had developed far enough to remember his dreams \nwith any vividness, he always thought of them as real \nexperiences. The beings that visited him in his sleep \nwere as genuine realities and as truly to be dealt with \nas any that he came in contact with when awake. In \nfact, he finds that he can often do things in dreams \nthat he cannot do when awake, and that he frequently \ncommunes with beings that he has no knowledge of \nwhen awake. The Kamtchatkans and Eskimos, we \nare told, determine what they will do when awake to a \ngreat extent by their dreams ; for they regard the \nknowledge obtained in this way as far superior to that \ngained through the senses. I^ucretius, however, goes \ntoo far when he asserts that \' * the dreams of men peopled \nthe heaven with gods." Many of the lower animals \nare vivid dreamers, but they show no signs of having \nany religion. Still, dreams in all ages have often been \nregarded with superstitious reverence, and were un- \ndoubtedly an element in determining the character of \nthe primitive religion of mankind. \n\nIt has come down to us from the I^atin poet Petro- \nnius that \'\'fear first made the gods." As a complete \n\n\n\nSteps in the Evolution of Religion 1 7 \n\nstatement of the origin of religion, it is contrary to the \nhistory and nature of man. The primary religious \ninfluence is not fear, but confidence and awe. The \nspirit of many early religions was quite the opposite of \nfear. \' \' Probably the first of all public rites of wor- \nship," says a high authority (Brinton, The Religions \nof Primitive Peoples, p. 181), ^\'was one of joyousness, \nto wit, the invitation to the god to be present and to \npartake of the repast/\' So Prof. Frank Granger testifies \nin his work on the Worship of the Romans. No word \nof mourning was allowed at their religious celebra- \ntions, and usually they consisted in large part of the- \natrical performances, horse-races, dances, and games \nfor the entertainment of their gods. Dr. Robertson \nSmith tells us in his Religion of the Seviites (p. 260) \nthat the early Semitic ceremonies were *\' predominantly \njoyous," and it was often this element in their worship \nthat led them to indulge in the grossest excesses. \nMany other modern students of the subject would bear \nwitness to the presence of joy and confidence in \nprimitive religions. \n\nYet it cannot be denied but that fear early came \nto be one of their most important elements. For just \nas with the little child, the primitive man was often \ndisappointed in his confidence. As his experience \nwidened and the ills of life multiplied, he began to \ndoubt the friendly character of the spirits. He soon \ncame to the conviction that some only were favorable \nto him. The rest were to be feared. And as fear once \naroused feeds upon everything within its grasp and \ngrows with extraordinary rapidity, the uncertainty as \nto what the attitude of the spirits would be toward him \nnaturally caused the primitive man to spend the most \nof his energy in devising ways to appease their wrath. \n\n\n\n1 8 The Sphere of Religion \n\nWherever this form of religion now prevails, demons \nof darkness and destruction have come to receive al- \nmost exclusive worship. In fact, the wretchedness \nand misery of heathendom, \xe2\x80\x94 cannibalism, human sac- \nrifices, and the revolting licentiousness of many primi- \ntive religious rites \xe2\x80\x94 are chiefly due to the frantic ef- \nforts of ignorant man to propitiate these monsters and \nward off their manifold terrors. \n\nA slight step in advance beyond spiritism was taken \nwhen the opinion began to prevail that all objects do \nnot contain superhuman beings, but only some of them. \nThis stage in religion is called Fetishism. The term \nwas first applied by certain early Portuguese explorers \nto the objects worshipped by the savage tribes they \ndiscovered in Senegal and the region of the Congo. \nThey found some of these peoples paying homage to \nsuch objects as a piece of wood, a feather, the fin of a \nfish, the claw of a bird, the hoof of a goat. Others \namong them regarded with reverential awe a big rock, \na grove of trees, some such animal as a snail, a snake, \na lizard, or a crocodile. In fact, anything became an \nobject of worship to them when they fancied that a \npowerful unseen being had attached himself to it. \n\nIf a fetish brings good luck, it may be sold for a \nhigh price if the owner wishes to part with it. If it \nbrings bad luck, it is thrown away or demolished. For \nall virtue has gone out of it. The spirit that was in it \nhas departed, and it has lost its power. The favorite \nfetish of a Papuan of New Guinea is a little wooden \ndoll with a bright colored rag tied around it. If a \nstroke of ill fortune comes to him when he has this in \nhis belt, he will take it out and stamp on it, or tear it \nin pieces with his teeth, and cast it from him as of \nutterly no value. \n\n\n\nSteps in the Evolution of Religion ig \n\nWhen food is ofiered by a South African negro to a \nstone by the wayside, he does not expect the stone to \neat it. The food is for the fetish that resides in the \nstone, and the fetish is always a spirit. Man\'s first \nhome was probably the hollow of a tree. He lived on \nthe fruit of the tree and sought refuge in its branches. \nBut when some Mexican tribes took a tree for their \nfetish, they did not worship the material of the tree. \nIt was only the spirit that resided in it that they \nreverenced. \n\nAs we go about over the surface of the earth, we find \nthat different tribes have selected different objects for \ntheir fetish, according as the objects have impressed \nthemselves upon them as possessing superhuman \npowers. Among the Maoris of New Zealand spiders \nwere paid divine honors ; for it was in their gossamer \nthreads that they fancied the souls of the departed as- \ncended heavenwards. \n\nSome of the Indian tribes of the Northwest regarded \nthe raven, or the thunder-bird, as they called it, as es- \npecially sacred ; and according to Captain Cook, the \nSandwich Islanders also did so. The peacock, the swan, \nthe rooster, the eagle, and the dove, have been the favor- \nite fetishes of other tribes. In Australia and Polynesia \nthe lizard was greatly revered. The Chaldeans paid \nthe fish divine honors. In Egypt the ox was especially \nsacred, and so it is in parts of India. In certain of the \nFiji Islands the shark is worshipped, just as the alliga- \ntor is in the Philippines. The Samoyeds in Siberia \nmake fetishes of the whale and the polar bear. \n\nBut the most widely worshipped of all animals is tlie \nserpent. Mr. Ferguson, in his work on Tree and Ser- \npent Worship, finds that the serpent was accorded di- \nvine honors by nearly all the nations of antiquity, and \n\n\n\n20 The Sphere of Religion \n\nis now worshipped in many parts of Asia, Africa, and \nAmerica. Among the Lithuanians in southern Russia, \nsays a high authority, \'\' every family entertained a real \nserpent as a household god." Sir John Lubbock tells \nus that in Liberia \' \' no negro would intentionally injure \na serpent, and any one doing so by accident would as- \nsuredly be put to death. Some English sailors once \nhaving killed one which they found in their house, \nwere furiously attacked by the natives who killed them \nall and burned the house " {^Origin of Civilization^ p. \n\n177). \n\nThe Hindus probably excel all other peoples of the \nworld in the number of objects to which they pay \ndivine honors ; for they worship \' \' almost every living \ncreature, whether quadruped, bird, or reptile.\'* But \nthey never worship the objects themselves, nor do any \nof the tribes or peoples enumerated above do so. They \nalways treat the object with indifference, if not con- \ntempt, if they believe the superhuman spirit it contained \nhas gone out of it. \n\nIn this stage of religious development, as in every \nother, it happened that certain persons came to devote \ntheir lives to finding out the ways of the spirits. Under \nthe name of medicine-men, sorcerers, shamans, yogi, \nor fetish priests, they soon became the leaders and \nguides of the people, dictating even the very details of \ntheir daily lives. By the practice of many magical \nrites and the use of various charms and incantations \nthey believed that they acquired such a knowledge of \nthe plans and intents of the spirits that they could di- \nrect their actions almost at their option. They had all \nthe confidence in themselves and all the authority over \nothers of inspired prophets. Often they gained this in- \nsight by the most terrible self-inflicted tortures. They \n\n\n\nSteps in the Evolution of Religion 2 1 \n\nwould not hesitate to cut oflF a limb, pluck out an eye, \ndrive thongs through the body, burn themselves with \nhot coals, to put themselves eii rapport With the spirits. \nThey therefore knew no limit to the suffering that they \nwould impose upon others, if they thought the spirits \ncould be propitiated thereby. It was not at all uncom- \nmon for them to call upon their followers to offer up \nnot only their slaves and their captives, but the nearest \nand dearest of their own household and blood to gain \nthe favor of the gods. For the dearer the victim, the \nmore pleased they would be at the gift. Traces of hu- \nman sacrifice are found in the early history of even the \nnoblest religions. The ancient Hebrew religion is no \nexception to this rule. \n\nClosely allied to fetishism, 3\'et indicating some ad- \nvance in the evolution of religious beliefs is Ancestor- \nworship. This easily arises when man has developed \nfar enough to begin to meditate upon the phenomena \nof death. At the very outset it is likely that death did \nnot arouse much more interest than it does now among \nbrutes. Brinton asserts that *\' The evidence is moun- \ntain-high that in the earliest and rudest period of \nhuman history the corpse inspired so little terror that it \nwas nearly always eaten by the surviving friends." \nBut even this custom was probably of a religious origin. \nA traveller (D\'Orbigny) in Bolivia tells us of an old \nIndian he met there whose only regret in giving up his \nold religion and adopting Christianity was that his \nbody would now be devoured by worms, instead of \nbeing eaten by his relatives. \n\nAt all events, it early became an elaborate and sol- \nemn religious rite to provide the body with carefully \nprepared viands for its last long journey. Any neglect \non the part of the survivors would be severely punished. \n\n\n\n2 2 The Sphere of Religion \n\nFor the soul of the departed would continue to roam \nabout without a home, unless it was properly attended \nto its final resting-place. Hence it became the world- \nwide custom among savage tribes to place in the tomb \nor on the funeral pyre such articles as the weapons, the \nclothing, and ornaments of the deceased. In many \ncases the wives or slaves or companion-in-arms were \nslain or slew themselves to accompany a chieftain to his \nlong home. Often among the American Indians they \nwere interred in the same mound, and many such \nmounds exist in diflFerent parts of the country. \n\nWhen a tribe had survived so long as to have a \nhistory, and to trace its descent through the male head \nof the family, a decided change in its religious views \nusually followed. As Giddings describes it (^Principles \nof Sociology, p. 290) * \' while the household may con- \ntinue to regard natural objects and forces and mis- \ncellaneous spirits with superstitious feelings, they \nentertain for the soul of the departed founder of the \nhouse the strongest feeling of veneration. They think \nof the ancestral spirit as their protector in the land of \nshades. To the ancestral spirit, therefore, they pay \ntheir principal devotions.\'* We find it generally true \nthat the family tomb was near the house and not far \nfrom the entrance. The children were brought up \nunder its shadow, and constantly addressed to it their \nprayers. Within the house on the family altar burned \nthe sacred fire that went out only with the extinction \nof the family. Around this fire all the household dead \nwere supposed frequently to assemble to hear their \nmighty deeds narrated and to be reverenced and \nadored. \n\nAll the ancient Semitic tribes were ancestor-wor- \nshippers, and so were the Aryans when they first \n\n\n\nSteps in the Evolution of Religion 23 \n\nappeared on the shores of the Mediterranean. The \nEgyptians carried the cult to a high state of perfection, \nand the manes- worship which long held sway among \nthe Romans is an example of it. It is to-day the re- \nligion of the Bantu tribes of Africa, and still prevails to \nsome extent in Japan. But it is chiefly among the \nChinese that this form of religion has reached its high- \nest form of development. All changes in the customs \nof the country are resisted as a reflection upon the \nregulations established by their ancestors, for the in- \nfraction of w^hich they will be severely punished. \nThe greatest sin they can commit is to allow the \ngraves of their ancestors to be disturbed for any cause \nwhatsoever. \n\nHerbert Spencer regarded ancestor-worship as the \nprimary religion. In his Science of Sociology (vol. i., \np. 309) he expressly says : \' \' The rudimentary form of \nall religion is the propitiation of dead ancestors, who \nare supposed to be still existing, and to be capable of \nworking good and evil to their descendants." \n\nThe trouble with this view is that it is superficial. \nIt rests upon a false conception of religion, and is con- \ntrary to historical and psychological fact. But perhaps \nthe chief objection to Spencer\'s view is its simplicity. \nFor as Jastrow remarks ( The Study of Religion, p. 1 85), \n\' \' Religion is too complex a phenomenon to be accounted \nfor by the growth and spread of a single custom." \n\nAs men progress in their knowledge of the things \nabout them, they come to see the defects in the forms \nof religion described above, and begin to turn their \nattention to more exalted powers. They cease to pay \nexclusive homage to the spirits that reside in the ob- \njects that they themselves have handled and can make \nor destroy, and begin to look up in reverential awe to \n\n\n\n2 4 The sphere of Religion \n\nthe beings that manifest themselves on a vaster scale, \nand in a more consistent and impressive manner. \n\nThus arose what is usually called Nature-worship, \nthe most prominent form of which is the worship of \nthe celestial bodies. It is probable that the division \nof the week into seven days came about from the dedi- \ncation of one day to each of the gods manifesting him- \nself through the seven greatest luminaries. \n\nNaturally, in all except the torrid zone, the sun-god \nreceived the greatest homage. As the source of light \nand warmth, as the earth\'s great fructifying power, as \nthe one constant ever-recurring factor in man\'s daily \nexperience, it has always awakened the most powerful \nreligious emotions, in the minds of rude as well as semi- \ncivilized people. Among the ancient Phoenicians the \nsun was the centre of their cultus. It was probably \nthe leading feature of the religion of the ancient \nPersians. The same was also true of the Sabeans. The \nworship of Apollo, so popular among the Greeks, was \nin all probability sun-worship. The Egyptians gave \nthe sun a high place in their system, and the ancient \nPeruvians paid it their chief honors. The Celts and \nthe Teutons, as well as the East Indians, made much \nof it, and so do numerous tribes in Africa to-day. It \nis maintained by many writers that the North American \nIndians were always and chiefly sun-worshippers ; that \nthe sun was actually their Manitou, or Great Spirit. \n\nIn some lands the moon was fixed upon as the chief \ndeity. Certain Australian tribes believe to-day that \nall things, including man, were created by the moon. \nAnthropologists tell us that in many American lan- \nguages the moon is regarded as male, and the sun is \nreferred to as \' * his companion. \' \' Some of the Brazilian \ntribes pray to the moon as *\' Our Father," and regard \n\n\n\nSteps in the Evolution of Religion 2 5 \n\nit as their common ancestor. So do the eastern \nEskimos. \n\nAt all periods of the world\'s history the stars have \nreceived special homage. Among the early natives of \nGreenland and Australia the Milky Way was nothing \nless than the pathway of souls ascending to their home \nin the heavens. The Auroras Borealis and Australis \nwere actually in their opinion the dance of the gods \nacross the firmament. \n\nAnother form of nature-worship was the adoration of \nthe fire-god. Among all peoples fire has been held \nsacred. It was thought of as the central principle of \nlife. Among the Kafirs in South Africa every religious \nceremony must be performed in front of a fire. The \nIndians of Guatemala regard it as their greatest and \noldest deity. The fire test was practised by the Aztecs \nof Mexico, as well as by the Moloch worshippers of \nSyria. In Borneo the crackling of blazing twigs is the \nspeech of the gods. The vestal fire of old, and the \nperpetual fire of the modern Christian altar are both \nfounded upon the assumption of its sacred character. \n\nEarly missionaries in America tell us that the Hurons \npaid the sky the greatest homage. They imagined that \nit contained a powerful demon or ** oki,\'* that reigned \nover the seasons of the year, and controlled the winds \nand waves. The supreme deity of the Iroquois was the \n** sky-comer," who had his festival about the time of \nthe winter solstice. He was the one who brought their \nancestors out of the mountain and taught them hunt- \ning, marriage, and religion. Some of the Zulus tliink \nof the sky as the " Master of Heaven,*\' and pay it di- \nvine honors, and so do the Tartars and Fiinis. In an- \ncient China, Tien, or Heaven, was the Upper Emperor, \nor I/)rd of the Universe. According to Max Miiller, \n\n\n\n26 The Sphere of Religion \n\nZeus was the heaven-god of the Greeks. \' \' lyike the \nsky," he says, " Zeus dwells on the highest mountain. \nLike the sky, Zeus embraces the earth ; like the sky, \nZeus is eternal, unchanging, the highest god \' \' (I/ec- \ntures, 2d series, p. 425). \n\nThe water-god has always had a multitude of wor- \nshippers. As the source of moisture and the dew and \nall refreshing showers, it easil}^ comes to be thought of \nas the giver of all life. \' \' All of us, " the Aztecs said, \n\' \' are children of water. \' * Tlaloc, their god of rain and \nwater, is the fertilizer of the earth and lord of paradise. \nHis wife dwells among the mountains where the clouds \ngather and pour down their streams. Among the Da- \nkotas, the master spirit of their sorcery and religion is \nsaid to be Unktahe, the god of the water, who dwells \nwith his associates beneath the sea. The inland people \nof Sumatra, we are told, make an offering of cake and \nsweetmeats to the sea on beholding it for the first time. \nAmong the Khonds of Orissa the priests often propi- \ntiate the rain-god with eggs and arrack and rice and a \nsheep. They believe that unless they do this, the seeds \nwill rot in the ground, their children and cattle will die \nof want, the deer and the wild hog will seek other \nhaunts. \n\nAlthough Xerxes tried to chain and scourge the Hel- \nlespont, he threw a golden goblet and a sword into its \nwaters. Hannibal on leaving Carthage took scrupu- \nlous care to cast many animals into the sea as votive \nofferings to Poseidon. The famous Athenian prayer \nrecorded by Marcus Aurelius reveals the classic con- \nception of one of the chief functions of Zeus : " Rain, \nrain, O dear Zeus, on the plough-lands of the Athen- \nians and the plains." In Vergil Oceanus is often \nspoken of as \' \' pater rerum. \' \' Water is used the world \n\n\n\nSteps in the Evolution of Religion 2 7 \n\nover in libations and in acts of penitence and purifi- \ncation. Baptism by sprinkling or immersion has been \na common sacred rite among all peoples. \n\nThe Algonquins call the earth Mesukkummik Okwi \nand worship her as the great grandmother of all. \nThey believe that the animals from whose flesh and \nskin the food and clothing of man are derived are in her \ncare. No good Indian will dig for the roots from which \nhis medicines are made until he has first sought her \nblessing. Otherwise, the roots would have no health- \nrestoring power. The Incas of Peru at harvest time \npresent ground corn and libations of chica to Mamapa- \ncha, Mother Earth, that she may grant them a good \nharvest. The negroes of West Africa before entering \nupon any great undertaking pour out their libations \ncalling out, \'\' Creator, come drink ; Earth, come drink ; \nBosumbra, come drink.\'* Many of the natives of India \nalways ofier some food to Mother Earth before eating. \nThe Khonds being an intensely agricultural race \nrecently carried the worship of the Earth-Mother to \nsuch excess that the practice of their rites had \nto be suppressed by the government. For they \noffered to her their slave-victims torn into small \npieces and spread over the fields they were to \nfertilize. \n\nIn the Chinese theology the earth holds a place next \nto heaven. The worship of Tien and Tu, Father \nHeaven and Mother Ivarth, by the bride and groom is \nan all-important part of a Chinese wedding ceremony. \nThe Greeks prayed to Gaia as the all-mother, and \nTacitus found the Germans practising the customs of \nhis own country in worshipping ** Terrain matrem.\'* \nThe oldest god of Chaldean mythology was Ea, lord of \nthe earth, without whose blessing no seeds would \n\n\n\n28 The Sphere of Religion \n\ngerminate, the soil would have no fertilizing power, \nand there would be no harvests. \n\nThe thunder-god of the ancient Hindus, who smites \nthe dragon clouds and pours the rain down upon the \nearth ; the Thor of old German and Scandinavian my- \nthology, who hurls his crashing hammer through the \nair ; the Jupiter Tonans of the Romans ; the wind-gods \nwho in all lands control the gale and the tempest, are \nbut further illustrations of the prevalence of the tend- \nency of all times and countries to pay special homage to \nthe great forces of nature that are ever working such \nmighty wonders. But here again we need to notice \nthat, as in the lower forms of religion already described, \nwe do not find these forces worshipped as material ob- \njects. They are always thought of as spirits manifesting \nsuperhuman powers. \n\nAs the experience of man widens, he discovers not \nonly that he can destroy the tree whose spirit he wor- \nshipped, and can entrap the animals and subdue them, \nbut also that the sun, moon, and stars do not vary their \naction at their own option. They are obliged to move \nabout in certain more or less prescribed courses. Even \nthe clouds are driven to and fro by some superior power \nand are not free to follow their own desires. Hence he \neasily and naturally comes to see the truth that there \nmust be powers above these forces that are far more \nworthy than they are of his homage. He rejects the \nnotion that the forces of nature reveal the highest \nspirits, and he looks up to deities that can use these \nforces freely at their option. \n\nAs distinguished from nature-worship and other \nlower forms of religion, this doctrine is called \nPolytheism, although it differs from these other \nforms not in kind but only in degree. Undoubt- \n\n\n\nSteps 171 the Evolution of Religion 29 \n\nedly, the development of this doctrine is closely \nrelated to the development of the social and gov- \nernmental relations existing among the people them- \nselves. When chiefs and kings begin to make their \nappearance in any community, then these greater \ngods begin to be recognised as over and above all lesser \nspirits. Oftentimes the kings and chiefs themselves \nare elevated to the sphere of gods, and in some cases, \neven while alive, receive divine honors. Rarely, how- \never, does polytheism do away with any of the lower \nforms of religion. On the contrary, it usually coexists \nwith belief in disembodied spirits, local genii of rocks \nand fountains and trees, household gods, and a host of \nother good and evil demons. The deities of this form \nof religion simply take their place as presiding over all \ninferior gods, using them as messengers or agents for \nthe furtherance of their plans and purposes. \n\nAt first, each tribe or district is thought of as having \nits own particular deity. But as the tribes intermingle \nand learn more of one another, the tribal gods give way \nto national. At the outset the national gods of one \ncountry are regarded as distinct from those of another, \nbut of equal powers. Even the ancient Hebrews con- \nsidered the gods of other nations, such as those of \nAssyria, Phoenicia, and Egypt, as real divinities. \n\nMany tribes and peoples have risen in some degree \nto the stage of polytheistic thought, but the nations \nthat carried it to a higher degree of perfection than any \nothers were the ancient Greeks and Romans. Cosily \ntemples were erected to the honor of their gods. Elabo- \nrate ritualistic services were instituted to do them \nreverence. A great multitude of priests and priestesses \ndevoted their lives to finding out and enforcing their \nwill and purpose. The character and extent of this \n\n\n\n30 The Sphere of Religion \n\nform of religion are, however, so familiar that there is \nlittle need of further explanation of it here. \n\nThis can hardl}^ be said of Monotheism, the next step \nin the evolution of religion. For there has been and in \nsome quarters still is a great divergence of opinion re- \ngarding its historic origin. For until within a few \ngenerations, it was the common belief of thinkers on \nthe subject of religion that the knowledge of the exist- \nence of one god was a primitive revelation, made to the \nfirst representatives of the human race, and handed down \nby them to their posterity. Polytheism and all other \nforms of religion, it was maintained, are a degeneration \nfrom a once higher form. But this view has few if any \nadvocates among recent scholars. For it is now known \nthat the tendency to the monotheistic position exists \namong all people when they have advanced to a certain \ndegree of mental culture. As Jastrow well says : \n** There is a difference in the degree in which this ten- \ndency is emphasized, but whether we turn to Babylonia, \nEgypt, India, China, or Greece, there are distinct traces \ntowards concentrating the varied manifestations of di- \nvine powers in a single source." \n\nThis tendency is a perfectly natural one, and arises \nthe moment man begins seriously to reflect upon the \nuniverse. He cannot fail to observe the inequalities \nthat exist among the deities, and to realize that of ne- \ncessity one must be supreme to all the others. When \nany two peoples united as the result of war or for any \nother reason, the superior place would natural^ be ac- \ncorded to the deity of the conquering power; and as a \nnation grew in influence and became conscious of its \nstrength, it would gradually change its opinions regard- \ning the gods of the nations about it. It would either \ndo as the Greeks did in the case of Ammon, the god of \n\n\n\nSteps in the Evolution of Religion 3 1 \n\nthe Egyptians, recognize in him their own Zeus as ap - \npearing in another form, or come to treat other gods as \ninferior deities not worthy of being compared with their \nown god, as the Hebrews looked upon Chemosh, \nthe supreme god of the Moabites, in compar- \nison with Jahveh, or Jehovah, their own national \ndeity. \n\nIt is a matter of history that monotheism did not \noriginate in any one quarter alone, but was an idea at- \ntained independently by many peoples at a compara- \ntively early stage in their development. \n\nThe chief contribution of the Hebrews to religion is \nnot their monotheistic idea, but the emphasis they put \nupon the ethical character of their supreme deity. He \nwas not mere power that goes stalking through the \nuniverse, but a being of righteousness that deals with \nmen and nations according to their moral character. \nIt was this view that caused the worship of Jehovah to \nsupplant that of all the other gods among the Hebrews \nthemselves, and to survive the crash of faiths that early \nbefell the entire ancient world. \n\nIn this brief outline of the main steps that have been \ntaken in the development of religion, it is not claimed \nthat any hard and fast distinction can be made between \nthem. Indeed, it is the opinion of competent authori- \nties that all the different forms of religion described \nabove coexisted among the Hindus, the Greeks, the \nold Norsemen, and to some extent still coexist among \nmodern Africans, as well as the negroes and Indians \nof our own land. Nor is it held that any sudden or \ncomplete transition from a lower to a higher stage has \nactually taken place at any time in history. On the \ncontrary, the changes have been gradual, and many \nevidences of the survival of the old amid the new exist \n\n\n\n3 2 The Sphere of Religion \n\nin the notions and customs of even the most highly \ncivilized and intelligent nations of our own day. \n\nAmulets, charms, lucky stones and coins, the ven- \neration of sacred relics, everything that goes under the \nname of Mascot, are all legitimately descended from \nfetishism ; just as belief in ghosts and haunted houses, \nfear of the dark, and the like, come from a more pri- \nmary form of religion. Current ideas concerning lucky \nand unlucky days and numbers, spilling salt, throwing \nrice at a w^edding, charming away warts, are survivals \nof a similar sort. So, too, are the present notions of \nman as to sacred days and places, sacred utensils, holy \nwater. And we should not hesitate to class in the list \nof primitive and outgrown religious ideas the worship \nof saints, and the common belief that a person acquires \npeculiar supernatural authority in religious matters by \nthe laying on of hands, or by any other form of ordina- \ntion. For they are notions on a par with the old Greek \ntradition that one gets a supernatural inspiration by \nthe very act of paying a visit to the fountain of Parnas- \nsus, or taking a draft at the Pierian spring. But the \nmost striking of all is the present popular belief that \nbetween man and the Supreme Being there exists an \nascending gradation of angels and archangels on the \none hand, and evil spirits on the other, reaching up to \na supreme evil demon, who, under the title of Devil or \nSatan, is supposed to be the author of the sin and \nmisery of mankind. \n\nIt might be objected to this outline of the develop- \nment of religion that no place is left in it for the \nworship of idols. This omission is by no means an \naccident, for it is based on the conviction that idolatry \nis not an actual, or even a possible form of religion, if \nit is taken to mean that human beings have ever paid \n\n\n\nSteps in the Evolution of Religion 33 \n\ndivine honors to images made of wood or stone, or to \nany other material object. What the so-called idolater \nactually worships is the spirit that the image is sup- \nposed to represent. If he believes the spirit has gone \nout of the object or image, he treats it with undisguised \ncontempt. \n\nThat there is no real diflFerence between idolatiy and \nfetishism is well illustrated by the way the Chinese \noften treat the images of their gods. As described by \nan eye-witness, if after long praying they do not get \nwhat they wish, they call the god all the hard names \nthey can think of, and cry out, ** How now, dog of a \nspirit ! we give 3\'ou a lodging in a magnificent temple, \nwe gild 3^ou handsomely, feed you well, and offer \nincense to you ; yet after all this care, you are so \nungrateful as to refuse us what we ask of you." Then \nthey pull the image down from its pedestal, tie cords \naround it, and drag it through the mud and offal of \nthe streets to punish the god for the expense of the \nperfumery they have wasted upon him. \n\nEvery image-maker the world over does his best to \nembody the ideas of the person for whom the image is \nmade. He knows well enough that unless he does \nthis, he will receive no compensation for his labor. \nWhen Brahma is represented with dozens of hands, \nDiana with a hundred breasts, and other greater or less \ndeities with impossible features and accessories, it is \nsimply an attempt to express the superhuman qualities \nof these beings, not to caricature their powers. \n\nIf these steps in the evolution are approximately \ntrue to fact, we see how weak and erroneous the posi- \ntion is that makes religion the invention of priests and \npoliticians for the purpose of terrorizing the people into \nsubmission to their authority, and securing the contin- \n3 \n\n\n\n34 The Sphere of Religion \n\nuance of their power. This opinion was strongly ad- \nvocated by certain English writers of the eighteenth \ncentury, and had many followers ; among them the poet \nShelley was one of the most prominent. It widely pre- \nvailed in France at the time of the Revolution, and \nwas one of the chief causes of its horrors. Besides be- \ning based on a false and superficial idea of what relig- \nion is, it ignores the fact that religion is older than any \nform of priesthood. The priest is, in point of fact, \na conservator, and not an innovator. He chiefly \nconcerns himself with perpetuating what already is. \nHis hold upon the community is primarily due to the \ninfluence religion has over men, not to his ability to \nmanipulate that religion. He may, of course, unduly \nincrease his influence, and turn religion into wrong \nchannels for personal ends, but the extent to which he \nhas done so is grossly exaggerated in many quarters. \nFor such a claim cannot be borne out by a careful \nstudy of the historical facts. \n\nIn the light of this view of the evolution of religion, \nwe can see how irrational it is to divide religions into \ntrue and false, instead of classifying them as primitive \nand developed. It was maintained by Empedocles \namong the ancient Greeks that all religions are false \nbecause they are the product of a diseased mind, and \nFeuerbach in the last century strongly advocated the \nsame view among the Germans. \n\nWhile few, if any, maintain that opinion at present, \nthere are many who hold that all religions are false \nexcept one, and that the one they themselves have \ncome to adopt. The Jew does this who asserts that \nGod by a perpetual covenant, recorded in the Old \nTestament, has made his own race the sole repository \nof his will. The Islamite does this who regards the \n\n\n\nSteps in the Evolution of Religion 35 \n\nKoran alone as the sole guide to truth and life. And \nthe Christian who sees in the New Testament the only \nsource of religious faith and practice belongs to the \nsame class. No writer has given us a more vivid \npicture of the erroneous way of regarding the religions \nof the world than Milton in his Paradise Lost, That \nall religions except the Christian are pure inventions \nof the Devil to ensnare the unwary is his fundamental \nthought. \n\nThis position has been the source of untold mischief \nand suffering in the past, and immensely impedes the \nprogress of mankind at present. It is contrary to \nactual fact, and is based upon the false assumption \nthat man possesses the ability to acquire absolute cer- \ntainty in religious matters, a thing which is denied to \nhim in every other sphere. \n\nThe truth is that man\'s religion develops as he him- \nself develops. The steps in the evolution of religion \nare the steps in his own mental advancement. There \nis never a time after he comes into conscious possession \nof his powers as a person when he is without religion, \nand there is no possibility of his outgrowing religion. \nHe does not get his religion out of any book, but pri- \nmarily out of the experiences of his own mind and \nheart. The experiences of others are a help to him \nonly as he reproduces them in his own. The more sen- \nsual he is, the more sensual will be his religion, and \nthe more rational and pure his life is, the more refined \nand spiritual will his religion become. In other words, \nthe more of a man he is himself, the loftier will his con- \nception be of the Maker and Sustainer of all truth and \nlife. \n\nThe reason for this is that every man is so con- \nstructed that he must make his god in his own image. \n\n\n\n36 The Sphere of Religion \n\nReligion arises in the ability of man to form an ideal of \nthings that transcend the real. A man without imagi- \nnation would be without religion, for he would be no \nlonger a man, but would have sunk down to the level \nof the brute. No man ever worshipped an abstraction. \nHe pays homage only to some concrete thing, and his \nability to form a picture of a Power higher than him- \nself depends upon his imagination, which simply takes \nthe highest in his own experience and attributes it to \nhis god. This has been true of man in all stages of his \nhistory, is true now, and we cannot think of a time \nwhen it will be otherwise. \n\nThe charge that religion is anthropomorphic is ad- \nmitted without hesitation. For this is true of every- \nthing beyond the merely physical, of which we have \nany knowledge. We cannot think of any being above \nourselves, unless we assume that being to be in some \nrespects at least in our own image. It is psycho- \nlogically impossible not to do so, if we make the \nattempt at all. Every man must worship his own \nthought of God, and his progress in civilization is best \nmeasured by the worthiness of that thought. The re- \nligious nature of man, when once aroused, can never \nbe lulled to rest. It must feed upon something. For \nit is the most fundamental and pervasive of all man\'s \npowers. It is perpetually yearning for expression, and \ncan only for a time be partially smothered. It will \nreach its full and complete fruition in every one of us \nonly when we come to realize in our own experience \nthe most commonplace and yet truest saying of all the \nages upon this subject, that the highest of all exist- \nences in this universe is * \' not far from every one of us ; \nfor in him we live and move and have our being.*\' \n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. \n\nSACRKD BOOKS AND HOW THKY ORIGINATE. \n\na. The Sacred Tablets of the Babylonians.\xe2\x80\x94 \n\nIn treating of the subject of the relation of bibles \nto religion we need, first of all, to note the fact \nthat three things existed in this world long before \nthere were any bibles, namely, nature, man, and \nGod. \n\nThe \'* little speck of matter " in our stellar universe \nwhich we call the earth had passed through innumer- \nable changes in form and condition ages before man \nappeared upon its surface, and man had established \nelaborate systems of religious worship on many por- \ntions of our planet centuries before a bible of any \ndescription had even been thought of. For the mo- \nment a human being begins to attain a consciousness \nof his own existence and the existence of a world \naround and above him, he forms at once some sort of \nreligion, and there is never a time in his histor>\' as a \nman when he is without religion. \n\nHence a very little reflection will lead us to see that \na bible cannot be brought into existence until man has \nhad some experience with nature and has learned to \nlook with some degree of clearness through nature up \nto superhuman powers. No bible can create this ex- \nperience. All it can do is to record what has been \nexperienced in the past and anticipate with more or \nless assurance what may come within the reahii of \n\n37 \n\n\n\n38 The Sphere of Religion \n\nfuture experience. Religion, therefore, cannot be based \nupon any bible. On the contrary, it is religion that \nmakes bibles, not bibles religion. \n\nNevertheless, the content and form of religion may \ncome to be immensely affected by their influence, and \nsuch has been the historic fact. Every religion of any \nmoment in the world has sooner or later found itself in \npossession of a bible in which it treasured up its pro- \nfoundest thoughts and its noblest inspirations. It is, \ntherefore, our present purpose to state very briefly the \nleading features of some of these bibles, to set forth the \nopinion of scholars as to how they grew to be what they \nnow are, and at the same time to estimate in a general \nway their value to the cause of religion in Qur day. \nTaking them up, as far as possible, in their chronologi- \ncal order, we mention first of all the Sacred Tablets of \nthe Babylonians. \n\nThere is at present no agreement among scholars as \nto what portion of the earth first produced a permanent \nrecord of its religious life, and many are of the opinion \nthat the origin of civilization will never be traced to any \none people or country. All, however, now admit that \nthe Sacred Tablets recently unearthed in Babylonia are \namong the oldest literary records of any sort yet dis- \ncovered, and that they carry us back to a date far be- \nyond the wildest dreams of scholars a half-century \nago. \n\nAs early as 1842 M. Botta, a Frenchman, began mak- \ning excavations in a mound on the left bank of the \nTigris, not far from Mosul. In it he discovered the \nruins of a magnificent palace. From the inscriptions \non the walls and from other data it was shown that the \npalace was erected by Sargon II., who reigned over \nAssyria from 721 B.C. to 705 B.C. Inspired by Botta\'s \n\n\n\nThe Sacred Tablets of the Babylonians 39 \n\nremarkable successes, Sir Austin Henry Layard, an \neminent English archaeologist, a few years later started \nto open some mounds on the opposite bank of the river \na few miles to the south of Mosul. The result was that \nhe soon unearthed the remains of the ancient city of \nNineveh, bringing to light many palaces and temples \nstill filled with the sculptured treasures of literature and \nart. \n\nHis principal find, however, was a great collection of \nclay tablets, covered with cuneiform or wedge-shaped \ninscriptions, which turned out to be the famous ro3^al \n*\' brick" library gathered by Asshurbanipal, who suc- \nceeded to the Assyrian throne in 668 B.C. Some \n30,000 fragments of this library are now in the British \nMuseum and, together with the notable finds made \nshortly after by H. Rassam and George Smith, give us \non the whole a most satisfactory knowledge of the re- \nligious beliefs and rites of this ancient people. \n\nBut what is still more remarkable, recent discoveries \nshow us that these tablets take us back to a time far \nmore remote than that of Asshurbanipal, or even of the \nexistence of the Assyrians as a nation. In 1854 Sir \nHenry RawHnson began uncovering the sites of the \nancient cities of Babylonia. The French and German \ngovernments later took up the work. Expeditions from \nthe University of Pennsylvania led by Dr. John C. \nPeters and Professor Hilprecht have within the last few \nyears explored the region of Nippur and Mugheir, the \nbiblical Ur of the Chaldees. From the material thus \nacquired it is now ascertained that the tablets of Layard \nare copies of originals found in the far more ancient \nBabylonian temples, and that they go back to a time \nmuch earlier than anything found in the mounds of \nAssyria proper. In fact, scholars now tell us that the \n\n\n\n40 The Sphere of Religion \n\nreligion of Assyria was borrowed from and was identi- \ncal with that of Babylonia, and it is the opinion of \nmany that these tablets acquaint us with ideas and con- \nditions that had come to be current in that part of the \nworld at least 4500 years B.C. Even then there \nexisted a number of states with well-established govern- \nments, and an extensive religious cult. \n\nThese tablets show us that the ancient Babylonians \nand Assyrians were a very religious people. Their \nwars were carried on in the name of the gods and so \nindeed were all other important undertakings. The \npriests were not only the intermediaries between the \ngods and the people, but also the judges of the courts, \nthe scribes, and the medical advisers. \n\nThere is no good reason for holding that the Baby- \nlonians obtained their religious ideas from any outside \nsource. \'\'The earliest religion of Accad (the ancient \nname of Upper Babylonia) was," says A. H. Sayce, \'\' a \nShamanism resembling that of the Siberian or Samoyed \ntribes of to-day. Every object had its spirit, good or \nbad ; and the control of these spirits was in the hands \nof priests and sorcerers. The world swarmed with \nthem, especially with the demons, and there was \nscarcely any action which did not risk demoniac pos- \nsession.\'\' The tablets reveal a fully developed system \nof nature-worship. Anu represents the heavens ; Sha- \nmash, the sun ; Sin, the moon; and Raman, the weather. \nThe head of the Assyrian pantheon was Asshur or \nAssur, and the chief national god of Babylon was Mar- \nduk. \'\'The most striking difference," says Prof D. \nG. Lyon, \' \' between the pantheons of Assyria and Baby- \nlonia is that Asshur had no place in the latter, while \nMarduk has place in the former, though not the first \nplace." \n\n\n\nThe Sacred Tablets of the Babylojiians 41 \n\nThere was a strong tendency among these people to \ngroup their gods in triads, and this accounts for some \nof their cosmological views. The most important triad \nconsisted of Anu, the god of the heavens ; Bel or Baal, \nthe god of the earth ; and Ea, the god of the watery \nabyss. The usual way of representing the gods was \nby symbols, or by the combination of the human form \nwith that of some animal. The moon, for example, \nwas often represented by the number 30, and a winged \nbull with a human head represented the divine \nguardian of temples and palaces. \n\nThe inscriptions on these tablets in the British \nMuseum are written partly in prose and partly in \npoetry. The prose pieces tell us of royal campaigns, \nthe building of temples, omens lucky and unlucky, and \nthe like. They are supposed to belong to the historical \nperiod, and may be dated with considerable exactness. \nThe poetical parts consist of prayers, hymns, magic \nformulas, incantations, and especially fragments of \ncosmological and other mythical poems that "appear \nto go back, at least so far as their material is concerned, \nto a very remote antiquity.\'* \n\nOne of the tablets gives an account of creation which \nvery closely resembles the account in Genesis and the \nSacred Books of the Phoenicians. All place the begin- \nning of things in a watery abyss. Another tablet \ndescribes how the gods made a beautiful land with \nrivers and trees and put men in it ; the place being in \nall probability the same region as the Garden of Kden \ndescribed in Genesis. Accounts are also given of the \nFlood, the origin of the Sabbath, and fragments of \nstories resembling those of the fall of man, the Tower \nof Babel or Babylonia, and the sacrifice of Isaac. Ac- \ncording to Professor Toy, whose translations are here \n\n\n\n42 The Sphere of Religion \n\nused, the first of the tablets describing creation reads \nas follows : \n\n**i. When the upper region was not yet called heaven, \n\n2. And the lower region was not yet called earth, \n\n3. And the abyss of Hades had not yet opened its arms, \n\n4. Then the chaos of waters gave birth to all of them \n\n5. And the waters were gathered into one place. \n\n6. No men yet dwelt together ; no animals yet wandered \n\nabout ; \n\n7. None of the gods had yet been born. \n\n8. Their names were not spoken ; their attributes were not \n\nknown. \n\n9. Then the eldest of the gods, \n\n10. Lakhmu and Lakhamu, were born \n\n11. And grew up. \n\n12. Assur and Kissur w^ere born next \n\n13. And lived through long periods. \n\n14. Anu (Rest of tablet missing.)\'* \n\nThe fifth tablet continues the account of creation \nand describes the origin of the Sabbath : \n\n*\' I. He constructed dwellings for the great gods. \n\n2. He fixed up constellations, whose figures were like \n\nanimals. \n\n3. He made the year. Into four quarters he divided it. \n\n4. Twelve months he established, with their constellations \n\nthree by three. \n\n5. And for the days of the year he appointed festivals. \n\n6. He made dwellings for the planets : for their rising and \n\nsetting. \n\n7. And that nothing should go amiss, and that the course of \n\nnone should be retarded \n\n8. He placed with them the dwellings of Bel and Ba. \n\n9. He opened great gates, on every side : \n\n10. He made strong the portals, on the left and on the right. \n\n11. In the centre he placed luminaries. \n\n12. The moon he appointed to rule the night \n\n13. And to wander through the night, until the dawn of day. \n\n14. Every month without fail he made holy assembly days. \n\n\n\nThe Sacred Tablets of the Babylonians 43 \n\n15. In the beginning of the month, at the rising of the night, \n\n16. It shot forth its horns to illuminate the heavens. \n\n17. On the seventh day he appointed a holy day, \n\n18. And to cease from all business he commanded. \n\n19. Then arose the sun in the horizon of heaven in (glory)." \n\nThe longest and in some respects the most consider- \nable of these Babylonian productions is what is com- \nmonly known as the Izdubar poem discovered by \nGeorge Smith in 1872. It is inscribed upon twelve \ntablets, some of which are well preserved. The first \nintroduces the hero and represents him as the deliverer \nof his country from the Elamites, an event probably \npreceding 2000 B.C. The sixth recounts the love of \nthe goddess Ishtar for the hero, to whom she proposes \nmarriage, but the proposal is rejected because of the \nfatal character of her previous loves. Then she curses \nher lover and follows him continuously with her wrath. \nShe descends into the lower world for means to circum- \nvent him. The seventh tablet gives a lengthy account \nof what takes place there. \n\nThe most interesting tablet of this series is the elev- \nenth. In it we have a story of the Flood "almost \nidentical with that of the Book of Genesis.\'* Bel, the \ndemiurge of the Babylonian system, enraged at the \nevil conduct of mankind, determines to destroy the en- \ntire human race by a flood. All the other gods give \ntheir approval except Ea, who, hearing of the decree, \nsends for Hasisadra, the Noah of those days, and di-. \nrects him to build a great ship in order to save himself \nand family and " the seeds of life." \n\nEa\'s words to him are : \n** \' Leave thy house and build a shij). \n\nThey will destroy the seeds of life. \n\nDo thou preserve in life and hither bring the seeds of life, \n\nOf every sort into tht- ship.\' " \n\n\n\n44 ^^^ Sphere of Religion \n\n(Here follow the dimensions of the ship, but the \nnumbers are lost.) \n\nHasisadra hesitates and says that, even if he should \nsucceed in carrying out such a colossal undertaking, \nhe would be mocked by the people and elders for doing \nit. Ea, however, insists and the ship is built. Into \nit, says Hasisadra, \n\n*^ * All that I had I brought together, \nAll of silver and all of gold, \n\nAnd all of the seed of life into the ship I brought. \nAnd my household, men and women, \nThe cattle of the field, the beasts of the field \nAnd all my kin I caused to enter.\' \'* \n\nOn the day he was to embark fear almost over- \nwhelmed him. He says : \n\n** * Yet into the ship I went, behind me the door I closed. \n\nInto the hands of the steersman I gave the ship with its cargo. \n\nThen from the heavens* horizon rose the dark cloud. \n\nRaman uttered his thunder, \n\nNabu and Sarru rushed on. \n\nOver hill and dale strode the throne-bearers. \n\nAdar sent ceaseless streams, floods the Anunnaki brought. \n\nRaman\'s billows up to heaven mount. \nAll light to darkness is turned.\' " \n\n. Even the gods themselves were frightened at the \nhavoc that was made and cowered together in lamenta- \ntion and despair. But, says Hasisadra, \n\n** ^Six days and seven nights ruled wind and flood and storm. \nBut when the seventh day broke, subsided the storm and the \nflood. \n\n. ..\xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2* \xe2\x80\xa2 \n\nThe upper dwellings of men were ruined. \nCorpses floated like trees. \n\n\n\nThe Sacred Tablets of the Babylonia7is 45 \n\nA window I opened, on my face the daylight fell. \n\nI shuddered and sat me down weeping. \n\nOver my face flowed my tears. \n\nI rode over regions of land, on a terrible sea. \n\nThen rose one piece of land twelve measures high. \n\nTo the land Nizir the ship was steered. \n\nThe mountain Nizir held the ship fast and let it no more go.\' \'* \n\nThen follows an account of the sending forth of a \ndove, the final appearance of dry land, the disembark- \nment from the ship, and the building of an altar to the \ngods on the mount. Hasisadra says: \n\n** * At the dawn of the seventh day \nI took a dove and sent it forth. \nHither and thither flew the dove. \nNo resting-place it found, back to me it came. \nA swallow I took and sent it forth. \nNo resting-place it found, and back to me it came. \nA raven I took and sent it forth. \n\nForth flew the raven and saw that the water had fallen. \nCarefully waded on but came not back. \nAll the animals then to the four winds I sent. \nA sacrifice I off^ered. \nAn altar I built on the mountain top.\' " \n\nAbout this altar the gods hold a council. They try \nto induce Bel to abate his efforts utterly to annihilate \nthe race of men. Ea says to him : \n*\' * Thou art the valiant leader of the gods. \nWhy hast thou heedlessly wrought and brought on the flood? \nLet the sinner bear his sin, the wrongdoer his wrong ; \nYield to our request, that he be not wholly destroyed. \nInstead of sending a flood, send lions that men may be \n\nreduced ; \nInstead of sending a flood, send hyenas that men may be \n\nreduced ; \nInstead of sending a flood, send flames to waste the land ; \nInstead of sending a flood, send pestilence that men may be \nreduced.* \'* \n\n\n\n46 The Sphere of Religion \n\nFinally \' \' right reason \' \' comes to Bel and he enters \nthe ship, takes Hasisadra by the hand, and lifts him \nup. Then he raises up his wife and places her hand \nin her husband\'s, giving them both his blessing. \n\nProfessor Toy in commenting upon the inscription \non this tablet says : ** It is now generally agreed that \nthe Hebrew story of the Flood is taken from the Baby- \nlonian, either mediately through the Canaanites (for \nthe Babylonians had occupied Canaan before the six- \nteenth century B.C.), or immediately during the exile \nin the sixth century. The Babylonian account is more \npicturesque, the Hebrew more restrained and solemn.\'* \n\nSome of the hymns inscribed on these tablets, like \nthe one to the seven evil spirits celebrating their mys- \nterious power, are of a lower order of religious feeling, \nreminding us of the magical incantations of the savage \ntribes of to-day. But others indicate sublimity and \ndepth of feeling that would compare not unfavorably \nwith many in the Hebrew Psalter. \n\nThe following are extracts from some of these so- \ncalled psalms : \n\n** I, thy servant, fuU of sin cry to thee. \nThe sinner\'s earnest prayer thou dost accept. \nThe man on whom thou lookest Hves. \nMistress of all, queen of mankind, \nMerciful one, to whom it is good to turn. \nWho acceptest the sigh of the heart.\'* \n\n** Food have I not eaten, weeping was my nourishment. \nWater have I not drunk, tears were my drink. \nMy heart has not been joyful nor my spirit glad. \nMany are my sins, sorrowful my soul. \nO my lady, make me to know my doing. \nMake me a place of rest. \nCleanse my sin, lift up my face." \n\n\n\nThe Sacred Tablets of the Babyloniaris 47 \n\n*\' I sought for help, but no one took my hand. \nI wept, but no one to me came. \nI cry aloud, there is none that hears me. \nSorrowful I lie on the ground, look not up. \nThe feet of my goddess I kiss. \nTo the known and unknown god I loud do sigh. \nTo the known and unknown goddess I loud do sigh. \nO lord, look on me, hear my prayer. \nO goddess, look on me, hear my prayer.** \n\nThe sin I have committed turn thou to favor ! \n\nThe evil I have done may the wind carry it away ! \n\nTear in pieces my wrong-doings like a garment ! \n\nMy god, my sins are seven times seven \xe2\x80\x94 forgive my sin ! \n\nMy goddess, my sins are seven times seven \xe2\x80\x94 forgive my sin ! \n\nKnown and unknown god, my sins are seven times seveu \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nforgive my sins ! \nKnown and^unknown goddess, my sins are seven times seveu ; \n\nforgive my sins. \nForgive my sins and I will humbly bow before thee." \n\nAmong the fragments of Asshurbanipal\'s library \ntaken to the British Museum by Layard were a num- \nber of broken portions of a law code. These fragments \nwere declared at the time by two eminent German \nscholars. Dr. Bruno Meissner and Dr. Friedrich De- \nlitzsch, to be parts of a code reaching as far back at \nleast as 2300 B.C. Their opinion had a most triumph- \nant vindication in the winter of 190 1-2, when there was \nunearthed in the ruins of the ancient Persian city of \nSusa the stele or column of Hammurabi, now uni- \nversally acknowledged to be "the most important \nmonument of early civilization yet discovered \xe2\x80\x94 a law \ncode anteceding the oldest hitherto known by upwartl \nof a thousand years." \n\nThis monolith, now in llie I/nivrc at Paris, is seven \nfeet four inches in hcii;lil, and on it are chiselled ht^lh a \n\n\n\n48 The Sphere of Religion \n\nbas-relief and an extended text. The bas-relief, which \nis twenty-six inches high and twenty-four inches broad, \nrepresents Hammurabi in the act of adoring the sun- \ngod Shamash, from whom he receives the laws in- \nscribed on the rest of this *\' table of stone/\' They \nconsist of a prologue, an epilogue, and 282 edicts. \n\nIn the prologue Hammurabi thus describes his mis- \nsion (Harper\'s translation of the code is here used) : \n\' \' Anu and Bel called me, Hammurabi, the exalted \nprince, the worshipper of the gods, to cause justice to \nprevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, \nto prevent the strong from oppressing the weak, to go \nforth like Shamash over the Black Head Race, to \nenlighten the land and further the welfare of the \npeople.\'\' \n\nThe analysis of the code made by Professor Lyon of \nHarvard divides it into three main parts : the intro- \nduction, which deals with the source of justice and \nwhat should be done to insure the purity of the court \n(1-5); a section on property, both real and personal, \nalong with the laws relating to its exchange (6-126); \nand a section on the rights and duties of persons, in \nwhich such matters are taken up as marriage and di- \nvorce, the treatment of criminals, and the price to be \npaid for different kinds of labor (127-282). \n\nAccording to this code, if a judge had accepted a bribe \nin making a decision, he was obliged to pay twelve \ntimes the amount of the false judgment and was ex- \npelled from the bench. The thief and the receiver of \nstolen goods were held equally responsible. In case a \ndrought or a flood destroyed a debtor\'s crops, interest \ncould not be demanded of him that year. If any one \nfailed to keep his part of the dyke in good repair, he \nwas liable for all damage resulting therefrom. When \n\n\n\nThe Sacred Tablets of the Babylonians 49 \n\na man divorced his wife, he was obliged to give her an \nallowance and make good the dowr}^ she received from \nher father. \n\nThe lex talionis was applied in some cases. For ex- \nample: " If a man destroy the eye of another man, they \nshall destroy his eye." \'\' If one break a man\'s bone, \nthey shall break his bone." *\' If a man knock out the \ntooth of a man of his own rank, they shall knock out \nhis tooth." *\' If a builder build a house for a man and \ndo not make its construction firm, and the house which \nhe has built collapse and cause the death of the owner \nof the house, that builder shall be put to death." \n\nSurgeons received a good fee if their patient recovered, \nbut if he died they had to pay a heavy money fine or \nsuffer a severe corporeal punishment, even to the ampu- \ntation of their fingers. The wages of field-laborers, \nshepherds, artisans, boatmen, and the like were fixed \nby law, and they were all held responsible for any loss. \n\nThe epilogue of the code concludes as follows: *\' Let \nany oppressed man, who has a cause, come before my \nimage asking of righteousness! Let him read the in- \nscription on my monument! Let him give heed to my \nweighty words! . . . Let him read the code and \npray with a full heart before Marduk, my lord, and \nZarpanit, my lady; and may the protecting deities, the \ngods who enter E-sagila, daily in the midst of E-sagila \nlook with favor on his wishes in the presence of Marduk, \nmy lord, and Zarpanit, my lady." \n\nThese exhortations make it altogether probable that \nthe original column was set up before I{-sagila, the great \nMarduk temple in Babylon. The fragments of this \ncode, found in other parts of the kingdom, are probably \nwhat is now left of copies of it. \n\nHammurabi, the autlior of the code, is identified by \n4 \n\n\n\n5o The Sphere of Religion \n\nmany Assyriologists with Amraphel of Genesis xiv. , i . \nHe was the sixth king of the first Babylonian dynasty, \nand came to the throne in 2250 B.C. In his day the whole \nof Babylonia was first united under one sway, and ex- \ntended not only over Elam and Assyria, but as far west \nas the Mediterranean Sea, thus including Syria and \nPalestine. The code which he drew up is considered to \nbe a compilation from a number of earlier codes. The \ndiscovery of many contract tablets antedating his reign \nabundantly proves that he made use of laws and legal \nphraseology which had become traditional in his day. \n\nBefore the discovery of the code of Hammurabi, the \noldest known collection of laws was a portion of the \nOld Testament. The ancient Egyptian code referred to \nby Diodorus Siculus (57 B.C.) has never been recovered, \nand the Hindu Laws of Manu (c. 950 B.C.) and the \nTwelve Tables of Rome (c. 450 B.C.) are confessedly \nyounger. The Pentateuchal code is now regarded as \na compilation made up of earlier and later elements, the \noldest portion being the Book of the Covenant referred \nto in Exodus xxiv., 7. This Book of the Covenant, \nscholars tell us, is the portion of the Old Testament \nrecorded in Ex. xx., 22-xxiii., 33. \n\nNow when we compare this civil and criminal code \nwith the code of Hammurabi, the likenesses in form of \nstatement and subject-matter are too numerous to admit \nof the explanation that they are purely accidental. The \nonly satisfactory position is that the earliest portion of \nthe Mosaic code was largely taken from the much older \nHammurabic code. \n\n\' *When the Hebrews effected a settlement in Canaan,*\' \nsays Professor Kellner, \'\'they found there a people \ngreatly their superior in culture; learning from this \npeople the arts of civilization they gradually passed \n\n\n\nThe Sacred Tablets of the Babylonians 51 \n\nfrom the unsettled life of nomad herdsmen into that of \nsettled agriculturalists. Their new home had long been \nunder Babylonian influence. For centuries, certainly \nsince the days of Abraham, which were also the days of \nHammurabi, the rule of Babylon had extended to the \nshores of the Mediterranean Sea; and at the time of \nthe Zel-el-Amarna tablets (c. 1450 B.C.), shortly before \nthe Hebrew settlement in Canaan, not only, as these let- \nters show, was there a lively intercourse with Babylon, \nbut the Babylonian language and cuneiform writing \nwere actually used throughout Palestine in carrying on \ninternational communication. " The Hebrews appropri- \nated freely many Babylonian legends concerning the \nearly history of the world. Even their *\' Sabbath, both \nin name and institution, was of Babylonish origin." \nNothing was more natural for them to do under the \ncircumstances than to adapt to their own needs the \nBabylonian law which had long been in use in Canaan \nbefore they arrived there. \n\nIt must always be remembered that the Babylonian \nliterature includes the Assyrian. For civilization in \nthat part of the earth was first established in Babylonia. \nIt is claimed by some students of recent discoveries \nmade in Nippur that its beginning can now be traced \nback even to 5000 or 6000 B.C. Certain it is that \nreligious thought and feeling had reached a high degree \nof development among the Babylonians many centuries \nbefore the time of Moses or David, and that the religion \nof the Jews was greatly affected by its influence. Fur- \nthermore, it is clear from the quotations cited above that \nthe vSacred Tablets of the Bal^ylonians did not create \ntheir religion, ])ut simply recorded what, for a long time \nbefore they were written, had come to be commonly \nbelieved. \n\n\n\n52 The Sphere of Religion \n\nb. The Egyptian Book of the Dead.\xe2\x80\x94 The \n\nchief monument of the religious life of the ancient \nEgyptians is entitled the Book of the Dead. The \ngreat mass of the religious literature of Egypt is \nwritten in imitation of it, or is made up of extracts \nfrom its contents. In some respects it is the most \ncomplete account of the primitive religious beliefs of \nmankind of which we have any knowledge. \n\nNo people, ancient or modern, have ever equalled \nthe ancient Egyptians in the care they bestowed upon \ntheir dead. It seems to have been the dominating \npurpose of their lives to secure the happiness of their \ndeceased in the future world, whatever may have been \ntheir condition in this. No one can rightly understand \ntheir civilization unless it is considered from this point \nof view. \n\nThe Book of the Dead was called by the Egyp- \ntians themselves the \' * Book of Coming Forth in the \nDaytime," from the opening words of the first chap- \nter, which starts out with a promise to give to the \nka of the; deceased the power of visiting the upper \nworld. \n\nAccording to the opinion .of that age and people \nevery person consisted of three parts, a mortal cor- \nruptible body called the cka, a living soul or vital \nprinciple to which the term ba was applied, and the \nka, a sort of spiritual double or protecting genius, \nwhich was the inseparable companion of every in- \ndividual, growing up as he grew and never forsaking \nhim. At death the ba was supposed to leave the body \nin the form of a bird, which was often represented with \nthe head and arms of a human being, and to fly up \ndirectly to the abode of the gods. The ka, however, \ndwelt in the tomb with the body. At any time it \n\n\n\nThe Egyptian Book of the Dead 53 \n\ncould at will enter the body and reanimate it. A small \npassageway a few inches square was frequently made \nin the walls of the tomb for the egress and ingress of \nthe ka. False doors were sometimes constructed for \nits exclusive use. The personal existence of the de- \nparted spirit depended absolutely upon the preservation \nof the body, which must always be kept in a suitable \ncondition for its spiritual visitor. It must never be- \ncome \'* a mass of worms," but " remain as imperishable \nas the flesh of the gods." \n\nConsequently the body at death was carefully em- \nbalmed as soon as the ba had left it. Linen bandages \nwere wrapped around it and it was placed in a coflSn, \nupon the boards of which texts from the Book of the \nDead were inscribed, in order that the deceased might \nhave the use of them in passing through the perils of \nthe lower world. Frequently these texts were written \nupon the linen bandages themselves, or put upon little \nscrolls, which were rolled up and placed under the \narmpits of the mummy, or hung about its neck. \n\nAccompanied by the relatives, friends, and many \nhired mourners, if the family were able to afford them, \nthe body was carried to the place of burial, which was \nalways on the west bank of the Nile toward the setting \nsun. Here the priCvSts read extracts from the Book of \nthe Dead, burned incense, and made offerings, as they \ncommitted the body to the tomb. \n\nvSiiice the deceased was supposed to take with him \nall of the appetites and desires of the body, abundant \nprovision had to be made for all its wants. Alabaster \nfigures of fowls, loaves of bread, little wooden wine- \njars, and wooden statuettes of cooks and bakers were \nplaced in the tonil), all of which could be ininicdiately \nchanged into real objects at the o])ti()ii ol the deceased, \n\n\n\n54 The Sphere of Religion \n\nprovided the right magical text from the Book of the \nDead was at hand for his use. \n\nIn the same way the deceased could take with him \nhis favorite games and other means of recreation. \nActual voyages could be made by him in little imi- \ntation boats with miniature oars and rowers. And, \nabove all, he could avoid the necessity of labor in the \nfuture world if he had with him a number of statuettes \nof laborers to answer for him when any work was \nassigned to him, provided he was furnished with the \nappropriate formulas from the Book of the Dead for \ngiving them reality. Texts from the book were in- \nscribed upon the tomb, and visitors were adjured to \nrepeat them for the benefit of the deceased that he \nmight have the enjoyment of "thousands of bread, \nbeer, oxen, and geese " in his place among the gods. \n\nThese facts concerning some of the uses of the Book \nof the Dead among the ancient Egyptians will illus- \ntrate how important the book was in their eyes. But \nbefore we can understand in any real way its teachings, \nor duly appreciate the illustrations of events in the \nlower world that it contains, we must know something \nof the ideas concerning the gods that had become \nprevalent at the time the book was written. \n\nEgyptologists seem now to be agreed that the re- \nligion of ancient Egypt originated in a purely local \nfetishism, and was not in an^^ sense a borrowed product. \n\'* Every village of prehistoric times,\'\' says a high \nauthority, \'\' seems to have had its own god or demon, \nworshipped in some object, usually a tree or an ani- \nmal." Out of this chaos of deities it gradually came \nabout that as some one village grew into a city and \nacquired sovereignty over neighboring villages the god \nof that city became the Great God, and the other gods \n\n\n\nThe Egyptian Book of the Dead 5 5 \n\nwere brought into some subordinate relation to him as \na member of his household. In this way every princi- \npal deity came to be surrounded by a circle of gods and \nthere often resulted the formation of a local Triad of \ngods consisting of father, mother, and son. \n\nIn some localities in very early times the bull was \nchiefly worshipped ; in others, such animals as the \ngoat, the ram, the cat, the dog, the ibis, the beetle, \nand the crocodile. Whatever animal or object was \nselected, it was regarded as the principal local deity. \nAs the ideas of the people became more refined and \nspiritual, some of the gods took on in part the human \nform. In general the trunk of the human body came to \nbe attributed to a god, while he kept the head of the \nanimal in which he was before incarnated. \n\nIn this way the extremely grotesque forms which \nare attributed to many of the Egyptian gods in the \npictures contained in the Book of the Dead are to be \naccounted for. Thus Ptah, the god of Memphis, ap- \npears as the apis-bull ; Hapi and Amon of Thebes, as \nrams; Anubis of Lycopolis, as a jackal-headed man ; \nBast of Bubastis, as a cat-headed woman ; Horus of \nEdfu, as a hawk-headed man. Thoth of Hermopolis is \nusually represented with the trunk of a man and the \nhead of an ibis. Osiris is the god of Abydos, the chief \nburial-place of Egypt, and the lord of the lower world. \nHe was married to Isis his sister, by whom he had two \nsons, Horus, who was the bringer of light, and Set, \nthe god of darkness. \n\nBefore Osiris every person on leaving this world was \nsummoned for judgment. He was assisted by forty- \ntwo judges or \'* Assessors," one from each of the forty- \ntwo districts into which Upper and Lower Egypt were \noriginally divided. Osiris and these assessors decided \n\n\n\n56 The Sphere of Religion \n\nthe momentous question as to whether the newcomer \nwas fit to enter the fields of Amenti and take up his \nresidence in the abode of the blessed. \n\nA very ancient papyrus of the Book of the Dead, \nfound recently in Thebes and now deposited in the \nRoyal Museum at Berlin, contains among other unique \nillustrations of the events in the lower world a very \nstriking representation of this last judgment. The \nscene is taken from the 125th chapter, entitled, *\' The \nWeighing of the Heart.\'* In the lower section of \nthis picture the deceased is being led into a large \nsubterranean hall by Mat, the goddess of truth and \njustice, mistress of the nether world. At the oppo- \nsite end of what is called in the text \' * The Great Hall \nof Truth," Osiris is seated on a naos or throne ready to \nhear the newcomer. In the middle of the hall is a \nlarge pair of delicately balanced scales in one pan of \nwhich hawk-headed Horus has placed the heart of the \ndeceased, and in the other jackal-headed Anubis, the \ngod of embalmers, has put a feather, the symbol of \ntruth and justice. On the top of the scales is seated \nthe dog Hapi, the god of measure. To the rear of \nAnubis is ibis-headed Thoth, the scribe of the gods, \nwho stands with pen in hand to register the decision. \nBetween Horus and Osiris is a female hippopotamus \nwith the head of a crocodile who stands ready to de- \nvour the newcomer, if he fails to pass the required \nordeal. \n\nIn the upper section of the picture the deceased is on \nhis knees addressing a prayer to the forty- two judges, \nwho have heads representing a great variety of animals \nand who carry in their hands a feather, the symbol of \ntheir office. They each have to pass sentence upon \nsome particular sin as the accused pronounces before \n\n\n\nThe Egyptian Book of the Dead 5 7 \n\nthem the famous Negative Confession. Much of the \nmatter in the Book of the Dead is to us meaningless \njargon. But some extracts taken here and there from \nthe petitions in the book for the deceased to use on \nentering the judgment hall of Osiris are as follows : \n\n** Do not imprison my vSoul. Do not let any hurt me. \nMay I sit down among the principal gods in their \ndwellings ? If you repel me from the places of regener- \nation, do not let the evil principles take hold of me. \nDo not let me be repelled from your gates ; be not your \ngates closed against me. May I have loaves in Pu, \ndrinks in Tepu. Grant to me the funeral food and \ndrinks, the oxen, the geese, the fabrics, the incense, the \noil, and all the good and pure things upon which the \ngods live. May I be eternally settled in the transforma- \ntions that will please me. May I be united with the \ngods of truth.\'\' (Quoted from Warner). \n\nThe following are similar extracts from the Negative \nConfession made before the forty- two assessors : \n\n*\' I did not bid any one kill treacherously. I did not \nlie to any man. I did not plunder the supplies in the \ntemple. I did not overcharge. I did not tamper with \nthe weight of the balance. I was not a bully. I did \nnot use too many words in speaking. I did not turn a \ndeaf ear to the words of truth. I did not make my \nmouth work. I did not steal. I was pure, pure, pure. \nI did not do what the gods hate. I did not cause the \nslave to be misused by his master. I did not cause any \none to be hungry. I did not cause any one to weep. \nI did not commit adultery. I did not kill. I prevailed \nas a man that keeps his head." (Quoted from \nWarner.) \n\nIt is admitted that in this 1 25th chapter we have one of \nthe oldest known codes of private and public morality. \n\n\n\n58 The SpJiere of Religion \n\nJohn Newenham Hoarein his article on \'\' The Religion \nof the Ancient Egyptians" in the Niyicteenth Coitury \nsays of it : \'* That which strikes one most in the 125th \nchapter is the profound insight that ever\\\' work shall be \nbrought into judgment, and every secret thing, whether \nit be good or evil. It is the voice of conscience which \naccuses or excuses in that solemn hour, for no accuser \nappears in the Hall, the man\'s whole life is seen by \nhimself in its true light." \n\nBesides the scenes of the Last Judgment and the \nNegative Confession, the book abounds in speeches and \nprayers to be addressed to the gods and other beings \nwhom the departed will meet in his various migrations. \nThe place into which he is finalh^ ushered is described \nwith considerable vagueness, but for the most part it \nresembled the region of the Nile. A broad river flowed \nthrough it which was divided into numerous branches. \nIslands covered with fruitful fields existed on ever}\' side. \nThe justified had a share in tilling the fields, and they \nwere always rewarded with sure and abundant har^\'ests. \n\nThe Book of the Dead is admitted b}\' all scholars to \nbe a conglomerate made up of accretions during long \nperiods of time. Some parts of it, the}\' tell us, go back \nin all probability to prehistoric times. Others belong \nto the era of the pyramids and a few to a much later \nperiod in Eg^\'ptian histor}\'. Of the man}^ existing \ncopies, *\' probably not far short of a thousand," some \ncontain only a few chapters, while other rolls are over \na hundred feet in length and about fifteen inches in \nbreadth. There is no connection between the chapters, \neither from a logical or chronological point of view, and \nthousands of years passed before the book received any \nver}\' definite form. The oldest chapters are said to be the \n130th and 64th. Of the latter, Xaville, a famous student \n\n\n\nThe Egyptia7i Book of the Dead 59 \n\nof these various texts, asserts that it is *\' the most im- \nportant chapter of the Book of the Dead. \' * The chapter \nclaims to have been written by * \' the finger of the god \nThoth," \'\' the manifester of truth and righteousness/* \nIt says of itself : ** There is no book like it, man hath \nnot spoken it, neither hath ear heard of it." It is a \nresume of the whole Book of the Dead and occurs twice \non the sarcophagus of Queen Mentuhotep of the eleventh \ndynasty. In another copy the name Septi of the first \ndynasty appears. Twenty-five hundred years before \nChrist, authorities tell us, the text of the chapter *\' was \nnearly as doubtful as in later ages." \n\nThe seventeenth chapter is one of the most remark- \nable and it has been preserved from times previous to \nthe twelfth dynasty. It contains an account of the \nEgyptian cosmogony as taught at Heliopolis and dates, \nsays Davis in his recent work on the Egyptian Book of \nthe Dead, **some 2000 years before any probable date \nof Moses." A text of the book of the twenty-sixth \ndynasty, republished by I^epsius in his Totenbiich, con- \ntains 165 chapters. Some recent editions have 1 78 chap- \nters. Occasionally a chapter is repeated. The 65th \nchapter is a duplicate of the 2d, and the 129th is a repeti- \ntion of the 1 00th . \n\nThe Turin Papyrus of the Book of the Dead closes \nwith these words : *\' He shall drink out of the stream \nof the celestial river, and shall be resplendent like the \nstars in Heaven." \n\nThe Burton copy of the book adds the following: \n** An adoration made to Osiris, the Dweller of the West, \nGreat God, Lord of Abydos, Eternal King, Everlasting \nLord, Great God in the plains, \xe2\x80\x94 I give glory to thee, \nO Osiris, Lord of the Gods, living in truth! Is said by \nthy son Horus. I have come to thee, bringing thee \n\n\n\n6o The Sphere of Religion \n\ntruth. Where are thy attendant gods ? Grant me to \nbe with them in thy company. I overthrew thy enemies. \nI have prepared thy food on earth forever.\'\' \n\nThe religion of these ancient Egyptians long ago \npassed from off the earth, but it is the opinion of schol- \nars that the religion of the Jews was affected in no small \ndegree by its influence. The rite of circumcision \nwhich the Jews made so much of they acquired \nfrom the Egyptians, who in turn received it from \nthe natives of Africa. Ancient Egyptian mummies \nshow that the rite was practised far earlier than the time \nof Abraham. The figure of the cherubim who guarded \nthe gates of Paradise and spread their wings over the ark \nwas probably derived from that of the Sphinx who, as \nthe symbol of wisdom and strength, watched over the \nentrances to temples and tombs. So the Jewish idea of a \nHoly of Holies in their temple was probably of Egyp- \ntian origin, as was the notion of a scapegoat to carry \naway the sins of the people. Although the first two of \nthe ten commandments are opposed to some of the \nideas implied in the Negative Confession, the majority \nof them are explicitly contained in it. But the leading \ndoctrines of the Egyptians the Jews seem to have care- \nfully excluded, probably to a large extent out of preju- \ndice against the religion of their oppressors. We find \nno evidence in the Pentateuch that the people were \ntaught anything concerning the transmigration of the \nsoul, the embalming of the body, or the ornamentation \nof tombs. But what is more surprising we find no \nmention in it of a future life and a judgment to come. \nIt is the emphasis put upon this idea that constitutes \nthe chief contribution of the Egyptians to the cause \n^i religion in our day. \n\nc. The Vedas of the Hindus.\xe2\x80\x94 The word Veda \n\n\n\nThe Vedas of the Hindus 6 1 \n\ncomes from the Sanskrit vid (Latin, videre) and means \nknowledge or science. In its broadest signification it \ndesignates the entire sacred literature of ancient India, \nwhich consists of more than one hundred volumes ; \nbut in the narrower sense of the term as here used it re- \nfers to the three metrical compositions which lie at the \nbasis of this literature and determine its form and \ncharacter. \n\nExpert students of Sanskrit literature, such as Max \nMiiller, Whitney, and Lanman, tell us that these com- \npositions are among the oldest Scriptures that have \ncome down to us. The Hindus have always believed, \nand believe to-day, that no human authors produced, \nthem, but that they have existed from all eternity, and \ncannot possibly be modified or destroyed. The mean- \ning of these Scriptures, it is claimed, can be discerned \nonly by certain \' \' Rishis \' \' or seers to whom from age \nto age it is miraculously revealed. \n\nIt is universally admitted by modem scholars that \nthe original Vedas were very much larger than the \npresent collection and were handed down by tradition \norally from generation to generation long before they \nwere put into written form. Remnants of, older Vedas \nnot now extant are scattered through various portions \nof the present collection in a manner similar to the \nreferences to older writings in our own Bible. \n\nThe Vedas are chiefly made up of prayers and hymns \naddressed to the personified forces of nature, and are di- \nvided into three principal parts, \xe2\x80\x94 the Rig-Veda, or \nhymns to ])e recited, the Saraa-Veda, or hymns to be \nsung, and the Yagur-Veda, largely a collection of sac- \nrificial formulas and rites. To each of these is attached \na body of subordinate works called Brahmanas which \nare for the most part explanatory discourses on I lie \n\n\n\n62 The Sphere of Religion \n\nsacred text by a brahman or priest. The older Brahm- \nanas contain descriptions of the sacrificial ceremonies, \nan account of their origin, and legends illustrating their \nsupernatural power. The later Brahmanas are more \nphilosophical in their character. They ignore such \nmatters as rites and ceremonies, and deal with the mys- \nteries of creation and existence. They are often spoken \nof under the term Upanishads and remain the founda- \ntion of all the higher thought of Brahmanism even in \nour own day. \n\nAttached to the Brahmanas, just as the Brahmanas \nare attached to the Vedas, are the Sutras. They con- \n,sist mainly of rules to be followed in making sacrifices \nand conducting the affairs of every-day life. When the \nceremonials had grown to such enormous proportions \nthat no person could remember them, systematic treat- \nises had to be prepared for the celebrants. For the \nceremonials pertained not only to the details of the \npresent life of an Aryan Hindu, but to his prenatal and \npostmortem existence. The word Sutra means a String \nand refers to the fact that these rules were usually writ- \nten out separately with great care on dried palm-leaves \ntied together with a string. Each Sutra or string ot \naphorisms generally begins with the words, \'\'Thus \nhave I heard," corresponding to our *\' Thus saith the \nI/)rd." \n\nThe oldest of the Vedas and much the most important \nis the Rig- Veda. Its size is nearly that of the Iliad and \nOdyssey of Homer. It consists of a little over looo \nprayers and hymns addressed to the fire-god Agni and \nvarious other deities, and is divided into ten books. Six \nof the books are called " Family Books " and they form \nthe nucleus of the collection. Each contains the \nhymns ascribed to a single family or clan in which they \n\n\n\nThe Vedas of the Hindus 63 \n\noriginated and by whom they were handed down as \na sacred inheritance. \n\nThe hymns of book nine are addressed to the deified \ndrink Soma, now believed to be the juice of a plant of \nthe milkweed family, which was supposed to confer \nupon its devotees supernatural powers. The tenth \nbook comprises hymns ascribed to many different au- \nthors whom the scholars of to-day regard as the poet- \nsages of remote times. \'\'The oldest hymns," says \nProfessor Lanman, "may have originated as early as \n1200 or 1500 B. c, but it is not feasible to assign a \nprecise date." Some of the hymns are put as late as \n900 or 800 B. c. It is now well ascertained that in- \nstead of having been given at any one time the collec- \ntion grew up gradualh" during many centuries. \n\nThe first of the hymns of the Rig- Veda, as we now \nhave it, reads as follows (^Sacred Books of the East^ \nvol. xlvi., p. i): \n\n" I. I magnify Agni, the Puroliita, the divine ministraut of the \nsacrifice, the Hotri priest, the greatest bestower of \ntreasures. \n\n2. Agni, worthy to be magnified by the ancient Rishis and by \n\nthe present ones \xe2\x80\x94 may he conduct the gods hither. \n\n3. May one obtain through Agni wealth and welfare day by \n\nday, which may bring glory and high bliss of valiant \noffspring. \n\n4. Agni, whatever sacrifices and worship thou cncompassest \n\non every side, that indeed goes to the gods. \n\n5. May Agni, the thoughtful Hotri, he who is true and most \n\nsplendidly renowned, may the god come hither with \nthe gods. \n\n6. Whatever good thou wilt do to thy worshipjicr, O Agni, \n\nthat work verily is thine, O Angiras. \n\n\n\n64 The Sphere of Religion \n\n7. Thee, O Agni, we approach day by day, O god who shinest \n\nin the darkness ; with our prayer bringing adoration \nto thee. \n\n8. Who art the king of all worship, the guardian of Rita, the \n\nshining one, increasing in thy own house. \n\n9. Thus, O Agni, be easy of access to us, as a father is to his \n\nson. Stay with us for our happiness." \n\nThe word Brahma means growth or expansion and is \nused in the Vedas to designate the supreme, impersonal, \ninactive, all-pervading soul of the universe, from which \nall things emanate and to which they all return. \nBrahma receives no worship, but can be made an \nobject of abstract meditation. By this means only can \nabsorption in it be attained. Brahma when dominated \nby activity becomes Brahma, the lord and father of all \ncreatures, and together with Vishnu, the Preserver or \nSaviour, and Siva, the Destroyer, constitutes the Hindu \nTrinity. The Vedas also recognize the existence of \na large number of lesser deities in connection with \nwhich a vast system of ritualism and theosophic specu- \nlation has grown up. \n\nAccording to the Vedic teaching no real self can ex- \nist apart from the one self-existent supreme self When \nindividual spirits are allowed for a time to take on an \napparent separate existence their sole end and aim \nshould be to annihilate the apparent self by reabsorp- \ntion into the one only supreme self. Intimately con- \nnected with this doctrine in the Vedas is the doctrine \nof metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls. \nEvery creature is supposed to be born again and again \ninto any one of the various forms of existence between \nthe one supreme self and the lowest atom of living \nmatter before he accomplishes his annihilation as an \nindividual by union with the Brahma. The reason as- \n\n\n\nThe Vedas of the Hindus 65 \n\nsigned for these rebirths is the desire for life, or in- \ndividual existence. Only when this desire is utterly \neradicated will they cease. \n\nAssociated with the three Vedas already mentioned \nwas the Atharva-Veda, called after a semi-mythical \nfamily of priests. Its contents were popular and su- \nperstitious rather than hieratic, and the work is of a \nlater date than the other Vedas. \'\'It exhibits the \nordinary Hindu not only in the aspect of a devout and \nvirtuous adherent of the gods, and performer of pious \npractices, but also as the natural, semi-civilized man : \nrapacious, demon-plagued, and fear-ridden, hateful, \nlustful, and addicted to sorcery." \n\nSome of the later Brahmanas connected with the \nVedas are called " Forest Treatises." They are prob- \nably so named because of the supposed superior mysti- \ncal sanctity of their contents, and because they were \nto be recited in the solitude of the forest instead of in \nthe village. Among the later Sutras were the so-called \n*\' House Books " and the " Law Sutras." The former \ntreated of matters that concerned the ever>^-day life of \nthe family, while the latter dealt with the whole subject \nof religious and secular law. \n\nThe most famous of these Law-Books was called the \nCode of Manu. As we now have it, it consists of \ntwelve books, the first treating of the origin of the \nuniverse and the last of transmigration and final hap- \npiness. Everything that pertains to the duties of a \nBrahman in the different stages of his life is set forth in \nit, \xe2\x80\x94 his education and duties as a pupil, his marriage \nand duties as a householder, his means of subsistence, \nhis duties as an anchorite and ascetic, the duties of \nrulers, the mutual relations of the castes, penauce and \nexpiation. \n5 \n\n\n\n66 The Sphere of Religion \n\nThe code is claimed by the Hindus to be the work of \na divinely inspired lawgiver by the name of Manu, who \nis represented in the Rig- Veda as the ancestor of the \nhuman race and the first one to offer a sacrifice to the \ngods. In the first chapter of the code he declares him- \nself to have created all this universe. The chapter \nopens as follows {^Sacred Books of the East, vol. xxv., \npp. I seq>i\\ \n\n\'\' I. The great sages approached Manu, who was \nseated with a collected mind, and, having duly wor- \nshipped him, spoke as follows : \n\n2. \' Deign, divine one, to declare to us precisely \nand in due order the sacred laws of each of the (four \nchief) castes and of the intermediate ones. \n\n3. * For thou, O lyord, alone knowest the import \n(/. e, the rites), and the knowledge of the soul, taught \nin this whole ordinance of the Self-existent, which is \nunknowable and unfathomable.* \n\n4. He, whose power is measureless, being thus \nasked by the high-minded sages, duly honored them, \nand answered, \' Listen ! \n\n5. * This universe existed in the shape of Dark- \nness, unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, un- \nattainable by reasoning, unknowable, wholly immersed, \nas it were, in deep sleep. \n\n6. * Then the divine Self-existent, himself indis- \ncernible, but making all this, the great elements and \nall the rest, discernible, appeared with irresistible \ncreative power, dispelling the darkness. \n\n7. * He, who can be perceived by the internal \norgan alone, who is subtile, indiscernible, and eternal, \nwho contains all created beings and is inconceivable, \nshone forth of his own will. \n\n8. * He, desiring to produce beings of many kinds \n\n\n\nThe Vedas of the Hindus 67 \n\nfrom his own body, first with a thought created the \nwaters and placed his seed in them. \n\n9. * That seed became a golden ^\'g\'g, in brilliancy \nequal to the sun ; in that ^%% he himself was born as \nBrahman, the progenitor of the whole world.\' " \n\nThe word Manu is from the Sanskrit viaii, mean- \ning literally * \' the thinking being. " It is the consensus \nof opinion among scholars that the word does not refer \nto any historical personage, and that the code is simply \na collection of the ordinances and customs of the coun- \ntry as they gradually developed in the course of a long \nperiod of time. It is also admitted that the code, as \nwe now have it, instead of being hoary with antiquity, \nshould not be placed farther back than the beginning \nof the Christian era. \n\nThere are several schools of philosophy that have \narisen among the Hindus to explain and supplement \nthe Vedas. The Vedanists hold that there is only one \nbeing in the universe, namely, Brahma, and that all \nelse is Mayar or illusion. The Sankhyists believe in \ntwo eternal substances, individual Souls and Nature, \nor Brahma; while the Nyayists assume three, \xe2\x80\x94 \nAtoms, Souls, and Brahma. The system whose fol- \nlowers are regarded as the highest representatives of \nthe teachings of the Vedas is a modification of the \nSankhya, known as the Yoga system. \n\nYoga means \'* concentration," and a Yogi is one \nwho has so disciplined himself by a systematic course \nof vSelf-castigation that he has brought about a vSepara- \ntion of his soul from matter and effected its absorption \ninto the divine soul. In the attaining of this end, eight \nstages are necessary : (i) Self-control. This consists \nin doing no injury to any living thing, telling the \ntruth, practising chastity, accepting no gifts. (2) Re- \n\n\n\n68 The Sphere of Religion \n\nligious observance. Internal as well as external purity \nmust be observed. One must frequently repeat the \nVedic hymns, must be contented with his lot, and must \nconstantly rely upon the Supreme Being. (3) Fixed \nbodily postures. These are of various sorts. They \ncultivate patient endurance and develop the will. (4) \nRegulation of the breath. This had to do with the \nprolongation of the period of exhalation and inhalation. \nIt was often carried to a complete suspension of the \nbreathing process. (5) Restraint of the senses. This \nmeans their diversion from the objects that excite \nthem. (6) The steadying of the mind ; i. ^., the jfree- \ning of it from every sensual disturbance. This is done \nby fixing the thoughts exclusively upon some one part \nof the body, as the navel, or the tip of the nose. (7) \nMeditation. By this is meant such a concentration of \nthe attention upon the one object of thought, the Su- \npreme Being, as to exclude all other thoughts. (8) \nProfound contemplation. This involves such a com- \nplete concentration of the mind upon the Supreme \nBeing as to produce an utter extinction of all thought. \n\n\' \' In such a state a Yogi is insensible to heat and \ncold, to pleasure and pain ; he is the same in prosperity \nand adversity; he enjoys an ecstatic condition.\'\' He \nfinds himself able to know the past and future, to un- \nderstand the sounds of all animals, to tell the thoughts \nof others, to recall his experiences in his former state of \nexistence, to see all objects at once in this and other \nplanets. \n\nIn particular, a Yogi, by passing through these \neight stages of discipline, is supposed to acquire eight \nmiraculous powers, \xe2\x80\x94 to make himself invisible ; infi- \nnitely light or heavy ; extremely small or large ; to \ntouch anything, however distant, as the sun or moon. \n\n\n\nThe Vedas of the Hindus 69 \n\nwith the tips of his fingers ; to have an irresistible will ; \nto obtain absolute dominion over all other beings ; to \nchange the course of nature; and to transport himself \nto any place whatsoever at will. \n\nBy the practice of Yoga not only does he put himself \nin possession of these miraculous powers, but he also \nobtains \'* redeeming knowledge/\' When his concen- \ntration has become so intense that it has overcome all \nthe hindrances that arise from his natural disposition \nand it is no longer possible for his thoughts to wander, \nhis intellect is freed from all consideration of self and \nturns itself inward. This is the beginning of true \nliberation. Salvation, or final liberation, can rarely \ncome, however, until after a succession of births. For \nthe results obtained in one birth require a subsequent \nbirth in order to reach their maturity. \n\nAt the outset Yoga was not theistic. It was only in \nthe course of centuries that the idea grew up that union \nwith God, in any sense of that term, was the end to be \nattained by the system. Yoga originally was simply \nthe attempt to separate the spirit from matter. There \nare a large number of Upanishads that treat of Yoga, \nbut scholars are agreed that they are not among the \noldest, and many think that they are even more recent \nthan the Yoga-sutra itself. \n\nAll the Vedas agree in considering existence in time \nand space an evil. It is a delusion resulting from \ndesire and necessitates perpetual suffering and a per- \npetual transmigration through dificrent bodies, until \ndesire burns itself out and ceases to be. Knowledge of \nthis fact is the only thing that will bring deliverance. \n*\' He who ceases to contemplate other things, who \nretires into solitude, annihilates his desires, and sub- \njects his passions, he understands that Spirit is the one \n\n\n\n70 The Sphere of Religion \n\nand the Eternal. The wise man annihilates all sensible \nthings in spiritual things, and contemplates that one \nSpirit who resembles pure space." All action leads to \nagitation and suffering. Only knowledge, pure con- \ntemplation, can unite the soul to God and bring rest \nand peace. \n\nThe Vedas teach the great truth of the reality of spirit, \nand this will always remain the fundamental doctrine of \nreligion. But in holding that spirit is absolutely un- \nlimited and that eternity alone is real, they make per- \nsonality, whether of God or man, impossible and leave \nno room for progress which must take place in time. \nThe great ideas of Brahmanism need to be supplemented \nand corrected by the idea that the universe is the pro- \nduct of a power acting according to a rational purpose, \nand that communion with this power comes not by \nabsorption and inaction, but by the active obedience of \nthe will and by personal development. Thus only will \nthe devotees of this religion cease from being the slaves \nof unscrupulous tyrants, as they have been for centuries, \nand rise to the dignity of men. What they most need \nis not more intellectual abilit}^ but more moral power. \n\nThe Brahman ical priests have for many centuries held \nin their control the exclusive knowledge of the rites and \nceremonies enjoined by the Vedas, and in this way have \nexerted an influence over the daily lives of the people \nunequalled in any other land. The caste system which \nthey have instituted has for generations been by far the \nmost significant factor in Hindu life. \n\nThe census of 190 1 gave the number of Brahmanical \nHindus as over 200,000,000. The mass of them, while \nnot ignoring the worship of their gods, regard it as the \nhighest law of their being to eat correctly, to drink cor- \nrectly, and to marry correctly, that is, in accordance \n\n\n\nThe Chinese Classics 71 \n\nwith the law of their caste. They believe that in this \nway the teachings of the Vedas are most faithfully \nobserved and honored. \n\nd. The Chinese Classics.\xe2\x80\x94 The tible which from \nthe sixth century before Christ has had a controlling \ninfluence over the destinies of the Chinese and still em- \nbodies the faith and practice of their ruling classes is \nmade up of nine books, known to us as the Chinese \nClassics. The first five of these books Confucius pro- \nfessed merely to have abridged from older books, and \nthe remaining four were composed partly by him and \npartly by his disciples. \n\nIt is now agreed that Confucius did not commit any \nof his own teachings to writing. Yet so carefully did \nhis followers preserve his sayings and so fully did they \ndepict his life that there is probably no person of an- \ntiquity of whom we have more accurate knowledge. \nHe was born on the 19th of June, 551 B.C., atShang-ping \nin the little kingdom of Lu. Various miracles are re- \nlated as occurring in connection with his birth and early \nchildhood. His father died when he was three years \nold, but he was carefully brought up by his mother, who \ncalled him by a pet name meaning \'\'little hillock" \nbecause of an unusual elevation on the top of his \nforehead. His real name was Kong, but his disciples \ncalled him Kong-fu-tsu, or Kong, the Master, which the \nJesuit missionaries Latinized into Confucius. \n\nFrom his early years Confucius showed an extraor- \ndinary love of learning and a great veneration for the \nancient laws of his country. At seventeen he obtained \nan office under the government which he administered \nwith unusual energy and uprightness. At nineteen he \nmarried, but after four years he gave up his family life \nfor the sake of his public duties. When in his twenty- \n\n\n\n72 The Sphere of Religion \n\nthird 3^ear his mother died, and in accordance with a \nlaw then long antiquated, that children should resign all \npublic oflSce on the death of either parent, he gave up \nhis ojB&cial position; and in accordance with another an- \ntiquated law buried the remains of his mother with such \nsolemnity and splendor that his contemporaries resolved \nhenceforth to pay their dead similar ancient honors. \n\nThe authority of Confucius concerning the past soon \nbecame unquestioned. He pointed out the necessity of \npaying stated homage to the dead, either at the grave \nor in a part of the dwelling consecrated to the purpose. \nHence * \' the hall of ancestors \' \' and the anniversary \nfeasts in honor of the dead in every well-regulated \nChinese household of our day. Confucius spent three \nyears in mourning and solitude, giving himself up ex- \nclusively to study and meditation. Then he began to \ninstruct his countrymen in what he considered the \nprinciples of correct living, being himself the embodi- \nment of all the virtues he inculcated on others. He \ngave instruction to all who came to him, however small \nthe fee, provided he found in them capacity to learn and \nzeal for improvement. \n\nHis fame soon spread abroad and before many years \nhe had no less than 3000 followers. They were mostly \nmandarins of middle age, sober and grave, occupy- \ning oflScial positions of importance and respectability. \nThis, in some degree at least, accounts for the fact that \nhis teachings were so decidedly ethical. They were \nprimarily intended to fit men for honorable and useful \ncareers in this life. The political disorders of his time, \nwhich the emperor was too weak to quell, naturally \nturned his attention to the principles of good govern- \nment as his chief topic of discourse. \n\nConfucius travelled much through various parts of \n\n\n\nThe Chinese Classics 73 \n\nChina and in some of them he was employed as a pub- \nlic reformer. In his fifty-first year he returned to Lu \nand was appointed " governor of the people," but, ow- \ning to the jealousy and intrigue of neighboring states \nat his success, he soon resigned and betook himself to \nother countries. After thirteen years of fruitless effort \nto find some ruler willing to be guided by his counsels, \nhe came back to Lu in extreme poverty and spent his \nremaining years in literary pursuits. His last days \nwere greatly saddened by the death of his only son and \ntwo of his most faithful disciples. He died a disap- \npointed man at the non-success of his mission, in his \nseventieth year, but immediately, as in the case of \nBuddha, his name began to be treated with marked \nveneration, and to-day he is worshipped by many as a \ngod. \n\nHis family still continues to reside in the place where \ntheir ancestor lived and is the only hereditary aris- \ntocracy in China, the oldest representative of it having \nthe title and revenues of a duke. Temples to the honor \nof Confucius exist in every city of the empire, and \nnow exceed 1500 in numbers. Twice each year some \n70,000 animals and 27,000 pieces of silk are burned \nupon his altars. Twice each year the Emperor himself \nmakes offerings in his honor in the hall of the Imperial \nCollege at Peking. The eighteenth day of the second \nmoon is kept sacred as the anniversary of his death. \n\nThe system of Confucius, as set forth in the nine \nclassics, has little to do with what is ordinarily called \nreligion, and he distinctly disclaims for himself any \nspecial revelation. "I teach you nothing," he says, \n*\'but what you might learn for yourselves \xe2\x80\x94 viz., the \nobservation of the three fundamental laws of relation \nbetween sovereign and subject, father and child, luis- \n\n\n\n74 The Sphere of Religion \n\nband and wife ; and the five capital virtues \xe2\x80\x94 universal \ncharity, impartial justice, conformity to ceremonies \nand established usages, rectitude of heart and mind, \nand pure sincerity." \n\nOne of his disciples once asked him about serving \nthe spirits of the dead and the master replied : \' \' While \nyou are not able to serve men, how can you serve their \nspirits?" and when asked a question about death, he \nanswered : \'\' While you do not know life, how can you \nknow about death ? \' \' \n\nAlthough Confucius lauds the present world there \nare a number of allusions in his works to an heavenly \nagenc3^ called Shang-te whose outer emblem is Tien or \nthe visible firmament. This Shang-te is probably the \never-present Law and Order of the universe. In one \npassage he enjoins the people \'\' to contribute with all \ntheir power to the worship of Shang-te, of celebrated \nmountains, of great rivers, and of the * shin \' (spirits) \nof the four quarters." In another he says: ** as for \nthe genii and spirits, sacrifice to them ; I have nothing \nto tell regarding them whether they exist or not ; but \ntheir worship is part of an august and awful ceremonial, \nwhich a wise man will not neglect or despise." \n\nIn the opinion of many competent students of Chi- \nnese history it was this doubting attitude of Confucius \ntoward the world of spirits that prevented his disciples \nfrom giving themselves up to the debasing superstitions \nand magical rites of the Buddhist and Taoist sects that \nstill demoralize the masses of the people. \n\nThe first of the so-called ^\' Five Canonical Books " of \nthe Chinese was originally a cosmological essay, but is \nnow regarded as a treatise on ethics. The second is an \naccount of the sayings and actions of two emperors \nwho lived twenty-three centuries B.C., and of other \n\n\n\nThe Chinese Classics 75 \n\nancients for whom Confucius had the deepest rever- \nence. It depicts a kind of golden age when evil, pov- \nerty, and ignorance had been blotted out of the empire \nby the virtue and example of its rulers, when * \' the \nupright were advanced to ofl&ce and the crooked set \naside/\' The third is a book of sacred songs or poems, \nthree hundred and eleven in number, many of which \nevery well-educated Chinaman knows by heart. The \nfourth is called the \' \' Book of Rites \' \' and prescribes the \nceremonies to be observed in every relation of life. It \nhas been for centuries, and is now, the chief cause of \nthe artificial and unchangeable habits of the people. \nAnd the last of the five has the title, the " Spring and \nAutumn Annals. *\' In it Confucius gives a brief his- \ntory of the events in Lu from 721 to 480 B.C. It is \nnot a work of much merit. \n\nThe first of the so-called \'\' Four Books " which fol- \nlow these five canonical books is the Chinese bible. It \nis known as the \'\'Great Study," and is devoted to \nshowing in what good government consists. It says, \n**The ancients who desired to illustrate illustrious \nvirtue throughout the empire first ordered well their \nown states. Wishing to order well their own states, \nthey first regulated their families. Wishing to regu- \nlate their families, they first cultivated their own \npersons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first \nrectified their hearts." The second is entitled "The \nDoctrine of the Mean," and is attributed to the grand- \nson of Confucius. It teaches what \'\' the due medium " \nis in all conduct. The third book is sometimes called \nthe *\' Memorabilia of Confucius," and is the chief \nsource of our knowledge of his character and teachings. \nMeasured by any standard, a high degree of excellence \nmust be accorded to them all. \n\n\n\n76 The Sphe^^e of Religion \n\nTwo oft-quoted passages will summarize his life and \nviews. \'\'At fifteen," he says, \'\' I had m}^ mind bent \non learning ; at thirty I stood firm ; at forty I had no \ndoubts ; at fifty I knew the decrees of heaven ; at sixty \nmy ear was an obedient organ ; at seventy I could fol- \nlow what my heart desired without transgressing what \nwas right." When asked b}^ a disciple, \'* Is there one \nW\'Ord which may serve as a rule of practice for all one\'s \nlife ? " he replied, \' \' Is not reciprocity such a w^ord ? \nWhat you do not want done to yourself, do not do to \nothers." Though this golden rule happens to be \nnegative in its form, it has all the force and intent of a \npositive injunction. \n\nThe fourth book is written by Mencius, by far the \ngreatest of the early Confucians, and the main effect of \nit is to lay down the principles of a government that is \nwise and just and good. \n\nTo explain the vast influence that Confucianism, as \na system of ethics and a religion, has exerted for cen- \nturies, and still exerts, over the Chinese mind, we have \nto observe in the first place that it is wonderfully \nadapted to the prosaic, practical, and conservative ten- \ndencies of the people. In the second place, it assumes \nthe inherent goodness of human nature, and holds that \nwisdom and righteousness can be acquired by the strict \nand faithful performance of appointed duties and the \ncultivation of proper feelings and sentiments. And in \nthe third place, it extols education as the means of re- \nnovating mankind and inaugurating a time of universal \nprosperity and peace. \n\nThrough its influence schools have been diffused \nthroughout the length and breadth of the empire, ex- \ntending even to the remote villages. The doctrines of \nConfucius constitute the chief part of the instruction \n\n\n\nIliad and Theogony of the Greeks 7 7 \n\ngiven in them, and up to 1906 no one could enter the \npublic service or be promoted in it without passing a \nthorough examination on their contents. In Japan \nand Korea the authority of Confucius among the \neducated classes, until the last few years, was almost as \nunquestioned as in his native land. He has been \n** during twenty-three centuries the daily teacher and \nguide of a third of the human race. \' \' \n\nConfucianism inculcates many of the characteristics \nof a genuine religious life, such as reverence for the \npast, love of knowledge, regard for peace and or- \nder, and filial piety. But what it vitally needs is a \nlarger outlook. It needs to supplement regard for the \npast with hope for the future, its stability with the \nidea of progress, its faith in man with faith in a Higher \nPower, its appreciation of time with an equal appreci- \nation of eternity. \n\ne. The Iliad and the Theogony of the Greeks. \n\xe2\x80\x94 The chief Sacred Scriptures of the ancient Greeks \nwere the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer, and the Theog- \nony of Hesiod. For this statement we have the ex- \nplicit assertion of no less an authority than Herodotus \nhimself. He says distinctly, "lam of the opinion that \nHesiod and Homer lived four hundred years before my \ntime and not more, and these were they who framed a \ntheogony for the Greeks, and gave names to the gods, \nand assigned to them honors and arts, and declared \ntheir several forms" (ii., 53). \n\nThis is also the view of the latest scholars. Professor \nSeymour of Yale in his commentary upon the Ho- \nmeric poems declares, \'\'To the ancient Greek mind, \nthe Iliad and Odyssey formed a sort of Bible, to which \nreference was made as to an ultimate authority.*\' He \nwould undoubtedly have included in this statement the \n\n\n\n78 The Sphere of Religion \n\nTheogony of Hesiod, if occasion had called for any \nreference to that work. \n\nTo the student of ancient history it is no accident \nthat the revealers of the ways of the gods among the \nGreeks were poets. For poets were looked upon by \nthem as equal to prophets, and no such distinction was \nmade between them as we are inclined to make in our \nday. Everything in nature and life they instinctively \nregarded from the poetic point of view. To the Greeks, \nas James Freeman Clarke has so well said in his Ten \nGreat Religions-, \'\' all the phenomena of nature, all the \nevents of life became a marvellous tissue of divine \nstory. They walked the earth surrounded and over- \nshadowed by heavenly attendants and supernatural \npowers. . . . Their gods were not their terror, but \ntheir delight. Even the great gods of Olympus were \naround them as invisible companions. Fate itself, the \ndark Moira, supreme power, mistress of gods and men, \nwas met manfully and not timorously. So strong \nwas the human element, the sense of personal dignity \nand freedom, that the Greeks lived in the midst of \na supernatural world on equal terms.*\' \n\nThe question of the origin of the Greek religion was \na mooted one even among the Greeks themselves, and \ncontinued to be so until very recent times. Some held \nthat it was almost entirely an Egyptian importation, \nwhile others regarded it as a native product. The \nadvances that have been made within the last half-cen- \ntury in comparative philology have, however, settled \nthe matter beyond reasonable doubt. Recent scholars \ntell us that over two thousand words in the Greek \nlanguage are found in the Sanskrit, showing conclu- \nsively that the Greek people once lived in Central Asia \nand brought the rudiments of their religion with them \n\n\n\nIliad and Theogony of the Greeks 79 \n\nwhen they migrated from that country. Later addi- \ntions were made to it by other colonists from Phoenicia, \nEgypt, and other parts of the East. \n\nTo Homer and Hesiod belongs the honor of making \nthe first attempt to put these early traditions into per- \nmanent form and bring them down to their own day. \nBut who Homer was is regarded by modern scholars \nas an unsolved mystery. ** When and where Homer \nlived/\' says a high authority, \'\' no one knows. Many \nstories about him were invented and told, but all are \nwithout support," the one about his blindness being the \nmost unlikely of all. His knowledge of anatomy and \nof the details of battles, for example, could not have \nbeen acquired by one deprived of the power of sight. \n\nIndeed, it is now agreed that the poems attributed to \nHomer by the ancients were not written by any one \nperson ; for they do not have the unity we find in such \nworks as Vergil\'s ^neid and Milton\'s Paradise Lost. \nSome parts of the Iliad are shown by scholars to be \nmuch more ancient than was formerly supposed, and \nsome much more recent. Oftentimes the details of the \nstory are not known to the writer, for he is constantly \nappealing to the inspiration of a Muse for his facts. \nThat there was a conflict between the ancient Greeks \nand Trojans, and that Troy was destroyed about 1180 \nB.C. has been made quite probable by the excavations of \nDr. Schliemann since 1869, showing that towns of \nwealth and culture like those described in the poem, ex- \nisted in the region of Mycenae and Ilium at that time. \n\nThe Iliad opens with the visit of an old priest of \nApollo to the camp of the Greeks, offering rich ransom \nfor his daughter whom they have captured and given \nas a prize to one of their chieftains. It is the tcnlli \nyear of the war to (\'oni])cl Paris, the son i^\'[ Kin^ Priaui \n\n\n\n8o The Sphere of Religion \n\nof Ilium, to return Helen, the daughter of the goddess \nLeda and Father Zeus, to her husband, the King of \nSparta. For from him Paris had stolen her with the \nhelp of Aphrodite, the goddess of love. As the Greeks \nhad brought no supplies with them they lived by \nplunder upon the neighboring towns, slaying the men \nor selling them into slavery and taking the women \nprisoners. The daughter of this priest had been taken \nin this way. Her captor rudely dismisses the suppli- \ncation of her father, and Apollo sends a pestilence upon \nthe Greeks in consequence. \n\nAs soon as the cause of the pestilence becomes known \nthe daughter is restored in order to win back the divine \nfavor. I^ater the Trojans break into the Grecian camp \nand work great slaughter, but finally they are driven \nback and Hector is slain, the noblest son of Priam. \nThe Iliad closes with an account of the ransom and \nburial of Hector. The action of the Iliad lasts only \nsix weeks, but the characteristics and relationships of \nmost of the principal gods and goddesses are vividly \ndepicted in the book notwithstanding this fact. \n\nThe Odyssey gives a description of the wanderings \nand hardships of Odysseus or Ulysses after leaving \nTroy on his way home. Owing to the ill will of the \ngod Poseidon he is helplessly driven about for the pe- \nriod of ten years from one country to another in various \nparts of the w^orld. At first he comes to the land of the \nlyOtus-eaters, then to the island of the Cyclops, one of \nwhom devours six of his comrades. I^ater another race \nof giants destroys most of his ships. Finally he is cast \nupon the island of a sea-nymph who cares for him till \nthe goddess Athene persuades Father Zeus to allow his \nreturn home. After many further trials and sufferings \nhe reaches his native shore. By the help of his son, \n\n\n\nIliad and Theogony of the Greeks 8 1 \n\nwhom he had left twenty years before as an infant, he \nslays the insolent suitors of his wife and regains his \nkingdom. \n\nWhile there is a universal agreement among scholars \nthat these Homeric poems are the oldest works of Greek \nliterature that have come down to us, none of them \nhold that they are the oldest poems that the Greeks \nproduced. Brief lyrics on various themes such as love \nand war, and short epics celebrating the deeds of the \ngods and the exploits of famous men must have been \nlong in circulation among the people before any poet \nthought of composing such extended works as these. \nSo far from being the pure creations of the age of \nHomer, they are universally regarded as consisting \nchiefly of a body of myths and legends that had de- \nscended from earlier times. Even the language and \nverse are inheritances from former generations. \n\nOf the personality of Hesiod, the author of the Theo- \ngony, there seems to be no doubt. He himself tells us \nthat he was born in the little village of " Ascra, in \nwinter vile, in summer most villainous, and at no time \nglorious." Here it was that he fed his lambs beneath \ndivine Helicon. Here, as he says, **the Olympian \nMuses, daughters of aegis-bearing Jove, breathed into \nme a voice divine that T might sing of both the future \nand the past, and they bade me hymn the race of ever- \nliving blessed gods." \n\nHesiod is essentially a prophet. The message he \ndelivers he declares is not from himself. He did not \ndiscover by his own researches the truths he proclaims. \nHe thinks of himself as simply the moutlipicce of the \nMuses. As another has expressed it, \'\' Personal opin- \nion and feeling may tinge his utterance, but they do \nnot determine its general complexion." He is in his \n\n\n\n82 The Sphere of Religion \n\nown opinion one whom the gods have empowered to \nspeak for them and to make known their thoughts con- \ncerning man. The legends and myths he incorporates \nin his story were regarded by him and his age as relics \nof sacred history. Scholars in our day regard him as \ndoing little more than to record, and in some degree to \nharmonize, tales more or less generally current. The \nmany stories of gross cannibalism and outrageous im- \nmorality among the gods that he narrates must have \ncome down to his time from utterly savage forefathers. \n\nHesiod\'s work w^as regarded by the ancient Greeks as \ntheir Book of Genesis. For he claims to give in it by \ndivine inspiration a history of the successive genera- \ntions of the immortal gods. In the beginning, he says, \nChaos alone was. Then came broad-bosomed Earth or \nGaia, and Tartarus, a dark and gloomy region beneath \nthe earth. Afterwards Eros, or lyove, appeared. Out \nof Chaos sprang Erebus and black Night, and from \nthem came forth Ether and Day. Earth brought forth \nthe starry Heaven or Uranos, then vast mountains, \n" lovely haunts of deities,\'\' and afterwards Pontus, or \nthe barren Sea. Thus it was that the first generation \nof gods came into being. \n\nHesiod is here evidently describing the activity of \nthe mighty primeval forces of nature, giving the matter \nits appropriate poetical dress. We to-day would call \nthe lyove of which he speaks the power of attraction \nbringing together otherwise discordant elements into \norder and harmony. \n\nThe second generation was the period of the Titans, \ngigantic semi-personal powers. By the intermarriage \nof Earth and Heaven they were produced, twelve in \nnumber, six males, and six females. But Heaven \nfeared his own children and shut them up in Tartarus. \n\n\n\nIliad and Theogony of the Greeks 83 \n\nEarth, however, came to their aid and let them out. \nThey overthrew their father and placed Chronos, or \nTime, upon the throne. The children of Time headed \nby Zeus rose up against him and the Titans were again \nimprisoned in Tartarus, watched over by the Cyclops \nand the hundred-handed Giants. \n\nHesiod gives a vivid account of this battle with the \nTitans. After describing how Zeus by feasting his \nbrothers and sisters upon *\' nectar and delightful am- \nbrosia " had induced them to join in it, he continues in \npart as follows: \'\'They then were pitted against the \nTitans in deadly combat, holding huge rocks in their \nsturdy hands. But the Titans on the other side made \nstrong their squadrons with alacrity, and both parties \nwere showing work of hand and force at the same time, \nand the boundless sea re-echoed terribly, and earth \nresounded loudly, and broad heaven groaned, being \nshaken, and vast Olympus was convulsed from its base \nunder the violence of the immortals. . . . Nor longer, \nin truth, did Jove restrain his fury, but then forthwith \nhis heart was filled with fierceness, and he began also \nto exhibit all his force ; then, I wot, from heaven and \nfrom Olympus together he went forth lightning con- \ntinually ; and \'the bolts close together with thunder \nand lightning flew duly from his sturdy hand, whirl- \ning a sacred flash, in frequent succession, wiiile all \naround life-giving Earth was crashing in conflagration, \nand the immense forests on all sides crackled loudly \nwith fire. All land was boiling, and Ocean\'s streams \nand the barren sea. Hot vapor was circling the earth- \nborn Titans, and the incessant blaze reached the \natmosphere of heaven, whilst flashing radiance of \nthunderbolt and lightning was bereaving their eyes \nof sight " (Banks\'s translation). \n\n\n\n84 The SpJurc of Religion \n\nThe result of this mighty conflict was that the Titan \ngods were at last conquered and banished to a dreary- \nplace " under murky darkness " \'\' as far beneath under \nearth as heaven is from the earth.\'\' *\' From it they \nwill never escape, for Xeptune has placed above them \nbrazen gates and a wall goes round them on both \nsides." \n\nThe inhabitants of Olympus constituted the third \ngeneration. By this time the gods had reached the \nstage of development in which they ceased to be ab- \nstract ideas or the powers of nature, and had become \ngenuine personalities, \\\\-ith distinctly personal quali- \nties, a personal history-, and a personal life. Every \nGreek was taught to believe that a supreme council of \ntwelve national gods, together with a vast retinue \nof lesser gods and goddesses, dwelt upon the glistening \nsnow-capped heights of Mount Olympus around its \nhighest peak and ruled the universe. Five of these \nOh-mpian gods were children of Chronos or Time, \nnamely, Zeus, Poseidon, Here, Hestia, and Demeter. \nSix were children of Zeus, \xe2\x80\x94 Apollo and Artemis, He- \nphaestos and Ares, Hermes and Athene. The twelfth \nwas Aphrodite, the goddess of Beauty, who sur\\4ved \nfrom the second generation. For Beaut\\- in the opinion \nof the Greeks was much older than Power. \n\nThe highest and mightiest and wisest of all the \nOlympians was Zeus, whom the Romans called at a \nlater time Zeus-Pater, or Jupiter. His father had in- \ntended to swallow him as he had swallowed all his \nother children as soon as the}\' were bom, but his \nmother substituted a stone for the child. Then she \nsecreth\' conve3\'ed him to a cave on Mt. Ida in Crete, \nwhere he was brought up by a nymph. He rapidly \nbecame so misrht^\' in strensrth that at the end of a vear \n\n\n\nIhaa and Theogony of the Greeks 85 \n\nhe attacked his father and gave him an emetic that \ncaused him to vomit forth his elder brothers and sisters. \nBy their aid he soon deposed his father and took control \nof the empire of the universe. \n\nThe realm of the heavens he reserved to himself, \nwhile the rule of the sea he gave to his brother \nPoseidon, and that of lower world to Hades. Being \nthe father of many men as well as gods, Zeus watched \nover all human actions, but especially those of the \nfamily and the state. He sat enthroned in ether on \nhigh mountains, where he gathered together the clouds \nand sent forth the storm and the rain. The eagle and \nthe thunderbolt were the messengers of his power. \n\nSecond in command among the inhabitants of Olym- \npus was Poseidon, afterwards called by the Romans \nNeptune. He surrounded the earth and ruled the sea, \nwhich to the Greeks had an importance that we can \nhardly overestimate. He agitated or quieted the \nwaves at his will and was the cause of all earthquakes, \nfor the Greeks thought that they originated in the sea. \nThe waves were his horses, and hence he was regarded \nas the creator of all horses. With his trident he smote \nthe rocks and caused water to gush forth from them in \nabundance. His temper was as variable and stormy \nas the surface of the sea. \n\nNext came Apollo, the god of light and hence of the \nsun. To him was due the preservation and increase of \nvegetable, animal, and human life. Physical health, \nmanly vigor, and masculine beauty were his gifts. \nHe was the god of athletics, of the chase, and of war, \nas well as the healer of disease. His anger brought \non disease and death. He was the god not nurely of \nphysical light, l)iit also of mental. Hence all insight \ninto the future, all prophecy sprang from him He \n\n\n\n86 The Sphere of Religion \n\nwas the fountain-head of poetical inspiration, music, \nand song, and, therefore, the leader of the Muses. The \nisland of Delos was his birthplace, and his parents \nwere Zeus and Leto. \n\nFourth in the list was Hephaestos, whom the Romans \nlater called Vulcan. He was the author of fire and the \nsmith of the gods. He had a huge frame and was strong \nand powerful as to the upper part of his bod}-, but his \nlegs were so weak and puny that he could hardly hobble \nalong with a staff. He did not look like a god, but the \ncharacter of his handiwork showed forth his divinity, \nfor it far surpassed anything that any man could execute. \n\nAccording to Homer he was the son of Zeus and Here, \nand his lameness was due to the fact that one time when \nhis parents were having a violent quarrel he spoke up \nin favor of his mother. Whereupon his father seized him \nby the feet and flung him out of heaven head foremost, \ntwisting the bones of his legs out of joint in the opera- \ntion. According to Hesiod he was the son of Here \nalone, who produced him out of envy without a father, \nbecause Zeus had produced Athene without her aid. \nBut w^hen his mother found that he was lame she threw \nhim out of heaven hoping that thus he might escape \nthe gaze of the gods. He was cared for by two nymphs \nfor nine years in their home in the depths of the sea, \nwhere he wTought many extraordinary w^orks. \n\nVolcanoes were his workshops. In them metals were \nforged into all conceivable shapes. As the soil of vol- \ncanoes was found to be the best for maturing excellent \nwines, he was appointed to the office of cup-bearer to the \ngods. Homer tells us in the Iliad that he was constantly \nridiculed at their feasts for his awkwardness (due to his \nlimping gait) as he went around from one couch to an- \nother handing each the cup. *\' And then,\'* he says, \n\n\n\nIliad and Theogony of the Greeks 87 \n\n*\' inextinguishable laughter arose among the immortal \ngods when they saw Vulcan bustling through the \nmansion." \n\nAfter Hephaestos comes Ares, the god of war, whom \nthe Romans identified with their Mars. He was the son \nof Zeus and Here and the favorite of Aphrodite, who \nbore him several children. Battles and slaughter were \nhis delight purely for their own sake. Nothing pleased \nhim so much as to witness the wholesale destruction of \nmen. Having no other purpose to accomplish he \nadhered first to one side in a battle and then to the other. \nIn order to make the carnage as terrible as possible he \ntook with him into battle besides other companions his \nsister Strife and his sons Horror and Fear, that they \nmight add to the slaughter. Sometimes he himself was \nthe sufferer. On one occasion when he was wounded by \nDiomede, Homer says of him that in his fall \'* he roared \nlike nine or ten thousand warriors together." \n\nThe next in importance is Hermes (the Latin Mer- \ncury), the swift and trusted messenger and herald of \nthe gods. He is the go-between in all their intrigues, \nand being the god of all intercourse, he becomes the \ngod of all traders, and hence, also, of thieves and liars. \nAccording to the so-called Homeric Hymn to Hermes, \nimmediately after his birth in a cave on Mount Cyllene \nin Arcadia he went forth from his cradle and stole a \nlarge herd of cattle belonging to his brother, Apollo, \npulling them backwards into his cave by their tails. \nWhen Apollo caught him and dragged him before their \nfather Zeus he vStoutly denied the theft, but he was \nspeedily convicted and had to agree to give the cattle \nup. But before he had done so he showed Ajx)llo a \nlyre that he had made out of an old tt)rtoise shell that \nhe had discovered, in which only the dried sinews re- \n\n\n\n88 The Sphere of Religion \n\nmained. Apollo was so taken with the trinket that he \nlet Hermes keep the cattle in exchange for it. \n\nHe invented the flute and sold it to Apollo for the \ncaduceus, or herald\'s staff and prophetic powers. With \nthis wand he could quickly make the most intractible \nobedient to his will. He was consequently the patron \nof orators and the god of chance. According to some \nhe was the god of weights and measures and all science. \nHe was worshipped all over Greece and was generally \nrepresented with winged hat and feet. \n\nHere, later called Juno, was, according to Hesiod, \namong the elder brothers and sisters that Zeus caused \nhis father Chronos to vomit forth by giving him an \nemetic. After her rescue she immediately became the \nwife of Zeus and the queen of heaven. She was thus a \nvery ancient and venerable goddess. Homer frequently \nspeaksof her as " the venerable ox-eyed Here," though \nhe represents her as obstinate and quarrelsome. Her \ntemper was a constant source of discord between herself \nand her lord, although she greatly feared him. At one \ntime Zeus not only scolded and beat her as was his wont, \nbut actually tied her hands together and hung her up \nin the clouds. \n\nHer jealousy was proverbial. She bitterly resented \nthe innumerable amours of her husband and often \nvented her wrath upon the women involved in them \nand their offspring. She intensely disliked Hercules \nand sent the Sphinx to distress the Thebans because \nhe was born in their country. The Trojans she bitterly \nhated because Paris did not award her the golden ap- \nple that had inscribed on it, *\' To the most beautiful.\'\' \nBeing the only wedded goddess in Greek mythology \nshe naturally presided over marriage. If the rites of \nher own marriage were followed, it became thereby \n\n\n\nIliad and Theogony of the Greeks 89 \n\nespecially sacred. She was universally regarded as \nthe noblest of the Olympian dames. \n\nNext came Athene, or Pallas- Athene, known to the \nRomans as Minerva, who was commonly supposed to \nhave sprung full-armored from the head of Zeus by \nhis own power. Other versions state that Zeus swal- \nlowed her mother before she was bom and that Hephaes- \ntos to relieve his pains split his head open with an \naxe and let her out. She was the favorite daughter of \nZeus and little inferior to him in power, often wielding \nhis aegis in his stead. Being a warlike goddess she \nwas much worshipped in the citadels of fortified towns. \nSacred images of her, called Palladia, were said at \ntimes to fall from heaven and were preserv^ed with the \nutmost care, for the possession of one of them in a \ncity made it impregnable. Homer tells us that the \nPalladium of Troy was the gift of Zeus to the founder \nof Ilium, and that when Ulysses and Diomede stole it, \nvictory went to the Greeks. \n\nShe was not merely the source of heroic valor, but \nchiefly of military wisdom and careful strategy. Hence \nshe was regarded as the patron of all learning from the \nhumblest arts to the most profound philosophy. Sacred \nto her were the serpent, the owl, and the olive which \nshe gave to her favorite city, Athens, so named in her \nhonor. There she presided over the courts and de- \nvoted herself assiduously to the preser\\^ation of the lib- \nerties and well-being of its citizens. Together with \nApollo and Zeus she formed the supreme triad of the \nreligion of the ancient Greeks. Power came from \nZeus, wisdom from Athene, and the mission of Apollo \nwas to reveal to mortals the results of their hamio- \nnious union. The worship of Athene was universal \nthroughout the whole of Greece. \n\n\n\ngo The Sphere of Religion \n\nNinth in the list of these Olympian deities was \nArtemis (later called Diana), the twin sister of Apollo \nand the sharer of his attributes of destruction and heal- \ning. As a destroying goddess she was thought of as a \nfull-grown virgin armed with bow and arrows with \nwhich she often took vengeance upon her enemies. In \nher capacity as a preserving deity, she watched over \nthe sick and helped those in distress. She was the pa- \ntroness of chastity and her ministers were pledged to \nchastity by the strictest vows. Just as her brother \npresided over the sun and was often called Phoebus, so \nshe was the moon-god and frequently went by the \nname of Phoebe. Woods and lakes were her favorite \nhaunts and she often lead in chase and war. In later \nyears her temple at Ephesus was one of the seven \nwonders of the world. \n\nAphrodite (later Venus) comes next, the goddess of \nsensual love. She was not an original creation of the \nGreeks but was imported from Phoenicia where under \nthe name of Astarte she had many worshippers. Hesiod \nasserts that she first appeared in the foam of the sea on \nthe shores of ^\'wave-dashed Cyprus," and that when \nshe landed on the island, attended by nymphs and tri- \ntons, flowers sprang up under her feet and all nature \nrejoiced. Homer represents her as the daughter of \nZeus and Dione and as much at ease in the Olympian \ncircle. \n\nThough the reputed wife of Hephaestos, accounts of \nher amours with other gods and with mortals abounded \namong the legends of the Greeks. She generally fig- \nured as the inspirer of unworthy passion and the enemy \nof chastity. Courtesans held her in high repute and \nsacred prostitution was practised in many of her tem- \nples. Still there were some places where she was \n\n\n\nIliad and Theogony of the Greeks g i \n\nworshipped as the goddess of married and chaste \nlove. \n\nHestia (the Roman Vesta), the eleventh of the \nblessed Olympians, was the first-born daughter of \nChronos and, as the fire-goddess, she presided over the \nfamily hearth. The deeds of Aphrodite she utterly \nabhorred, and, when wooed by Apollo and Poseidon, \nswore by the head of Zeus always to be a virgin. A \nlibation was poured out to her on the hearthstone at \nthe beginning of a feast and even of an ordinary meal. \nScarcely any private or public ceremony was begun \nwithout first making her an offering. She united the \nfamily together and was the centre of the family life. \nShe was honored in the temples of all the gods and at \nevery fireside. The sacred flame to Hestia was to be \nkept burning in every community and carried wherever \na colony went to found a new home. \n\nThe last of the twelve Olympian immortals was De- \nmeter, later known as Ceres, literally Mother Earth. \nShe was a sister of Zeus and by him she became the \nmother of Persephone, whom Hades caught while she \nwas gathering flowers in a meadow and carried off to \nthe lower world. Demeter long sought for her daugh- \nter in vain until the all-seeing Helios told her of her fate. \nIn her grief she hid herself and the earth ceased to yield \nher fruit. Finally Zeus sent Hermes to compel Hades \nto give up his wife to her mother. But owing to the \nfact that she had been persuaded by Hades to eat a \npomegranate she was not free to leave her husband. A \ncompromise was affected by which she should spend two \nthirds of the year with her mother and one third with \nher husl)aiKl. \n\nDemeter in her wanderings had been kindly enter- \ntained at Eleusis and, in return, had Messed the spot. \n\n\n\n92 The Sphere of Religion \n\nThere the Eleusinian Mysteries were celebrated in her \nhonor. This incident in the life of Demeter is told at \nlength in the sacred Homeric Hymn to Demeter where \nshe is often called the frnitbringer, the goddess of the \nspring season. She presided over the seed time and \nharvest and was, therefore, the goddess of settled insti- \ntutions and laws. \n\nBesides the twelve immortal inhabitants of Olympus \nenumerated above, the Greeks worshipped an indefi- \nnite number of scarcely lesser deities ; every river and \nmountain, every forest and dell, every sight and sound, \nindeed, every thought and act had its god. \n\nThe bond of connection between gods and men was \nthe Greek idea of heroes. They were the offspring of \ngods and beautiful earth-born women. Thus the sons \nof the gods became the founders of races and the patrons \nof the professions and the arts. The Greeks never had \nthe dark and terrible notion of two rival principles, a \ngood and a bad, contending for the mastery of the uni- \nverse. They humanized everything, even their gods \nwho freely allied themselves with mortals, and no me- \ndiator stood between them. Every man, woman, and \nchild was at liberty to worship, or sacrifice, or pray \nwhenever and wherever, and as often as, the heart de- \nsired. Hence the Greek religion was ** dogmatically \nas well as practically one of the brightest and most joy- \nous, no less than the mildest and most tolerant, of \nancient creeds. \' \' \n\nStill it must be admitted that the gods of the Greeks \nhad few if any of the attributes of real divinity. They \nwere made in the image of men and had all the passions \nand vices of men. Heraclitus well expressed the mat- \nter from the point of view of the Greeks when he said : \n\' " Men are mortal gods and the gods are immortal men. \' \' \n\n\n\nIliad and Theog07iy of the Greeks 93 \n\nFor the gods had no higher aim than to have a good \ntime. Their usual occupation according to Homer was \nto make love, to fight, and to feast. In one of their \nfights represented in the twenty-first book of the Iliad, \nHomer says that Athene seized a stone and struck Ares \non the neck with it, and that when he fell he covered \nseven acres and defiled his back with dust. In the \nsame fight Here held both of the hands of Artemis in \none of hers and beat her over the head with her own bow. \nBut the occasions were rare when they did not, as Ho- \nmer says, *\' feast all day till sundown" and then "retire \nto repose, each one to his own house, which renowned \nVulcan, lame in both legs, had built." Whenever \nthey took part in the affairs of men it was usually to \ngratify some whim or passion. They had little or no \nmoral purpOvSe and did not by precept or example un- \ndertake to guide the consciences of men. No wonder \nthat Plato was shocked at their doings as depicted by \nHesiod and Homer, and would not allow the wTitings \nof these poets a place in his ideal state. \n\nYet in spite of all these defects it must be granted that \nthe religion of the Greeks has furnished to the world \nsome of the most important ideas of a genuine religious \nlife. It represented the gods as imminent, ever-present \npowers, and not mere outside forces having nothing to \ndo with the ongoings of the universe, and thus it set \nforth the great truth that all nature is alive with the \ndivine. It taught that man could acquaint himself \nwith the gods and co-operate with them as a friend and \ncompanion. Nothing, therefore, that concerned the \ngods was foreign to him. It emphasi/.ed the fact that \nman\'s chief mission is to develop himself and grow \nup into likeness to the gods. Because of these ideas it \ncame about that " nowhere on the earth, before or since, \n\n\n\n94 The Sphere of Religion \n\nhas the human being been educated into such a wonder- \nful perfection, such an entire and total unfolding of \nitself, as in Greece." These ideas remain to-day the \nfundamental teachings of a truly progressive religious \nlife. \n\nf. The Avesta of Zoroaster.\xe2\x80\x94 The bible of the \nancient Persians is called the Avesta, or the Zend- \nAvesta. Avesta probably means the text or the law, \nand Zend, commentary or explanation. The following \nfacts concerning the Avesta and its history are chiefly \ntaken from the recently published investigations of the \nsubject by Prof. A. V. Williams Jackson, of Columbia. \n\nThe discovery and first deciphering of the Avesta \nare due to the efforts of a young French scholar by the \nname of Anquetil-Duperron. In 1723 a copy of a \nsmall portion of the Avesta was secured from the Parsis \nin Surat, and deposited as a curiosity in the Bodleian \nlibrary at Oxford. No one, however, was able to read \nthe text. Anquetil happened to see in Paris some \ntracings made from the Oxford manuscript, and im- \nmediately conceived the idea of going to India and \nobtaining from the priests themselves a knowledge of \ntheir sacred books. In 1754 he undertook the journey, \nand after seven years spent in overcoming almost in- \nsurmountable obstacles, he succeeded in winning the \nconfidence of a few of them who taught him the lan- \nguage of the Avesta and initiated him into some of their \nrites and ceremonies. \n\nThe translation of the Avesta published by Anquetil \nwas at one time thought to be a forgery, but later it \nwas conclusively shown to be substantially correct. It \nmade known to European scholars for the first time \nwhat is acknowledged to be one of the most ancient \nand important of all the bibles of the Eastern world. \n\n\n\nThe A vesta of Zoroaster 95 \n\nThe authorship of the Avesta is unanimously as- \ncribed by both classical and Persian writers to Zoro- \naster, whose date was formerly often spoken of as 6000 \nB.C. This was due to a misinterpretation of the \nPersian chronology, which makes a difference between \nthe existence of the spiritual essence of Zoroaster, \nwhich his disciples claimed began at that date, and \nthe bodily existence. Scholars are now agreed that \nhis physical birth occurred about 660 B.C., in the \nnorthern part of Persia, though his religious activity \nwas chiefly in the eastern part. Tradition has sur- \nrounded his childhood and youth with numerous \nmiracles, but in reality little is known of him till his \nthirtieth year. Then he appeared, claiming to have \nreceived direct from God a new revelation. He at \nonce began to oppose the superstitious beliefs of his \nday and to urge the adoption of the new doctrines. \n\nBetween his thirtieth and fortieth year seven visions \nof heavenly and divine truth are said to have come to \nhim. After the vivsions tradition asserts that he was \nled by the devil into the wilderness to be tempted, from \nwhich trial of his faith he came off entirely the victor. \nHis first convert was his cousin, but he did not gain \nmany followers until he converted the Persian King \nVishtaspa and his court. Then his doctrines speedily \nextended over all Iran. After a life of great activity \nand usefulness, he was slain in battle during an \ninvasion of his country in his seventy-eighth year. \n\nAccording to our best scholars it is not probable \nthat Zoroaster wrote anything. The revelations that \nwere claimed to have been given to him by God word \nfor word in the form of conversations were, in all like- \nlihood, orally preserved by his disciples and handed \ndown ])>\xe2\x80\xa2 them to posterity, ju.st as were the Vedas, the \n\n\n\n9 6 The Sphere of Religion \n\nTalmud, the Koran, and the sayings of Jesus. The \nword Zoroaster, or Zarathustra, as applied to the \nauthorship of the Avesta, is now regarded as indicating \na school of high priests of which Zoroaster was the \nfounder rather than the name of any individual. In \nthe opinion of Professor Jackson some portions of the \nbook probably date back a thousand years or more \nbefore Christ. Manj^ parts are several centuries, later, \nwhile others are as recent as the beginning of the \nChristian era. \n\nThe Avesta originally was many times more exten- \nsive than at present. Pliny speaks of 2,000,000 verses \ncomposed by Zoroaster, and Arabic authorities affirm \nthat it was inscribed in letters of gold on 12,000 cow- \nhides and deposited in the palace library at Persepolis, \nwhich was destroyed by the Greeks under Alexander \nthe Great. Making all allowance for Oriental exag- \ngeration, the extent of the original Avesta must have \nbeen very great. \n\nFrom the time of the Macedonian conquest to the \naccession of the Sassanian kings, that is, for about five \nhimdred years, the religion of ancient Persia, the re- \nligion of Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes, of the Magi of \nthe New Testament who came to worship Jesus at \nBethlehem, underwent a rapid decline. Many of the \ndocuments containing its doctrines were neglected and \nlost. But when the Sassanians came to the throne \nthey did everything in their power to revive the ancient \nfaith. They collected all the extant fragments of the \nZoroastrian gospel into the collection we now possess, \nwhich equals in extent about one tenth of our Bible. \n\nLike our Bible it is a collection of books. The first \ncollection is called the Yasna and is by far the most \nimportant. The whole of it now comprises seventy-two \n\n\n\nThe A vest a of Zoroaster 97 \n\nchapters. Probably it is so arranged in order to repre- \nsent twelve times the six \' * seasons \' \' the Persian god \nwas said to be occupied in creating the world. The \nYasna consists chiefly of prayers to be recited at such \nsacrificial rites as the consecration of the holy water ; \nthe preparation of the sacred juice called Homa, closely \nresembling the Vedic Soma and serving a similar \npurpose ; the offering of the holy cakes which w^ere \npartaken of only by the priests, as in the Catholic \ncommunion ser\\nce. \n\nIn the midst of these prayers are inserted the five \nGathas or psalms of Zoroaster which take the place, in \nthis form of religion, of the Sermon on the Mount. \nMost scholars now maintain that they are the onl}- por- \ntions of the sacred Persian scriptures that emanated \ndirectly from Zoroaster himself. These songs or dis- \ncourses resemble in metre the Vedic hymns. They be- \ngin with the heading: "The Revealed Thought, the \nRevealed Word, the Revealed Deed of Zarathustra the \nHoly; the archangels first sang the Gathas." Some \nextracts from the Gathas run as follows : \n\n**I desire by my prayer with uplifted bauds tbis joy, \xe2\x80\x94 tbe \nworks of tbe Holy Spirit, Mazda, ... a disposition to perform \ngood actions, . . . and pure gifts for botb worlds, tbe bodily \nand spiritual." \n\n** I keep forever purity and good-niindedness. Teacb tbou \nme Abura-Mazda, out of tbyself ; from bcaven, by tby moutb, \nwbereby tbe world first arose.\'* \n\n" I praise Abura-Mazda, wbo has created tbe cattle, created \ntlie water and good trees, tbe splendor of ligbt, tbe earth and \nall good. We praise tbe Fravasbis of tbe pure men and wo- \nmen, \xe2\x80\x94 wbatever is fairest, purest, immortal." \n\n*\'\\Ve bonor tbe good si)irit, tbe good kingdom, tbe good \nlaw, - all tbat is good." \n\n" In tbe beginning, tbe two beavenly Onrs sjH)ke the Good \n7 \n\n\n\ng8 The Sphere of Religion \n\nto the Evil \xe2\x80\x94 thus : * Our souls, doctrines, words, works, do not \nunite together.* \'* \n\nBy the study of these psalms we find that Zoroaster \ntaught that there are two principles in this world in \nconstant conflict with each other, the principle of good \nand light and life, and the principle of sin, dark- \nness, and death. Ormazd, or Ahura-Mazda as he is \nsometimes called, is the omniscient and omnipotent em- \nbodiment of the former, and Ahriman of the latter. \nThey are primeval and co-eval, but not co-eternal \npowers. Nature is now rent asunder by the conflict of \nthese two principles, but man as a free agent will \neventually overthrow and annihilate all evil. The \ntime will come when the good kingdom will be estab- \nlished. Ormazd and his good angels will triumph ; \nAhriman with his legion of devils will be destroyed. \n\nZoroaster exhorts every man to abjure polytheism \nand to have no other god than Ormazd, to eschew all \nforms of evil and cleave to the good, to think lightly \nof the allurements of the present world, and fix his \nthoughts upon the joys of the faithful in the life that \nis to come. We have here a very close approach to \nthe Jehovah and Satan of the Old Testament and the \nkingdom of righteousness of the New. \n\nA large portion of the other parts of the Yasna was \nprobably composed by early disciples of Zoroaster and \nconsists chiefly of prayers in prose addressed to Ahura- \nMazda, the angels, the fire, the earth, the water, \nand other spiritual beings presiding over the different \nparts of the good creation. There is also a chapter \ncontaining a formula used in initiating converts into \nthe new religion . \n\nThe second part of the Avesta is a collection of minor \n\n\n\nThe A vesta of Zoroaster gg \n\nlitanies, invocations, etc., addressed to a variety of \ndivinities and heads of the faith. The third part is \nmade up of hymns of praise of certain individual angels \nor mythical heroes and is probably the work of many \nMedian bards. Then follows a section of what may be \ncalled Minor Texts forming a sort of manual for morn- \ning devotion. The fifth part corresponds to our Pen- \ntateuch and is the code of reUgious, civil, and criminal \nlaws of the ancient Iranians. It is evidently the work \nof many hands and many centuries. The pursuit of \nagriculture is especially enjoined and the care of useful \nanimals. Much is made of the duty of keeping the \nwater pure and of sanitation in general. For bodily \npurity is considered as of equal value with moral purity. \nThe sixth and last part is a general appendix. \n\nThe power of Zoroastrianism as a national religion \nwas hopelessly overthrown by the Mohammedan inva- \nsion of 641 A.D. Those who did not adopt the creed \nof their conquerors either fled to the mountains, where \nthey remain to-day a feeble remnant of about seven or \neight thousand, or migrated to India, where they now \nhave a flourishing colony in the region of Bombay. \nThere they are called Parsis and number about ninety \nthousand. They strenuously protest against being \ncalled fire-worshippers and are noted for their upright- \nness, morality, and benevolence. In business they have \nshown remarkable ability and a number of them are \namong the weathiest merchants of Bombay. \n\nThe religion of the Avesta has much in common \nwith that of the Vedas, and both are probably derived \nfrom a common Aryan source. Many of the powers, \nsuch as Indra, Sura, Mithra, and the like, have the \nsame name in both systems. Both regard fire as divine \nand pay reverence to the same intoxicating drink, \n\nLOfC. \n\n\n\nloo TIic Sphere of Religion \n\ncalled Soma in Sanskrit, and Homa in the Avesta. \nBut in the course of their development they came to \nbe almost mutually exclusive. The gods of the Vedas \nappear in the Avesta as evil spirits. The Hindu \nutterly rejects the dualism of the Persian, and the dis- \nciple of Zoroaster is shocked at the slight regard for \nmorality manifested in the system of the Hindu. \n\nBoth Judaism and Christianit}\' have been immensely \naflFected by Zoroastrian thought. Their doctrine of \nangels and devils, and the idea that good and evil are \nequal and pernlanent adversaries in this vv\'orld so often \nmaintained b}\' their adherents, are probably derived \nfrom this source. " Such poems as Milton\'s Paradise \nLost, and Goethe\'s Fausf/\' says James Freeman Clarke \n(7>v Gn-af Religions, vol. i., p. 204) "could perhaps \nnever have appeared in Christendom, had it not been \nfor the influence of the system of Zoroaster on Jewish, \nand, through Jewish, on Christian thought." But \napart from this, the Persian religion has undoubtedly \ncontributed more than any other so-called heathen re- \nligion to acquaint the world with the great thought \nthat the kingdom of God is a kingdom of righteous- \nness, and that it is the duty of ever}\' man to work for \nits establishment here and now. \n\ng. Buddha\'s Tripitaka. \xe2\x80\x94 About five hundred \nyears before the Christian era a powerful religious sect \narose in India known as the Buddhists, and their bible \ncame to be called the Tripitaka, which literalh\' means \nthe three baskets. It is made up of three collections. \nThe first consists of aphorisms ; the second of rites and \nceremonies ; and the third of philosophical speculations. \nAlthough Buddha, the founder of the sect, preached for \nmore than forty years, he wrote nothing himself. His \nchief followers, however, immediately after his death \n\n\n\nBuddha s Tripitaka loi \n\nreduced his teachings to writing, and the first part of \nthe Tripitaka consists, in the main, of his discourses \nhanded down by word of mouth. \n\nThe Sanskrit word Buddha, or Booddha, means en- \nlightened. It is applied to any man who, by numerous \ngood w^orks, continued through countless forms of exis- \ntence, has become released from the bonds of existence \nand who, before he enters into Nirvana, proclaims to \nothers the only true way for bringing about the re- \ndemption of man. \n\nThere have been innumerable Buddhas, but the \nBuddha of history, it is now admitted, was the son of a \nwealthy Indian chieftain, who had his capital at Ka- \npilavastu near the foot of the Himalayas. His birth \noccurred about 550 B.C., and one of his early names \nwas Gautama. By this he was generally known until \nhe became the Enlightened One and set out on his new \nmission. Then he was called Gautama Buddha, just \nas Jesus came to be called Jesus Christ. Brought up in \nthe seclusion and luxury of an Oriental court, he saw no \nsigns of human misery till his twenty-ninth year. Then , \nas he went among the people, he was so impressed by \nthe universal wretchedness that existed in the world, \nregardless of sex, caste, or condition, that he resolved \nto devote his life to finding some way of relief from it. \nHe at once abandoned his luxurious home, his wife, \nand infant son, and, assuming the garb of a mendicant, \nbetook himself to the life of a Brahmanical recluse. \nBut, in spite of all his efforts to discover a way of sal- \nvation for him.self and others in this manner, no light \ncame to him. \n\nFinally he phingcd into the forest and for six years \ngave himself up to extreme austerities and self-mortifi- \ncation. Still he did not find the deliverance and peace \n\n\n\nI02 The Sphere of Religion \n\nthat he sought. At last in sheer despair he flung him- \nself down under a bo-tree and there, after forty days \nand nights of fixed contemplation, enlightenment came \nto him. He had the beatific vision and experienced \nthe inward rest of Nirvana. \n\nThe bible of the Buddhists is founded on what \nBuddha called the Four Sublime Verities. The first \nasserts that suffering exists wherever sentient life is \nfound. The second teaches that the cause of vSuffering \nis desire, or a craving for life and pleasure. The third \nafl&rms that the only way to be delivered from suffering \nis by the extinction or "blowing out " of desire. The \nfourth maintains that the only way to cause suffering \nto cease and thus reach Nirvana is to follow the Path \nof Buddha, or the Noble Eightfold Path. This path \nconsists of right views (as to the nature and cause of \nsuffering); right judgments; right words; right ac- \ntions; right practice (in getting a livelihood); right \nobedience (to the law); right memory (of the law); \nand right meditation. \n\nThe third part of the Tripitaka attempts to give an \nexplanation of the system. The immediate cause of \nsuffering, it maintains, is birth. For if we were not \nbom, we should not be exposed to death or any of the \nills of life. All the actions and affections of a being at \nany one stage of his migrations leave their impressions \nand stains upon him, and determine the peculiar form \nof existence he must next assume. When a man dies \nhe is immediately born into a new shape according to \nhis merit or demerit in following the Eightfold Path, \nand his shape varies from the lowest or most disgusting \nanimal imaginable up to a divinity. In case of extreme \ndemerit he ma}^ descend into any one of the one hun- \ndred and thirty-six Buddhistic hells in the centre of the \n\n\n\nBuddha s Tripitaka 103 \n\nearth, where the minimum term of suflfering is ten \nmillions of years. When Buddha attained enlighten- \nment under the bo-tree he was able, it is claimed, to \nrecall all of his previous forms of existence on the \nearth, in the air, in the water, in hell, and in heaven; \nand a great part of the Buddhistic legendary literature \nis devoted to narrating his good deeds in all these \nstates. \n\nMan, according to the Tripitaka, is a combination of \nfive bundles, namely, material qualities, sensations, \nabstract ideas, tendencies of mind, and mental powers. \nDeath is the breaking up of this combination. But \nthere is a force called Karma or destiny which is left \nbehind, under the influence of which these bundles \nrecombine and form a new individual. \n\nIn his discourses Buddha considers mankind as di- \nvided into two classes : those who earnestly devote them- \nselves to the religious life, and those who cling more \nor less tenaciously to the world. At first he formed \nall of his disciples into a Brotherhood and gave them \nten prohibitions or commandments for their observance. \nBut later as his followers increased in numbers he \nexempted the laymen from a portion of these regu- \nlations. The first five of the commandments which \nare of universal obligation are the following : Thou \nshalt not kill (even the humblest insect); thou shalt \nnot steal ; thou shalt not commit adultery ; thou shalt \nnot lie (or indulge in any form of harsh language); \nthou shalt not use strong drink. \n\nThe remaining five, which are for the special guid- \nance of the Brotherhood, require them to abstain from \ntaking food out of season, that is, after midday, and \nfrom looking at dances or plays ; from listening to \nsongs or music ; from using any kind of perfumery \n\n\n\nI04 The Sphere of Religion \n\nand from wearing ornaments ; from having a large mat \nor quilt upon which to sleep ; and from receiving gold \nor silver. \n\nFor those who devoted themselves exclusively to \nthe religious life twelve other observances of a much \nseverer kind are enjoined. Among others, that they \nare to dress only in rags sewed together with their own \nhands and a yellow cloak made in the same way to \nthrow over their shoulders ; to eat only food given in \ncharity and but once a day ; to live in the jungle and \nto have no roof but the foliage of the trees ; never to \nlie down when they sleep and never to change the \nposition of their mat when once spread ; and, lastly, to \ngo monthly to a cemetery to meditate on the vanity \nof life. \n\nIn addition to these prohibitions and observances the \ncultivation of certain positive virtues as works of super- \nerogation is enjoined by the Tripitaka. Respect for \nparents, charity for others, and solicitude for the wel- \nfare of every living thing are carried by the teachings \nof the Buddhists to the greatest extreme. Their sym- \npathy for sorrowing humanity knows no bounds. It is \nprobably this feature of the Buddhistic religion rather \nthan any other that has caused it to spread so exten- \nsively over the Oriental world. While it now has little \ninfluence in India proper, it holds almost exclusive \nsway in Ceylon, Burma, Siam, Nepaul, and Thibet \n(where it is called Lamaism), rivals the adherents of \nConfucius in China, largely dominates in Korea and \nJapan, and extends as far north as Siberia and Lap- \nland. Over a third of the human race, it is alleged by \nmany, is under its sway. But in this estimate all the \nChinese and Japanese are classed as Buddhists. \n\nBuddhism, as James Freeman Clarke points out, is \n\n\n\nBuddha s Tripitaka 105 \n\nRomanistic in its form, but Protestant in its spirit. The \nfirst Catholic missionaries were amazed at the likeness \nbetween the Buddhistic rites and ceremonies and their \nown. For the central object in a Buddhist temple is \nan image of the Buddha and a shrine containing his \nrelics. Here flowers, fruit, and incense are daily of- \nfered in great profusion, and frequents processions are \nmade with the singing of hymns. But fundamentally \nBuddhism is a protest against the doctrine that salva- \ntion is to be secured by following the prescriptions of a \npriestly caste. It is thus made purely a matter of the \nindividual. \n\nIn ancient India the whole life of a Brahman was divi- \nded into four stages : the school, the household, the \nforest, and the solitude. Up to the age of twenty-seven \nhe was a student under the constant direction and con- \ntrol of a Guru. After that age had been reached, he was \nrequired to marry, to found a household, and to perform \nfaithfully all the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the \nVedas. When he had lived long enough to see his \nchildren\'s children, he was expected to relinquish his \nsocial and religious duties. He left his home and re- \ntired to the solitude of the forest. There he devoted \nhimself without interruption to meditation upoi: the \nUpanishads, and sought in every way rest and peace by \nabsorption in the divine. \n\nBuddha by his experiences in this direction became \nconvinced that the preparatory stages of student and \nmarried life were of no avail, and he started out by urg- \ning every man to enter at once upon the search for the \nhigher life. As Max Miiller in describing the rise of \nBuddhism has well said : " The first and critical step \nconsisted in Buddha\'s opening the doors of a forest life \nto all who wished to enter, whatever their age, what- \n\n\n\nio6 The Sphere of Religion \n\never their caste, " and he rightly emphasizes the fact \nthat, \' \' this leaving of the world before a man had \nperformed the duties of a student and of a father of a \nfamily was the great offence of Buddhism in the eyes \nof the Brahmans; for it was that which deprived the \nBrahmans of their exclusive social position as teachers, \nas priests, as guides and counsellors. In this sense \nBuddha may be said to have been a heretic and to have \nrejected the S3^stem of caste, the authority of the Veda, \nand the whole educational and sacrificial system as based \non the Veda " ( The Nineteenth Century, vol. 33, p. 778). \n\nStill Buddhism was in no sense a new religion inde- \npendent of Brahmanism. For it was chiefly derived \nfrom it and would be quite inconceivable without it. \nBoth Buddhism and Brahmanism seek to escape from \nthe vicissitudes of time by gaining the absolute rest of \neternity. But the latter attempts to do this by pas- \nsive reception, the former by earnest individual effort. \nBrahmanism knows only absolute eternal spirit and \ncalls this world an illusion. Buddhism knows this \nworld only and calls the next, being so unlike this, a \nnullity. \n\nMuch discussion has arisen among scholars as to \nwhat the Buddhistic doctrine of Nirvana, of heaven, \nreally signifies. Such writers as Max Miiller, Schmidt, \nand others make it equivalent to annihilation, but \nmany hold that it is nothing, only in the sense that it \nis a state or condition so opposite to all that we know \nin this life, and so exalted above our present powers to \nconceive, that it is the same as nothing to us now. \nWould human nature ever actually accept the former \nview and earnestly strive to bring about its perfect \nrealization ? Is it likely that millions of men and \nwomen would spend their lives urging others to right \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jews 107 \n\nconduct in order to attain happiness or Nirvana here- \nafter, if the absolute annihilation of the self were to be \nthe inevitable result ? \n\nBuddhism emphasizes two great truths, namely, that \nreligion is a rational matter, and that it is designed for \nall mankind. It appeals to human reason and has \nmade its progress by preaching and not by force. It \nrespects all men and has unbounded charity for all. It \nseeks to make known its gospel to every creature. \nBuddha says in so many words, \'\' My law is a law of \ngrace for all." \n\nIn a certain sense, however, Buddhism is a religion \nwithout a God. For it makes him as well as the good \nand heaven equivalent to nothing, at least in this \npresent life. It leaves no room for the principle of \nlove to come in either for God or for man. It con- \ntributes to religion the great doctrine of rewards and \npunishments, the reign of law, the equality of man, \npity for human sorrow, self-denial, charity, and self- \ncontrol. But it must radically change its conception \nof the relation of man to God and fully recognize that \nthey are inseparable realities, capable of living here \nand now in constant and joyful accord, before it will \nbe worthy of a high place among the forces that make \nfor righteousness of life in our day. \n\nh. The Bible of the Jews. \xe2\x80\x94 The bible of the \nancient Jews at the beginning of the Christian era ex- \nisted in two forms, the Palestinian collection and the \nSeptua^i^int. The former was written in Hebrew and \nthe latter in Greek. The Hebrew bible was dividetl \ninto three parts, viz., The Law, The Prophets, and \nThe Psalms. The Law comprised the first five bcx:)ks, \nwhich were known as \'\'The Law of Moses." This \npart the Jews considered to be the oldest of their Scrip- \n\n\n\nio8 The Sphere of Religion \n\ntures, and much more sacred and authoritative than \nany other portion. They said that God spake face to \nface with Moses, but less distinctly and positively to \nother holy men. \n\nThe Prophets began with Joshua and ended with \nMalachi. This division included such books as Judges \nand Kings as well as Isaiah and Jeremiah, probably \nbecause it was supposed that the former were written \nby prophets as truly as the latter. The third division \nwas often called The Writings. The Psalms was \nthe initial book of the collection. It also included \nsuch books as Job, Ruth, and I^amentations, and ended \nwith Chronicles. The writings in this group were \nmuch less esteemed by the Jews than those in the \ngroups preceding, and some of them were supposed to \nhave but a small measure of inspiration. The right of \na few of them to be in the collection at all was much \ndisputed among the Rabbis. \n\nThe Septuagint had a diflFerent grouping of the \nbooks, and did not attempt to follow the chronological \norder. It arranged the books according to the subjects \ntreated, putting the historical books first, the poetical \nnext, and the prophetical last. The Septuagint also \nadded several books not found in the Hebrew bible. \nThe English bible follows the order of the Septuagint \nand so does the I^atin Vulgate. It is the Septuagint \nthat is followed here. \n\nThe first book, called Genesis, opens with a passage \nof almost unparalleled sublimity : "In the beginning \nGod (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth, and \nthe earth was without form and void ; and darkness \nwas upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God \nmoved upon the face of the waters, and God said, I^et \nthere be light, and there was light.\'* \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jews 109 \n\nSoon there is a rapid descent from the dignity of this \nremarkable introduction and the stories that follow for \nsome chapters are in many respects on a par with the \nmythologies of the other nations of antiquity. Elohim \nis represented as bringing the different objects on the \nearth into being by his mere fiat, accomplishiug the \ntask in six days and resting on the seventh. \n\nTo the man whom he had made out of " the dust of \nthe ground," he gave dominion over all the earth and \nput him in a beautiful garden, having furnished him \nwith a companion and helpmeet constructed out of a \nrib taken from his own body while he slept. A talking \nserpent soon beguiled the pair into taking some fruit \nfrom a tree in the garden that God had forbidden them \nto touch. The consequence was that when \'\'they \nheard the voice of the Lord God w^alking in the garden \nin the cool of the day " they attempted to hide them- \nselves from his presence. But he called them to him \nand insisted upon knowing what had happened. \n\nOn hearing the account of their disobedience he im- \nmediately cursed the serpent and drove the man and \nhis wife forever out of the garden, saying to the woman, \n"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy concep- \ntion ; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children ; and \nthy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule \nover thee." And to Adam he said, "Because thou \nhast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife and hast \neaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, \nThou shalt not eat of it ; cursed is the ground for thy \nsake ; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy \nlife. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to \nthee ; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. In the \nsweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou retuni \nunto the ground." Notwithstanding their hard lot \n\n\n\n1 1 o The Sphere of Religion \n\nthe liuman race rapidly increased and multiplied \naccording to the account, Adam himself living and be- \ngetting children till he was nine hundred and thirty- \nyears old, while some of his posterity lived to be still \nolder. \n\nBut human wickedness more than kept pace with \nthe increase in numbers. Soon " it repented Jehovah \n( Yahveh) that he had made man on the earth \' \' and \nhe therefore resolved to destroy everything upon its \nsurface, \'\'both man and beast and the creeping thing, \nand the fowl of the air,\'\' with a great flood. But one \nman, Noah, \'\' found grace in the eyes of Jehovah " and \n\xe2\x80\xa2 he was commanded to build a great ark and bring into \nit his wife and his sons with their wives, together with \ntwo of every sort of \'* every living thing of all flesh." \nThis he did and when the terrible flood came, lasting \na hundred and fifty days, the ark and its contents \nalone survived the universal ruin. \n\nThen God blessed Noah and his sons and com- \nmanded them to increase and multiply and replenish the \nearth ; and he made a covenant with them, setting his \nbow in the cloud as a token of his everlasting love and \nfavor and as a pledge that \' * the waters shall no more \nbecome a flood to destroy all flesh." It is stated that \nNoah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years, \ndying at the age of nine hundred and fifty. No sooner, \nhowever, had the earth been repeopled than human sin \nand arrogance again brought things to a climax. An \nattempt was made to build \'\' a tower whose top should \nreach unto heaven." As soon as the rumors of this \nendeavor of men to become gods and set up for them- \nselves reached Jehovah, he at once \'\' came down to see \nthe city and the tower, which the children of men \nbuilded." The result was that he immediately cut \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jews 1 1 1 \n\nshort the project by confounding their language, \'\' and \nso Jehovah scattered them abroad from thence upon \nthe face of all the earth." \n\nThe next great event described in this history is the \ncall of Abraham, who leaves his native city of Ur and \nfollows the guidance of Jehovah into anew and strange \nland. There he becomes the founder of a great nation \nand the father of the faithful in all time. Twice before \nhad Jehovah entered into covenant with mankind \xe2\x80\x94 \nwith Adam and with Noah \xe2\x80\x94 and twice it had been \nbroken. Now \'^a chosen people is raised up through \nwhom all the families of the earth are blessed." \n\nTwo events in the life of Abraham are especially to \nbe noted \xe2\x80\x94 his plea with Jehovah for the doomed cities \nof Sodom and Gomorrah, and the sacrifice of Isaac. \nThe former is full of naive dignity and moral earnest- \nness. Jehovah, having heard of the corruption of Sodom, \naccompanied by two angels comes down to inquire into \nthe case. He first pays a visit to Abraham and takes a \nrepast with him. Then he sends the angels to destroy \nthe city, but after they have gone Abraham intercedes \nwith Jehovah to spare the place, knowing that his kins- \nman Lot dwells in it. \n\nThe narrative runs as follows : * \' And Abraham drew \nnear and said, Wilt thou consume the righteous with \nthe wicked? Perhaps there are fifty righteous men \nwithin the city. Wilt thou consume and not spare the \nplace for the fifty righteous who are therein ? That be \nfar from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous \nwith the wicked ; that so the righteous should be \nas the wicked ; that be far from thee; shall not the \nJudge of all the earth do right .^ And Jehovah said, If \nI find in vSodom fifty righteous, then I will spare all the \nplace for their sake. And Abraham answered and said: \n\n\n\n1 1 2 The Sphere of Religion \n\nMy Lord, I who am dust and ashes have taken upon \nme to speak to thee ; there may perhaps lack five of the \nfifty righteous ; wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of \nfive ? And he said, I will not destroy it if I find there \nforty and five. \n\n\' \'And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Perhaps \nthere shall be forty found there. And he said, I will \nnot do it for the forty\'s sake. And he said, O let not \nmy Lord be angry, and I will speak ; perhaps there shall \nthirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it if \nI find thirty there. And he said. Behold now, my Lord, \nI have taken upon me to speak to thee ; perhaps there \nshall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not \ndestroy it for the twenty\'s sake. And he said, O \nlet not my Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but once ; \nperhaps ten shall be found there. And he said, I will \nnot destroy it for the ten\'s sake. And Jehovah went \nhis wa}^ as soon as he had left communing with Abraham \nand Abraham returned unto his place" (Gen. xviii. \n\n23-33). \n\nThe ten righteous men could not be found and the \ndestruction of the city was complete. Lot alone escap- \ning with his wife and daughters. But the wife looked \nback and w^as turned into a pillar of salt. \n\nWhen Abraham and Sarah his wife were in their ex- \ntreme old age, Isaac, the long-promised seed, was born. \nBut straightway the Lord ordered Abraham to offer him \nas a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. This he. proceeded \nto do until he was stayed by divine interposition, and \na ram was substituted in Isaac\'s place. \n\nTo the mind of Abraham, according to these accounts, \nJehovah was \'\'The Most High." He talked with \nAbraham face to face and was his personal protector \nand friend. He agreed to give him and his posterity \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jews 1 1 3 \n\nthe land of Canaan, and in this promise Abraham had \nimplicit faith. Abraham\'s belief in Jehovah did not \nexclude belief in other gods, but they were all inferior \nto his God. While he thought of Jehovah as almighty, \nhe did not regard him as omniscient or omnipresent. \nWhen the rumors concerning the sinfulness of Sodom \nbegan to circulate, Jehovah had to come down to ascer- \ntain whether they were correct or not. And he had \ndoubts about the faith of Abraham, so he ordered him to \nsacrifice his son Isaac. \n\nJoseph, one of the descendants of Abraham, owing \nto his skill in interpreting dreams rose to high dignity \nand honor in the court of Egypt, and it was through \nhis agency that the entire Israelitish family in a time \nof famine was allowed to settle in the rich pasture \nlands in the northern part of that country. Genesis \ncloses with an account of the death of Joseph and his \nassertion to his brethren that * \' Jehovah will surely \nvisit you and bring you out of this land unto the land \nwhich he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.\'* \n\nExodus tells us that the rapid increase of this \' \' chosen \npeople" in numbers and wealth soon began to alarm \nthe ruler of the Egyptians and he resolved to despoil \nthem of their possessions and reduce them to the class \nof slaves. It also tells us how, in this emergency, \nMoses was raised up to be their leader and to g^iide \nthem back into the land that Jehovah had promised to \ntheir fathers. Early adopted by the daughter of Pha- \nraoh, Moses had been thoroughly educated in all the \nlearning of the Egyptian priesthood and for many \nyears had enjoyed all the honors and privileges of a \nmember of the royal court. But his heart went out \ntoward his sufTering brethren. Because of some act of \ncruelty he smote to the ground an overseer who was in \n\n\n\n114 ^^^ Sphere of Religion \n\ncharge of some Jewish slaves. This made him an exile \nand it was while living as a shepherd in Arabia Petrea \nthat *\' the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a \nflame of fire out of the midst of a bush. . . . \nThe bush burned with fire and the bush was not con- \nsumed. . . . God called unto him out of the \nmidst of the bush and said, Moses, Moses. And he \nsaid, Here am I.\'\' As a result of the extended inter- \nview that followed Moses was commissioned to go to \nPharaoh and bring forth the chosen people out of \nEgypt **unto a good land and a large, unto a land \nflowing with milk and honey.\'\' \n\nTo assure Moses of his continued presence in the \ncarrying out of this undertaking, Jehovah directed him \nto cast his shepherd\'s rod upon the ground and imme- \ndiately it became a serpent. *\' And Jehovah said unto \nMoses, Put forth thy hand and take it by the tail. \nAnd he put forth his hand and caught it, and it be- \ncame a rod in his hand. That they may believe that \nJehovah the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, \nthe God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared \nunto thee." In the same way Jehovah changed the \nhand of Moses instanter into a leprous hand as white as \nsnow, and back again into a hand of natural flesh. \n\nWith his rod Moses brought many deadly plagues \nupon Eg}^^- With it he parted the Red Sea and let \nthe chosen people pass through on dry land to the \nnumber of *\' about six hundred thousand on foot that \nwere men, besides children." With it he caused the \nwaters of the sea to return and engulf the pursuing \nhosts of Pharaoh so that *\' there remained not so \nmuch as one of them." He smote the rock in Horeb \nwith it and the water gushed out in great abundance, \nand he repeatedly gave instantaneous success to the \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jews 115 \n\narmies of Israel against enormous odds by raising it \naloft. \n\nWhen the Children of Israel arrived at Mount Sinai, \nJehovah came down upon the top of the mount, and \namid great \'\'thunderings and the lightnings and the \nnoise of the trumpet \'\' he called Moses up to the top of \nthe mount, and when he had made an end of commun- \ning with him he gave him "two tables of testimony, \ntables of stone, written with the finger of God.\'* When \nMoses came down from the mount he showed to the \npeople the Ten Commandments on these tables, and \nproclaimed them as the law of the land. \n\nThe rest of Exodus from the twentieth chapter con- \ntaining these commandments, is taken up with a de- \nscription of the efforts of Moses to organize the peopl^ \ninto a nation under a divinely prescribed system of cere- \nmonial laws. \n\nLeviticus contains numerous special laws, chiefly \nthose relating to public worship, festivals, and similar \ntopics. \n\nNumbers gives a supplement to the laws and tells of \nthe weary march through the desert and the beginning \nof the conquest of Canaan. \n\nIn Deuteronomy Moses, as an old man near his end, \nreminds the people of the experiences they have gone \nthrough, of the laws they have received, and exhorts \nthem to follow and obey Jehovah. \n\nIn the book of Joshua we read of the conquest and \npartition of Canaan and of the farewell exhortation and \ndeath of Joshua. \n\nJudges describes the anarchy and apostasy that soon \nfollowed. It tells of the consequent subjugation of the \nchosen people by their heathen neighbors and the ex- \nploits of the heroes that were raised up to rescue them. \n\n\n\n1 1 6 The Sphere of Religion \n\nThe two books of Samuel give us an account of Sam- \nuel\'s life as a prophet and judge, and the history of \nSaul and David. \n\nIn the books of Kings we read of the death of David, \nthe brilliant reign of Solomon, the decline of the king- \ndom, the revolt of the ten tribes, their practical anni- \nhilation, the carrying away into captivity of the greater \npart of the kingdom of Judah, and the fate of the miser- \nable remnant. At the same time the books describe the \ntreatment of the noble prophets who kept on testif^dng \nfor God in spite of the opposition of wicked kings and \nthe indifference of a degenerate people. \n\nChronicles supplements this history and Ruth is in- \ntroduced as an episode in the time of the Judges, telling \nwith exquisite grace how Ruth the Moabitess came to \nmarry Boaz, the great-grandfather of David. \n\nEzra and Nehemiah close the strictly historical part \nby describing the return of the chosen people from their \nforeign exile, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the res- \ntoration of the temple worship. The book of Esther re- \ncords the wonderful escape of the Jews from annihilation \nw^hile held in captivity by their Persian conquerors. \n\nThe book of Job is a philosophical work of great \nbeauty of diction, abounding in profound thoughts, es- \npecially upon the origin of evil and the mission of \nsuffering, and inculcating the duty of absolute resig- \nnation to God\'s mysterious will. \n\nThe Psalms are a collection of devotional lyrics much \nprized by the Jews. The first one reads as follows : \n\n" I. Blessed is the man that walketh not in the \ncounsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of \nsinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. \n\n" 2. But his delight is in the law of the Lord ; and \nin his law doth he meditate day and night. \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jews 1 1 7 \n\n\'\'3. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers \nof water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season ; his \nleaf also shall not wither ; and whatsoever he doeth \nshall prosper. \n\n\' \' 4. The ungodly are not so : but are like the chaflf \nwhich the wind driveth awa3^ \n\n\'\'5. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the \njudgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the \nrighteous. \n\n\'\' 6. For the Lord knoweth the w^ay of the righteous : \nbut the way of the ungodly shall perish." \n\nThe twenty-third Psalm is perhaps the gem of the \ncollection, and consists of the following verses : \n\n\'\' I. The Lord is my shepherd ; I shall not want. \n\n\'* 2. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: \nhe leadeth me beside the still waters. \n\n\'\'3. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the \npaths of righteousness for his name\'s sake. \n\n" 4. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the \nshadow of death, I will fear no evil : for thou art with \nme ; thy rod and thy staflFthey comfort me. \n\n\'\' 5. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence \nof mine enemies : thou anointest my head with oil ; my \ncup runneth over. \n\n** 6. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all \nthe days of my life : and I will dwell in the house of \nthe Lord for ever. \' \' \n\nThe Proverbs is a book of wise maxims and short \ndiscourses on more or less practical affairs. Ecclesiastes \nis an eloquent wail over the transitoriness of all earthly \nthings, and the Song of Solomon is an amatory idyl, the \nmission of which it is liard to explain. The Jews had a \nrule that no one should read it till he was t)ver thirty, and \nthe utility of reading it at all was often iiuestioned. \n\n\n\n1 1 8 The Sphere of Religion \n\nThe remaining books of the bible of the Jews from \nIsaiah to Malachi are prophetic in their character. \nThey take the religious experiences and ideas that the \nhistorical books make known to us, and show how they \nought to inspire the people with unremitting zeal in \ntheir conflict with unbelief and apostasy. They also \npoint out how those who are faithful to Jehovah ought \nto look forward with high anticipation for the future. \nFor deep religious feeling and sublime conceptions of \nGod, for beautiful diction and rich imagery, many of \nthese books are unsurpassed. As a whole they reveal \nthe nation\'s heart and purpose in a way that is unique \nin the history of any race or people. As one of the \nbest samples of this kind of literature in the Old \nTestament we may take the fifty-fifth chapter of \nIsaiah : \n\n\'\' I. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the \nwaters, and he that hath no money ; come ye, buy and \neat ; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money, \nand without price. \n\n\'\'2. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is \nnot bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth \nnot? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that \nwhich is good, and let your soul delight itself in \nfatness. \n\n\'\' 3. Incline your ear, and come unto me : hear, and \nyour soul shall live ; and I will make an everlasting \ncovenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. \n\n\'\' 4. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the \npeople, a leader and commander to the people. \n\n"5. Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou \nknowest not ; and nations that knew not thee shall \nrun unto thee, because ,of the Lord thy God, and for \nthe Holy One of Israel ; for he hath glorified thee. \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jews 1 1 g \n\n*\' 6. Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call \nye upon him while he is near. \n\n\'\'7. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the un- \nrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto \nthe Lord, and he will have mercy upon him : and to \nour God, for he will abundantly pardon. \n\n\'* 8. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither \nare your ways my ways, saith the Lord. \n\n*\' 9. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, \nso are my ways higher than your ways, and my \nthoughts than your thoughts. \n\n" 10, For as the rain cometh down, and the snow, \nfrom heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth \nthe earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it \nmay give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater ; \n\n\'\'11. So shall my word be that goeth forth out of \nmy mouth ; it shall not return unto me void ; but it \nshall accomplish that which I please, and it shall pros- \nper in the thing w^hereto I sent it. \n\n"12. For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth \nwith peace : the mountains and the hills shall break \nforth before you into singing, and all the trees of the \nfield shall clap their hands. \n\n"13. Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, \nand instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree : \nand it shall be to the Lord for a name, fur an everlast- \ning sign that shall not be cut off." \n\nIn recent years the several books of this Hebrew \nbible have been studied as to their origin and composi- \ntion with scrupulous care by a great number of eminent \nscholars such as luclihorn, Graf, Blcck, Wellliauscn, \nand Holzinger in Germany ; Kuenen and his followers \nin Holland ; Cheyiie and Driver in luiglaiul ; Ruhcrtson \nSmith and George Adam vSinitli in vScotlaiul ; aiul Toy, \n\n\n\n1 20 The Sphere of Religion \n\nBriggs, Bacon, Kent, and Mitchell in America. The \nresult is that few, if any, investigators in our day disa- \ngree with the opinion that what we call the Old Testa- \nment was not originally written as we now" have it, but \nis the work of a great number of prophets, and priests, \nand sages, extending over a long period of time. \n\' \' Some of the oldest poems of the Old Testament, \' \' \nsays Professor Kent, \' \' go back to the days of the \nJudges, about B.C. 1200, and certain of the Psalms and \nthe Book of Daniel are in all probability later than \nB.C. 200.\'* \n\nAlmost every book in this Hebrew bible is now re- \ngarded as a conglomerate made up of material taken \nfrom earl}" and late sources, joined together by faithful \ncopyists and editors, who were mterested in preserving \nthem for future times. In other words, it is now recog- \nnized that the history of the bible of the Hebrews is \nlike that of other ancient sacred books. It began with \nthe recording of the songs and legends of the people \nand then gradually received other additions by way of \nprophetic utterances and ceremonial laws, till it finally \ncrystallized into its present form and came to be re- \ngarded as an unalterable rule of faith and practice. \n\nGenesis, the first book of the Old Testament, is now \nheld to be made up of two great compilations. The \nfirst is a histor}" written from the point of view of the \nprophets and consists of two documents called respec- \ntively the Jehovistic and the Elohistic, because of the \nterm uniformly applied to God in each of them. The \nfact that these documents often described the same \nevents accounts for the many stories repeated in the \nbook, especially in the first part. The second is a \npriestly history forming a setting to the priestly code. \nThis is held to be post-exilic in origin, the author get- \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jews 1 2 1 \n\nting much of his material for the account of creation, \nthe origin of the Sabbath, the Flood, and other alleged \nprehistoric events during the Babylonish captivity. \nThe first compilation is regarded as the work of a \nJudean editor about 750 B.C. It is evident, therefore, \nthat the book of Genesis came into being gradually, \nand, long after the time of Moses took on its present \nform. \n\nThe composite character of Exodus is seen in the fact \nthat the legislative sections, namely, xxi.-xxiii., known \nas the Book of the Covenant ; xx. 1-17, the Decalogue; \nand xxxiv. 10-28, the older Decalogue, evidently be- \nlong to different periods. It is the general opinion of \ncompetent authorities that the oldest form of the Deca- \nlogue cannot be much older than the eighth century, \nseveral centuries after the time of Moses. Numbers is \nmoral in tone rather than ritual, and the stress laid \nupon the prohibition of image-worship requires a later \ndate than that of Elijah and Elisha. \n\nAs to Leviticus the Law of Holiness (chapters xvii.- \nxxvi.) is now believed to have been compiled during the \nexile, and, together with the Priestly Code making up \nthe rest of the book and the book of Numbers, to have \nbeen put into its present form by the editors of the Pen- \ntateuch after the return from Babylon about 444 B.C. \n\nThe chronological order of these codes is now thought \nto be as follows : Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomic \nCode, Law of Holiness, and Priestly Code. In the first \nthere is no restriction of the worship of Jehovah to a \nsingle sanctuar}^ but there is in all the others. The \nHoliness Code recognizes only Aaronites as priests. The \nPriestly Code makes a sharp division between Levites \nand priests. \n\nScholars are now j^ractically unanimous that the book \n\n\n\n1 2 2 The Sphere of Religion \n\nof Deuteronomy is the book referred to in 2 Kings xxii. \n8, as having been found in the eighteenth year of Jo- \nsiah (622 B.C.) by the High Priest Hilkiah. It is also \nagreed that this law-book was not by any means as ex- \ntensive as the present book of Deuteronomy. Mau}^ \nthink that it consisted of chapters v.-xxvi., composed \nnot earlier than the time of Hezekiah, and perhaps by \nHilkiah himself. The rest of the work according to \nthe scholars of to-day is made up of later additions to \nfit the book into its present place in the Pentateuch. \nSuch investigators as Kuenen, Graf, Wellhausen, and \nStade regard the Deuteronomic Code as based upon the \nBook of the Covenant (Ex. xxi.-xxiii.) which it en- \nlarges and adapts to new conditions. *They also hold \nthat it is older than the Law of Holiness (Lev. xvii.- \nxxvi.) and the Priestly Code. \n\nIt is now maintained that the original Deuteronomy \nwas probably written in Jerusalem, where a special ef- \nfort was made after the destruction of the northern king- \ndom to form an ideal code that would keep the people \ntrue to the worship of Jehovah. And as all the proph- \nets were constantly pointing to the days of the wan- \nderings in the wilderness under the leadership of Moses \nas the ideal days, tradition gradually came to attri- \nbute the authorship of the book to Moses, the subject- \nmatter being made over by editors to fit in with this view. \n\nThe first five books of the Hebrew bible are no longer \nregarded as making up a consistent whole. The book \nof Joshua is now included with them and the collection \nis called the Hexateuch, the word Pentateuch being \nexcluded from use, when the attempt is made to deal \nwith an actual grouping of the facts. \n\nThe book of Joshua, it is now admitted, was written \nlong after the time of Joshua. The historical narrative \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jews 123 \n\nin it, practically all agree, was probably written in the \nseventh century B.C., while the various codes and the \npriestly history were added several centuries later. \nJoshua, it is now held, was a prominent leader in the \nmovement which brought the Hebrews into posses- \nsion of the lands to the west of Jordan, and in all like- \nlihood captured Jericho, but the other deeds attributed \nto him in the book belong to later periods. \n\nThe books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings are no \nlonger regarded as histories in the proper sense of that \nterm. The events recorded in them do not follow each \nother either chronologically or otherwise according to \nany discoverable plan. Together with the books that \nprecede them, constituting the Hexateuch, they form \nin the opinion of modern scholars a great historical \ncompilation extending from the creation to the destruc- \ntion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II. in 586 b. c. \nIt was made from numerous sources that were put into \ntheir present form by redactors of post- exilic times, who \ntook it for granted that the promises alleged to have \nbeen made to Abraham and Moses regarding the pos- \nsession of Canaan and the future greatness of the \nHebrew people had already been literally fulfilled. \n\nChronicles is now considered as one work with Kzra \nand Nehemiah, they all having a common author. It \nis evident that the writer lived some time after Ezra \nand was devoted to the religious institutions of the new \ntheocracy. It is doubtful if the references to Ezra and \nNehemiah as leavint; memoirs are authentic. It is also \ndoubtful if any return of exiles in large numbers took \nplace in the time of Cyrus. \n\nAs a consequence of this modern attempt to get at the \nfacts scholars now hold that there was an individual by \nthe name of Moses of whom we have some distinct \n\n\n\n124 The Sphere of Religion \n\nreminiscences, but for the most part the name designates \na personage around whom there gradually came to be \ncentred all the traditions, legends, and myths connected \nwith the exodus from Egypt and the settlement of the \npeople in their own land. \n\nIn the opinion of a large number of scholars Abraham \ndesignates a tribe merely and not an individual. Some, \nhowever, regard him as a real personage who probably \nhad his home at Hebron. All admit that many of the \nstories told of him have come down from various \nperiods and preserve for us a picture of the conditions \nthat prevailed in the earliest times of which the people \ncenturies after his demise had any recollection. \n\nSome scholars now hold that Isaac is a tribal name, \nbut that the character of the tribe has been almost en- \ntirely obscured by the many legends that have grown \nup around a supposed personality. The incidents in \nthe story of the offering up of Isaac on Mount Moriah \nwere invented, it is thought, to account for the pro- \nhibition of human sacrifices as set forth in the Penta- \nteuchal codes, and to emphasize the claims of Jerusalem \nas the only legitimate sanctuary of Jehovah. The home \nof the tribe was probably Beersheba,just as Hebron was \nof Abraham and Bethel of Jacob. The stories about \nthese three patriarchs, it is held, represent the gradual \ncoalition of the traditions of the three clans that united \nto form the confederacy known as the Bene Israel or \nChildren of Israel. \n\nDavid, in the opinion of most modern scholars, was \na great warrior and a natural born leader of men, full \nof courage and inexhaustible energy. But he was often \ncruel to his enemies, sometimes treacherous, and always \nwilling to adopt any measures to accomplish his ends. \nMany hold that he did not write any poetry, excepting. \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jews 125 \n\nperhaps, the dirge on the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. \n\nThe life and works of Solomon, David\'s son and \nsuccessor, are described, it is believed, with considerable \naccuracy in Kings, though highly colored by legendary \nlore added several centuries later than the earlier docu- \nments upon which the account in Kings is based. The \nbooks ascribed to him \xe2\x80\x94 Proverbs, Canticles, and Ec- \nclesiastes \xe2\x80\x94 are all of them now regarded as much later \nthan his day. The description of the temple he built \nis generally considered to be a great exaggeration, \nwhile the account of the ceremonies that took place in \nit is held to be post-exilic, and so is also the prayer of \nconsecration. Such a story as that of the alleged visit \nof the Queen of Sheba to learn by personal observ^ation \nof the glory of Solomon, naturally came to connect \nitself in the minds of the people with his magnificent \nreign. \n\nAll authorities agree that the book of Proverbs is a \ncombination of several distinct collections, and that \nsome of the sayings may go back to the time of \nSolomon. Yet the work as a whole was a gradual \ngrowth and must have extended over several centuries. \nIt is believed that the first of the eight sections \n(chapters i.-ix.) into which it is divided is the latest, \nand was not put into its present form till about 250 h.c. \nThe second section (chapters x.-xxii.) is regarded as \nthe oldest and composed not long before the return \nfrom Babylonia. \n\nOf the one hundred and fifty compositions making \nup the book of Psalms, seventy-three came eventually \nto be ascribed to David. But it is now held by Ols- \nhausen, Chcyne, George Adam vSniith, and other \neminent scholars tliat none of the Psalms were written \nin his time, or even before the exile. vSoine, however, \n\n\n\n126 The Sphere of Religion \n\nwould admit the existence of pre-exilic Psalms and a \nfew are still of the opinion that the first Psalm and \npossibly several others are Davidic. The first of the \nthree collections into which the Psalms are now \ndivided, scholars tell us, was probably compiled in the \ndays of Ezra ; the second in the Persian period ; and \nthe third in the Greek, close to the beginning of the \nChristian era. lyong before any of the Psalms were \ncomposed there must have existed much of what may \nbe called folk-poetry, such as David\'s lament over \nSaul and Jonathan (2 Samuel i. 17-27), the Song of \nthe Well (Numbers xxi. 17-18), the Song of Lamech \n(Genesis iv. 23-24), and the Song of Deborah (Judges \nv. 1-3 1 ). The lost book of Jasher was probably a \nbook of songs. \n\nCanticles is now regarded as a collection of songs \nused at weddings and similar gatherings. Instead of \nbeing written by Solomon, it is supposed to be one of \nthe latest compilations to find a place in the Hebrew \ncanon. Because Solomon early became the ideal repre- \nsentative of wisdom and riches and power, the original \nauthor of Ecclesiastes naturally ascribed his book to \nhim as the best judge of the vanity of life. Everything \nis doubted in the book except, indeed, the divine ex- \nistence, \xe2\x80\x94 the advantages of wisdom and virtue, and \neven the justice and goodness of God. It is thoroughly \npessimistic and was probably written at some special \nperiod of depression in the history of the Jews. It was \nadmitted into the canon only after later editors had \ninterspersed some elevating sentiments through the \nbody of it, and especially had added a pious conclusion \nto soften down its audacious tone. \n\nThe longest and greatest of all the prophetic books \nof the Old Testament is Isaiah. It is now considered \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jews 1 2 7 \n\nby modern scholars as the work of several authors, ex- \ntending over a long period of time. They account for \nits existence as follows : The discourses of Isaiah, who \nwas born about 760 B.C., form only a small portion of \nthe book, and these have been much changed to adapt \nthem to more modern conditions. The watchword of \nIsaiah was that no people can prosper except by right \nconduct, and the impression that this message made \nupon his own age was propagated to later times. He \nthus became the type of all genuine prophets of Jeho- \nvah. Every one who brought forth a similar message \nfor the people strove to have it considered a part of \nIsaiah\'s. \n\nThe book is a twofold collection. The first takes \nin chapters i.-xxxiii., and contains the discourses \nof Isaiah; the second (chapters xxxiv.-lxvi.) is \nexilic and post-exilic, and must be the work of several \nother authors. Isaiah was a prophet of doom, but he \ncame to be supplemented later by the prophets of hope. \nThe book probably extends from the last of the eighth \ncentury B.C. to the beginning of the third. Chapter ii. \nstands by itself and seems to be a very late introduction \nwritten after the rest of the collection had come into \nits present form. \n\nThe second of the four major prophetical books, \nJeremiah, appears to have had an origin very similar to \nthat of Isaiah. Only a few of the discourses in it, it is \nnow believed, can be definitely ascribed to Jeremiah, \nwho was born about 650 B.C., and no one of these is \nprobably just as he delivered it. The compilers of the \nbook have sought to bring together under his name \nwhatever they could find that would give consolation \nand inspiring thoughts to the faithful. It is chiefly the \nproduct of the sad days tliat followrd the departure of \n\n\n\n128 The Sphere of Religion \n\nNehemiah and reaches down to the uprivsing of the \nMaccabees. \n\nThe book of Lamentations is not now generally \nascribed to Jeremiah though it is admitted that the \nwork has been greatly influenced by his style and \nthought. Most of the elegies or dirges in it were com- \nposed to bewail catastrophes that befell the people both \nbefore and after the exile. \n\nScholars now maintain that most of the prophecies \nthat have come down to us in Ezekiel are substantially \nas they were left by the prophet, who was himself one \nof the captives carried to Babylonia at the command of \nNebuchadnezzar. By visions, parables, and allegories, \nhe endeavored to arouse the masses to a genuine reali- \nzation of the sad events that were transpiring around \nthem, and at the same time to comfort and encourage \nthem for the future. \n\nThat the book of Daniel was composed about the \nyear 165 B.C. is now admitted by practically all schol- \nars. The narratives and visions refer to conditions that \nexisted in Jerusalem at the time when the Jews were \nbeing bitterly oppressed because of their religion by An- \ntiochus IV., surnamed Epiphanes, King of Syria 187- \n164 B.C. While some hold that the book is the work \nof several authors most scholars now regard it as the \nproduct of a single mind. Antiochus was endeavoring \nto supplant the Jewish rites by introducing the Greek \nform of worship. The author of Daniel, using differ- \nent historical names, such as Nebuchadnezzar, Belshaz- \nzar, and Darius for his attacks upon Antiochus, makes \nevery effort he can by the use of figures and visions to \nstir up his compatriots to throw off the hated yoke. \nThe book did in all probability have much to do in \nbringing about the Maccabean uprising which for a \n\n\n\nThe Bible of the Jezvs 129 \n\ntime gave the Jews great hope of restoring their \nnational unity and power. \n\nOf the so-called twelve minor prophets scholars are \nagreed that they each represent original discourses \nmuch modified by later additions and interpolations. \nThey are not arranged in chronological order, either in \nthe Hebrew or in the English bible. \n\nMalachi, although the last in the English version, is \nnow regarded as belonging to the Persian period and \nas written about the first half of the fourth century \nB.C., when the evils described in it were beginning \nto reach their climax. Moreover, the title Malachi in \nthe opinion of many scholars does not refer to any in- \ndividual, but is to be taken literally as \'\'my messen- \nger." Others in the list of the minor prophets are \nprobably also anonymous. No one claims that the \nbook of Jonah contains his prophecies. It is merely a \nstory about him, an allegory teaching the lesson that \nman cannot escape from God by flight, and that when \none has a duty to perform he should do it fearlessly, \nleaving results to God. \n\nIt is now held that the thing that most radically af- \nfected the composition and character of the Hebrew \nbible was the Babylonian captivity. When Jerusalem \nfell the people for the first time in their history began to \nrealize their true position. They began to sec that their \ncalamities were due to their sins in not following the \ninjunctions of their prophets ; and that, if they were \never to regain their national existence, they must make \nup their minds to abolish all other deities and rites \nand worship Jehovah alone. During the exile \nthey had due time to reflect upon the situation. \nTheir leaders searched into the annals and traditions \nof the past and they found that whenever they had \n\n\n\n130 The Sphere of Religion \n\nturned aside to other gods disasters at once began to \nmultiply. \n\nNothing, therefore, was of greater moment to them \nthan to know exactly w^hat course of action and life \nwould be acceptable to Jehovah. Their prophets and \nscribes set to work to prepare such a code. Ezra, who \nwas the chief agent in this work, first introduced the \ncode with the aid of Nehemiah at the time when a small \nremnant of the faithful gathered together about the ruins \nof Jerusalem in 444 B.C. From that time forth this \ncode was regarded as embodying the direct, unchange- \nable will of Jehovah. Later, after many legends and \nmuch historical matter had been added to it, it became \nour present Pentateuch, which was itself finally incor- \nporated with other laws and traditions ending with the \nsecond book of Kings. \n\nThe whole Hebrew bible represents a period of liter- \nary- activit}\' of over a thousand years, ending with the \nbook of Daniel about 165 b. c. The style of its thought \nis intuitive rather than logical. It has little interest in \nscientific method, 3\'et its love of nature is one of its most \nstriking features. The subjects it treats concern almost \nevery phase of human life. Its chief aim is to present \nthe character and will of Jehovah and to set forth the \nprinciples upon which he governs his universe. Its \nlegal codes were intended to show the people how they \nmight attain their own highest development and at the \nsame time carr}\' out the plans and purposes of their God. \nMany of the Psalms voice the feelings and the attitude \nof will that characterize every trul}- religious individual. \n\nThe modern study of the book has brought out the \nfact that the truths it contains are the result of centuries \nof growth and development from the gross and super- \nficial to the deeply spiritual and profound. The message \n\n\n\nThe Christian Scriptures 13 r \n\nthat it brings to mankind must always remain a living \nand a vital one. \n\ni. The Christian Scriptures.\xe2\x80\x94 The book con- \ntaining the history and teachings of early Christianity \nis now called the New Testament, and even the most \ncasual reader cannot fail to see that it was written to \nrecord the experiences of a small number of people in \na decidedly obscure corner of the earth. \n\nThe book is a collection of writings which may well \nbe arranged, as we now have them, into three main \ngroups. To the first or the historical group belong the \nfour gospels, giving an account of the life and dis- \ncourses of Jesus, and the Acts of the Apostles, describ- \ning the influence of that life upon the Jewish and pagan \nworld of their day. The second, or didactic and hor- \ntatory group, is made up of thirteen epistles of Paul, \ntwo of Peter, three of John, one epistle of James, and \none of Jude. The third consists solely of the book of \nRevelation. \n\nThe four gospels are attributed lespectively to Mat- \nthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Chapter i. of Matthew\'s \ngospel begins with, "The book of the generation of \nJesus Christ,\'\' tracing it back to Abraham through \nJoseph, the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born. \nThen follows the announcement by an angel of the Lord \nto Joseph of the coming virgin birth of Jesus. Chapter ii. \ntells of the visit of the Magi who came to worship the \ninfant Jesus, being guided by a star which \'\'went be- \nfore them till it came and stood over where the youni; \nchild was." Herod the King sought to kill the child, \nbut Joseph fled with his family into Ivgypt, returning \nafter the death of Ilcrod and settling at Nazareth. \nAfter a brief resume of the ministry of John the \nBaptist and his baptism of Jesus in chapter iii., we \n\n\n\n132 The Sphere of Religion \n\nhave an account of the fasting and temptation of Jesus \nin the first part of chapter iv. The rest of the chap- \nter tells us how Jesus began to preach, to call his fol- \nlowers from their fishing nets, and to heal all manner \nof diseases. \n\nFrom this point on the author seems to abandon the \nchronological order for the topical. Chapters v., vi., \nand vii. contain a group of discourses describing the \ncharacter of the Messianic Kingdom, now called the \nSermon on the Mount, which begins with the following \nBeatitudes (Chapter v. 3-16.): \n\n\'\' Blessed are the poor in spirit : for theirs is the king- \ndom of heaven. \n\n\' \' Blessed are they that mourn : for they shall be \ncomforted. \n\n"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the \nearth. \n\n\' \' Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after \nrighteousness : for they shall be filled. \n\n\' \' Blessed are the merciful : for they shall obtain \nmercy. \n\n* \' Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. \n\n** Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be \ncalled the children of God. \n\n"Blessed are they which are persecuted for right- \neousness\' sake : for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. . \n\n" Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and per- \nsecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against \nyou falsely, for my sake. \n\n" Rejoice, and be exceeding glad : for great is your \nreward in heaven : for so persecuted they the prophets \nwhich were before you." \n\nIn chapter vi. 9-13 we have what is now commonly \ncalled the Lord\'s Prayer which reads as follows : \n\n\n\nThe Christian Scriptures 133 \n\n\'\' Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy \nname. \n\n\'\'Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, \nas it is in heaven. \n\n\'\' Give us this day our daily bread : \n\n\'* And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. \n\n\'\'And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us \nfrom evil : For thine is the kingdom, and the power, \nand the glor}^ for ever. Amen." \n\nThe next two chapters describe a series of miracles \nJesus performed, such as cleansing the leper, stilling \nthe tempest, raising from death the daughter of Jairus, \nand giving sight to two blind men. Then comes an- \nother group of discourses, or parables, setting forth the \nnature of the Messianic Kingdom, which in turn is fol- \nlowed by another group of miracles covering chapters \nx.-xiv. So far we have the ministry of Jesus in \nGalilee. With a similar grouping of miracles and dis- \ncourses his ministry north and east of Galilee is de- \nscribed in chapters xv.-xviii. The latter part of the \ngospel is taken up with his work in and about Jerusa- \nlem, closing with an account of his betrayal, trial, \ncrucifixion, and resurrection. \n\nThe writer clearly shows that his purpose is to set \nforth Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah. But he \nseverely rebukes the view of the Messiah held by the \nScribes and Pharisees of his time, and strongly em- \nphasizes the commission of Jesus to go into all the \nworld and make disciples of all nations. \n\nThe gospel according to Mark, although it goes over \nmuch of the same ground as the gospel according to \nMatthew, differs from it in being more simple in its \nstructure and in following the normal chronolo.uical \norder of events in the life of Jesus. In the first thirteen \n\n\n\n134 The Sphere of Religion \n\nverses it briefly describes the work of John the Baptist \nand the baptism and temptation of Jesus. It then \ntakes up the popular work of Jesus in and beyond \nGalilee, setting it forth mainly as a work of instruction \nfor his immediate disciples (chapter i. 14-ix. 29). Then \nbegins the journey to Jerusalem when Jesus clearly an- \nnounces his coming death, which, according to Mark, \nseems to have determined from that time on the charac- \nter of his work. At Jerusalem Jesus lays his claims to \nbe the Messiah before the religious leaders, who per- \nsistently reject them (chapters ix. 30-xiii. 37). The \nconcluding chapters, as with Matthew, deal with the \nbetrayal, crucifixion, and resurrection. \n\nMark makes no reference to the virgin birth of Jesus, \nor the Sermon on the Mount. When he introduces \nany of the discourses of Jesus they are very much \nshorter than in Matthew. The familiarity of the \nauthor with Jewish customs and ideas, as well as his in- \ntimate acquaintance with the Aramaic language, shows \nthat he was a Jew, but the constant need of explaining \nthese customs and interpreting this language to his \nreaders shows that he was writing for Gentile Chris- \ntians rather than for Jewish, as we found was the case \nwith Matthew. \n\nThe third of these gospels differs from either of the \npreceding both in the amount and the arrangement of \nits material. The author states in his introduction \nthat his purpose is to give Theophilus, the person to \nwhom the work is addressed, a more orderly and com- \nplete account of the \' \' things most surely believed \namong us " than he had already received. The narra- \ntive begins, not only with an extended description of \nthe virgin birth of Jesus, but also of the birth of John \nthe Baptist ; and ends with an account of the ascension. \n\n\n\nThe Christian Scriptures 135 \n\nBesides giving very much the same material as is \nfound in Matthew and Mark, he adds many new de- \ntails and brings out many new facts ; for example, he \nalone gives the song of Mary, the prophetic song of \nZacharias, the story of the shepherds, the song of \nSimeon, and the visit of the boy Jesus to Jerusalem. \nIn describing the public ministry of Jesus the writer \narranges his material into two main divisions about the \nsame as Mark does, namely, the work of Jesus among \nthe people and his work of instructing his disciples. \nThe gospel of Luke alone contains an account of the \ntransfiguration. The last journey of Jesus to Jerusa- \nlem is described at much greater length than in any of \nthe other gospels, nearly ten chapters being devoted \nto it. \n\nIt is admitted by the author that he was not an eye- \nwitness of the events he describes, but he claims to \nhave access to material that was prepared by those who \n" from the beginning were ej^e-witnesses and ministers \nof the word." He is evidently writing chiefly for \nGentile readers, for he habitually quotes from the \nSeptuagint translation, avoids the use of Aramaisms, \nand assumes that his readers are unacquainted with \nPalestinian geography and Jewish customs. \n\nIn marked contrast with the three gospels already \nmentioned, the gospel of John is not in any sense a \nbiography of Jesus. The author assumes that his \nreaders already know of the principal events in the \nlife of Jesus from other sources. Only the events of \na very few days in his public ministry arc described at \nany length by him, probably less than twenty. The \nauthor himself declares that the puq:)ose of his writing \nis to help his readers to "believe that Jesus is the \nChrist, the Son of God" (xx. 31), and he selects such \n\n\n\n1 36 The Sphere of Religion \n\nevents and discourses as he thinks will contribute to \nthis end. \n\nHe asserts at the very outset that Jesus was the \ndivine Logos incarnate, and introduces the prologue to \nhis gospel with the following remarkable passage : \'\' In \nthe beginning was the Word and the Word was with \nGod and the Word was God. The same was in the \nbeginning with God. All things were made by him , \nand without him was not anything made that was \nmade. In him was life ; and the life was the light of \nmen.\'* The rest of the gospel is written to show how \nJesus established this belief regarding himself in the \nminds and hearts of his disciples. \n\nThe author tells us in the first four chapters how the \nearliest followers of Jesus began to have faith in him. \nThen he writes in the next eight chapters chiefly of \nthe great conflict Jesus had with the unbelieving Jews \nand what unavailing efforts he put forth to convince \nthem. Even the great miracle of the raising of Lazarus \nfrom the dead only made them more intensely hostile. \n\nThe next section of the gospel (chapters xiii -xvii.) \ntreats of the self-revelation of Jesus to his disciples. \nBy washing their feet, by conversations at the supper \nabout his relation to the Father and to them, by dis- \ncourses on the way to Gethsemane, and by his inter- \ncessory prayers in their behalf, he made himself known \nto them in such a way that their faith in him was \ncarried to the climax of intensity. Then follows the \nrecord of the chief culminating events in his earthly \ncareer, terminating in his glorious resurrection, and \nproving beyond all doubt to the mind of the writer \nthat what he had claimed for Jesus in the prologue he \nreallj^ was. \n\nThe gospel seems to have been written by an eye- \n\n\n\nThe Christian Scriptures 137 \n\nwitness of many of the events recorded in it. In some \nof these events he seems also to have taken a prominent \npart. His way of referring to most of the persons he \nmentions gives the impression of an intimate acquaint- \nance with them, and his knowledge of Palestine and of \nJewish customs and ideas appears to be entirely first \nhand. The natural inference is that the author was a \nJew who had broken away from the Judaism of this \ntime and given himself heart and soul to the advocacy \nof the Christian s^^stem. \n\nThe fifth book of the New Testament as we now \nhave it, is called the Acts of the Apostles, and is sub- \nstantially a continuation of the third gospel. The \nfirst part, after giving a fuller account of the ascension \nthan we find in Luke, describes at length the work of \nPeter in extending the church in and about Jerusalem \n(chapters i.-xii.). The second part tells of the mis- \nsionary journeys of Paul and his efforts to spread \nChristianity in Gentile lands. In this part the pro- \nnoun *\'we\'V is frequently used, implying that the \nwriter was a companion of Paul at the time and had \nmuch to do with the events described. \n\nNext comes the epistle to the Romans, the first of \nthe thirteen epistles attributed in our New^ Testament \nto Paul. In this epistle the author states at the out- \nset that he is intending to make his readers a visit, but \nat the time of writing is under obligation to go to Jeru- \nsalem. Very naturally under the circumstances he docs \nwhat he can to inform them as to the vital matters in \nhis preaching and thus prepare them to give him a \nfriendly reception when on his coming tour he arrives \nin the metropolis of the world. \n\nThe epistle naturally divides itself into two main jx>r- \ntions. The first part is chiefly doctrinal, ending with the \n\n\n\n138 The Sphere of Religion \n\ndoxology in chapter xi. 36, and the second is chiefl}^ \npractical. Paul at first explains his doctrine of justifi- \ncation through faith, and then, after vindicating the \ndoctrine historically and experimentally against many \nconceivable objections, he shows why it ought to be \npreached to the Gentiles in spite of the fact that \' \' sal- \nvation is of the Jews." The last chapter of the epistle \nis devoted to salutations to those in the Roman church \nwith whom the writer had a personal acquaintance. \n\nThe epistle to the Romans is followed by two epistles \nto the Corinthians. The first treats of the divisions \nand abuses that existed in the Corinthian church and \nanswers a number of questions which had been asked \nby letter. In chapter xiii. of this epistle we have the \nfollowing remarkable description of the essence of all \nreligion : \n\n\'* I. Though I speak with the tongues of men and \nof angels, and have not charity,! am become as sound- \ning brass, or a tinkling cymbal. \n\n** 2. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and un- \nderstand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though \nI have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and \nhave not charity, I am nothing. \n\n** 3. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the \npoor, and though I give my bod}- to be burned, and \nhave not charity, it profiteth me nothing. \n\n^\'4. Charity sufi\'ereth long, and is kind; charity en- \nvieth not; charit}^ vaunteth not itself, is not pufied up ; \n\n*\' 5. Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her \nown, is not easil}^ provoked, thinketh no evil ; \n\n\'\'6. Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the \ntruth ; \n\n**7. Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth \nall things, endureth all things. \n\n\n\nThe Christian Scriptures 139 \n\n\'\' 8. Charity never faileth: but whether there be pro- \nphecies, they shall fail: whether there be tongues, they \nshall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall \nvanish away. \n\n\'\' 9. For we know in part, and we prophesy iu part. \n\n*\' 10. But when that which is perfect is come, then \nthat which is in part shall be done away. \n\n\' * 1 1 . When I was a child, I spake as a child, I under- \nstood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I be- \ncame a man, I put away childish things. \n\n** 12. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but \nthen face to face ; now I know in part ; but then shall I \nknow even as also I am known. \n\n** 13. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these \nthree; but the greatest of these is charity.\'* \n\nThe second epistle to the Corinthians rebukes certain \nscandals that had arisen in the church, and seeks to \nrestore Paul\'s apostolic authority, which had been \nquestioned. \n\nThe next epistle was written ** unto the churches of \nGalatia*\' which apparently were composed chiefly of \nGentiles. Outside agitators were trying to persuade \nthem that they must observe the ceremonial law of \nMoses, especially the rite of circumcision. Against this \nPaul vigorously protests and insists upon his funda- \nmental doctrine of justification by faith and not by \nworks. All that any believer has to do, he declares, is \nto bring forth the fruits of the Spirit. \n\nThe fifth epistle is addressed \'\'to the saints which \nare at Ephesus. \' \' The first three chapters are doctrinal ; \nthe last three hortatory and practical. After setting \nforth that Christ is "the head over all things to the \nchurch " and has \'\' made us to sit together in heavenly \nplaces" through his grace and not through works, \n\n\n\n1 40 The Sphere of Religion \n\nPaul exhorts his readers to **walk worthy of the vo- \ncation \'\' wherewith they are called and *\'keep the unity \nof the Spirit in the bond of peace. \' * \n\nThe sixth epistle of Paul is addressed \' * to all the \nsaints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with \nthe bishops and deacons." He exhorts them to \'*let \nnothing be done through strife and vainglory ; but in \nlowliness of mind let each esteem other better than \nthemselves." They are to \'\'beware of evil workers \nand the false teachings in their midst, and to cleave \nearnestly and joyfully to the Christian life." \n\nIn the epistle to the Colossians Paul exalts the \nheadship of Christ over the world and its powers, \nwarns his readers against the Gnostic errors that were \nbeginning to assert themselves, and exhorts them to trust \nimplicitly and solely for salvation to faith in Christ. \n\nOf the two epistles to the Thessalonians the first tells \nof the apostle\'s joy in their patient endurance of perse- \ncution, and he encourages them with the hope that the \nlyord would speedily return and deliver them out of all \ntheir distresses (chapter iv. 16-17). The second epistle \nis written to rebuke the Thessalonians for abandoning \ntheir usual occupations in view of this hope and urging \nthat they be resumed. Meanwhile they should fix \ntheir attention upon certain events that must precede \nthe Lord\'s second coming. \n\nThe three following epistles, two to Timothy and one \nto Titus, are attributed in their opening passages to \nPaul. They are occupied chiefly with the apostle\'s in- \nstructions as to the duties of the pastoral ofl&ce, a work \nin which the recipients were at the time engaged. The \nsecond epistle to Timothy is peculiar in that the last \nchapter contains a reference to the apostle\'s expected \nmartyrdom. \n\n\n\nThe Christian Scriptures 141 \n\nPhilemon is a letter on a purely private matter written \nby Paul to his friend in behalf of a fugitive slave who \nhad become a Christian under his influence. He ex- \nhorts his friend to pardon the slave and treat him as a \nChristian brother. \n\nThe last of the epistles attributed to Paul in our au- \nthorized version of the New Testament is the letter to \nthe Hebrew^s. The object of the epistle is to show the \ninfinite superiority of Christ over Moses and to warn \nits readers against apostasy. It establishes the New \nTestament on the basis of the Old and sets forth the \neternal character of the priesthood and sacrifice of \nChrist. The eleventh chapter gives a glowing sum- \nmary of the heroes of faith. \n\nThe general epistle of James comes next and the two \nepistles of Peter. James writes to defend the doctrine \nthat "by works a man is justified and not by faith \nonly." " For as the body without the spirit is dead, \nso faith without works is dead also" (chapter ii. 26). \n\nThe first epistle of Peter inculcates the need in peril- \nous times of special patience under suffering and exhorts \neach one to attend carefully to his assigned duties. The \nsecond epistle is especially directed against false teach- \ners and corrupters of the church. \n\nIn the first of the three epistles attributed to the \napostle John the literary form and subject-matter re- \nmind one of the fourth gospel. The epistle is written \nto show the reader that the Word is the word of life, \nand to unfold what it is to be children of God. The \nsecond and third epistles are more like ordinary letters. \nThe first seems to be a general letter to a church, \nand the third a supplementary note to an influential \nindividual. \n\nJude is the last of the twenty-one e{)istles of the New \n\n\n\n142 The sphere of Religion \n\nTestament. It is an impassioned outburst against \nheretics and false teachers, and much resembles the \nsecond epistle of Peter. \n\nThe last book of our New Testament is entitled The \nRevelation of St. John the Divine. It is properly \ncalled an apocalypse in that it attempts to explain the \npresent dominion of evil in the world and to encourage \nthe faithful by depicting the time when their prophetic \nhopes will be fulfilled and all evil shall be entirely \novercome. By the use of visions and highly fantastic \nimagery, much of which is taken from the Old Testa- \nment, it exhorts its readers to resist the allurements of \nthe reigning evil powers and cleave to God. It begins \nwith certain admonitions in the form of letters to the \nseven churches. It then predicts the judgments that \nare speedily to fall upon the malign spirits that now \ndominate the world, and concludes with an account of \nthe final blessedness which will come to those that \nendure. \n\nIt would be difl&cult to find any scholar in our day \nwho would maintain that the different books of the \nNew Testament were written in the order in which we \nnow have them. On the contrary, it is generally \nagreed that most of the epistles were in existence long \nbefore the gospels, and that the gospels did not origin- \nally appear in their present form or order. Jesus him- \nself left no writings and his early disciples probably \ndid not at first see the need of any. \n\nWhen, however, Paul by his missionary journeys \namong the Gentiles had established various groups of \nbelievers over the then Roman world, many occasions \narose for apostolic counsels that could be given only \nby letter. Hence arose the epistles, which are all of \nthem occasional writings, though some of thern not \n\n\n\nThe Christian Scriptures 143 \n\nonly give advice about the Christian life, but expound \nat considerable length the fundamental ideas upon \nwhich it is based. \n\nThe first book in the New Testament to be written, \nit is now maintained by many scholars, was the epistle \nof James. It is a sort of encyclical letter addressed \n*\' to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," and \nprobably appeared some time before 50 a.d. from the \npen of James, the head of the mother church. There \nis no sign in the epistle that any attempts had yet been \nmade to carry the gospel beyond distinctively Jewish \ncircles. The controversy about the position of the \nGentiles in the church which led to the Jerusalem \ncouncil had not yet come up. The point of view of the \nwriter was still that of the Old Testament doctrine of \njustification by works, the Pauline doctrine not yet \nhaving been developed. \n\nIt is now generally admitted that after the epistle of \nJames the oldest books of the New Testament are \nPauVs two letters to the Thessalonians, written chiefly \nto set aside their false expectations concerning the \nnearness of the return of Jesus. They were probably \nwritten at Corinth during a.d. 52 or 53. Then, accord- \ning to most authorities, follow the doctrinal epistles, \xe2\x80\x94 \nGalatians, i and 2 Corinthians, and Romans; while \nthe so-called epistles of the imprisonment \xe2\x80\x94 Colossians, \nPhilemon, Ephesians, and Philippians \xe2\x80\x94 arc assigned to \nPaul\'s first Roman imprisonment during the years 62- \n63. The remaining pastoral epistles are supposed to \nhave been written just before the apostle\'s martyrdom \nabout 67 or 68. Some critics do not allow that Paul \nwrote all of the epistles ascribed to him above, and a \nfew regard only the four doctrinal ones as genuinely \nhis. \n\n\n\n144 T^f^^ Sphere of Religion \n\nRegarding the epistle to the Hebrews all scholars \nreject it as Pauline on the ground that its style, its \nlanguage, and its mode of thought do not resemble \nanything else attributed to him. Who the author of \nHebrews was is still unsettled. Of the remaining \nepistles the first epistle of Peter was probably written \nby him at Rome, it is held, between 50 and 55 a.d. \nBut the second epistle is of doubtful genuineness, no \ndistinct trace of its existence having come to light be- \nfore the time of Origen. The three epistles ascribed to \nthe apostle John are generally regarded as his, though \nin each case there seems to be no way to fix their date, \nplace of writing, or destination. \n\nRegarding the gospels it is now the general opinion \nof scholars that for at least a generation after the death \nof Jesus no attempt was made to commit to writing any \nof his sayings or deeds, so widespread and universal \nwas the belief that his second coming and the end of \nthe world were close at hand. But as time wore away \nand he did not return it became evident that some au- \nthentic account of what the apostles had seen and \nheard about Jesus should be made for the benefit of \nthose who were to come after them. \n\nSpecialists are now coming to recognize as the source \nof our present gospels of Matthew and I^uke, two re- \nlatively primitive documents, \xe2\x80\x94 the gospel of Mark, or \nan early draft of it giving a simple account of the chief \nfacts in the life of Jesus, and a document called \n*\' logia " made up chiefly of his sayings and discourses. \nThe logia or discourses, it is held, were written in \nAramaic and probably by the apostle Matthew. About \nthe same time Mark, who is commonly known as the \ninterpreter of Peter, wrote out in Greek what he had \nheard Peter say in his addresses about the life and \n\n\n\nThe Christian Scriptures 145 \n\nwork of Jesus, adding from other sources whatever he \nregarded as equally trustworthy. \n\nThe first three gospels of our New Testament have \nso much in common that ever since the time of Gries- \nbach, who over a hundred years ago published the first \ncritical edition of the New Testament, they have gen- \nerally been called the synoptic gospels. For they give \nthe same general outline of the life of Jesus. As a rule \nthey cite the same miracles and discourses and omit \nthe same incidents. The order of events described is \noften the same, even when it is not chronological, \nand the language is also often identical. \n\nIt is now practically the unanimous verdict of schol- \nars that Mark\'s gospel is much the earliest and was \nprobably in existence by 70 a.d. It is also equally \nagreed that the authors of the first and third gospels of \nour New Testament were familiar with Mark\'s gospel \nand freely used it. Our present gospel of Matthew is \nthus the product of an attempt to combine the logia of \nthe apostle Matthew with the original Mark. It was \nwritten in the first instance for Jewish Christians to \nshow how the religion of Jesus organically developed \nout of the Law and the Prophets, but its author was \nnot an apostle or a companion of Jesus, otherwise \nwe should not have such an artificial arrangement of \nthe material, or .such a decided dependence upon pre- \nvious authorities. About its exact date there is still a \ndivision of opinion, some putting it a little before and \nsome shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in the \nyear 70 a.d. \n\nWhen Rome, soon after this event, became one of \nthe most important centres of Christianity the gosf)el \nof Mark, it is held, was rc-cditcd and somewhat en- \nlarged to adapt it to the comprehension and needs of \n\n\n\n146 The Sphere of Religion \n\nthe Gentile Christians and brought into its present \nform. The preface (i. 1-3) was probably then added \nand also xvi. 9-20. Other minor insertions and changes \nwere probably made at the same time throughout its \nentire contents. \n\nNext the gospel of Luke is supposed to have ap- \npeared, possibly also in Rome, its author making use \nchiefly of the logia, the original Mark, and our Mat- \nthew, at the same time introducing other material both \noral and written from sources now lost. Thus it is seen \nthat each one of these writers made free use of what \nhad been written by his predecessors and did not claim \nfor himself or them any infallible authority. It is also \nclear that no one of these synoptic gospels, as we now \nhave it, is the record of direct personal knowledge. \n\nThe gospel of John is admittedly one of the most im- \nportant books of the whole New Testament. It is in \nmany respects in striking contrast to the synoptic \ngospels already discussed. In place of genealogies the \nauthor puts a profound but brief statement regarding \nthe incarnation of the eternal I^ogos. The earthly life \nof Jesus is laid by this waiter almost exclusively in \nJudea, while the synoptics put it chiefly in Galilee. \nThe latter give the impression that the public work of \nJesus did not extend much over a year, while the \nformer mentions three and perhaps more passovers. \nThe fourth gospel puts the cleansing of the temple at \nthe beginning of Jesus\' ministry, the synoptics at the \nclose. The last supper is placed by the S3moptics on \nthe evening of the passover itself, but this gospel puts \nit on the evening before. The gospel of John assumes \nthat its readers are familiar with the other three and \nmakes no mention of much that they record. Many \nof its characters are new and the same is true of its \n\n\n\nThe Christian Scriptures 147 \n\nscenes and localities. It introduces few miracles and \nchiefly those not referred to by the other gospels, such \nas the raising of Lazarus from the dead. John also \nmakes their object difierent, \xe2\x80\x94 to show forth the super- \nhuman mission of Jesus, not to supply some pressing \nhuman need. \n\nThe lengthy discourses in the fourth gospel which \ntake up the larger part of the work are very different \nfrom the parables and practical exhortations recorded \nby the other three. Their style and matter are so \nunique that it is hard to separate what the author attri- \nbutes to Jesus from what he supplies himself. Further- \nmore, there is little or no room in the fourth gospel for \nthe human development of Jesus. From the first he \nseems to be fully aware of his mission and so do his \nfollowers. The inwardness and spirituality of the re- \nligious experience recorded in this gospel, and its con- \nception of the eternal life and of the last things, differ \nremarkably from what is everywhere present in the \nsynoptics. \n\nFor these and other reasons a great controversy \nhas been raging for nearly a century as to how^ the \nfourth gospel originated and what is its historical \nvalue. It is now generally maintained that in sub- \nstance, at least, it is the work of the apostle John and \nwas written at Ephesus near the close of the first cen- \ntury, primarily for the Christian circles of that region. \nJohn had had a long time to reflect upon the incidents \nhe had witnessed and the discourses he had heard. He \nhad lived very close to the Master, had observed the \norigin and progress of the church for over half a century, \nhad been well acquainted with Paul, and in his later \nyears had been profoundly affected by the philos()])hical \nspeculations ever^\'where currt\'iit in his adopted citw \n\n\n\n148 The Sphere of Religion \n\nHis book was written to give his mature judgments \nconcerning the mission of Jesus and in part to describe \nthe growth of his own religious experience. He does \nnot in all probability reproduce word for word the dis- \ncourses of his Master, as he wishes at the same time to \nexplain them and point out their eternal significance. \n**Being an apostle he did not need to be literal." Prob- \nably he frequently modified the historical setting in \norder more fully to attain his purpose. Probably also \nthe gospel originally ended at the close of chapter xx. \nThe twenty-first chapter, written to correct a wrong \nimpression concerning the meaning of the words of \nJesus to Peter regarding John, may have been added \nshortly after the apostle\'s death, if not before it. \n\nHitherto the book of Revelation has been considered \na work so full of mystery as to be almost unintelligible \nexcept to a chosen few. Some have regarded its pro- \nphecies as referring to a time already past, some have \ntaken the book, with the exception of the first three \nchapters, as having to do with events yet to come, and \nothers have looked upon it as giving a symbolic history \nof the experience of the Christian church from the be- \nginning to the end of time. It has usually been taken \nfor granted that it was written by the apostle John \nwhen in exile on the island of Patmos just before the \ndestruction of Jerusalem, and that he himself had only \na dim consciousness of its significance. \n\nIn our time the book is no longer considered either \nobscure or mysterious, but far more easily compre- \nhended, for the most part, than many things to be \nfound in other portions of the New Testament. For it \nis now seen to have a strictly historical basis, and is \ninterpreted solel}^ in the light of the circumstances sur- \nrounding its origin and the views entertained by the \n\n\n\nThe Christian Scripticres 149 \n\npeople for whom it was written. It is placed side by \nside with a mass of similar literature that appeared in \nabundance among the Jewish people from at least the \nsecond century B.C. \n\nScholars have now made it clear that for several \ncenturies it was the universal expectation of the Jews \nthat after one dreadful outburst of the hostile forces of \nearth and heaven, God would appear in the person of \nhis Messiah and set up once for all his glorious king- \ndom. Whenever his people came to any crisis in their \naffairs owing to unusual persecutions or other distresses, \nan apocalypse would appear to revive their drooping \nspirits, strengthen their faith in God, and assure them \nof his final victory. Their apocalypses were written in \nriddles, because it was usually dangerous to be distinct, \nand because hiunan nature instinctivel}^ associates the \nmysterious with the divine. They were generally \nascribed to some celebrated character of the past in \norder to attract attention to their contents. Such writ- \nings attributed to Enoch, Moses, Ezra, Daniel, and \nothers still exist. \n\nScholars now hold that the book of Revelation like \nthe book of Daniel was written at a time of great \nreligious persecution, and that like Daniel its predic- \ntions are based upon existing conditions and concern \nthe immediate future. The author of the book is still \nin the Old Testament stage of development regarding \nthe world and the state, which he hates with all his \nheart. He has not yet risen to the New Testament \nidea of loving his enemies. Still he shows a firm faith \nin Jesus as the true Messiah and Saviour of his people. \nSo permeated is he with the spirit of the prophets and \npsalms that he borrows most of his strange iinager>\' \nfrom Ezekinl, Zechariah, and other Old Testament \n\n\n\n150 The Sphere of Religion \n\nwriters who had adopted this peculiar mode of ex- \npressing their thoughts. These considerations lead \nthe scholars of our day to place the date of its com- \nposition in the time of the Domitian persecutions, that \nis, about 95 or 96 a.d. This makes it the last book in \npoint of time in the New Testament. Its author is \nnow regarded as some unknown Jewish Christian not \nyet fully imbued with the spirit and teachings of the \ngospel. Its style and ideas are so far removed from \nthe fourth gospel that few, if any, recent scholars can \nsee in it the work of the profoundly philosophical and \nspiritually-minded apostle John. \n\nTo the New Testament as a w^hole we are chiefly \nindebted for the two ideas which lie at the foundation \nof the highest conceivable form of religion \xe2\x80\x94 the father- \nhood of God and the brotherhood of man. No other \nbook gives us such a revelation of the love of God for \nall his creatures and his unceasing interest in ever}^- \nthing that concerns their welfare. Jesus stands forth \nin it as the true interpreter of the universe, as the true \nrevealer of the mind and heart of God. All that is \nnoblest and best in our modern civilization and in our \nmodern conception of religion we owe to his teachings \nand life. \n\nj. The Koran of Mohammed. \xe2\x80\x94 The bible of \nthe Mohammedans is about the size of the New \nTestament and is called the Koran, a term derived \nfrom a w^ord meaning to chant or recite. It is the \nsacred book of more than a hundred millions of \npeople, and according to a high authority *\' is perhaps \nthe most widely read book in the world. It is the text- \nbook in all Mohammedan schools. All Moslems know \nlarge parts of it by heart. Devout Moslems read it \nthrough once a month. Portions of it are recited in \n\n\n\nThe Koran of Mohammed \n\n\n\ni^i \n\n\n\nthe five daily prayers, and the recitation of the whole \nbook is a meritorious work frequently performed at \nsolemn or festival anniversaries." The students of \nvScience and philosophy among the Arabians almost \nfrom the time the Koran was first published have had \nit for their sole mission to understand its precepts. \n\nThe book consists of one hundred and fourteen chap- \nters, or suras, and each chapter begins with a heading \nwhich states the title and almost always the place of \nrevelation. Then comes the formula ** In the name of \nthe most merciful God." The first chapter is often \ncalled the Lord\'s Prayer of the Moslems, and is uni- \nversally regarded as the gem of the whole book. It is \nentitled *\'The Introduction ; Revealed at Mecca," and \nreads as follows : *\' In the name of the most merciful \nGod. Praise be to God, the Lord of all creatures ; tlie \nmost merciful, the king of the day of judgment. Thee \ndo we worship, and of thee do we beg assistance. Di- \nrect us in the right way, in the way of those to \nwhom thou hast been gracious ; not of those against \nwhom thou art incensed, nor of those w^ho go astray." \n\nThere does not seem to be any other principle in the \narrangement of the chapters than that of length. The \nlongest chapter comes immediately after the introduc- \ntion and consists, in Sale\'s translation, which is here \nfollowed, of many (34) pages. The vShoricst chapter is \nthe 1 12th, and contains less than two lines. Chapter \nsecond is the real beginning of the book and is entitled \n*\xe2\x80\xa2 The Cow,\'* probably from the story of the red heifer \nthat occurs in it. The first part of this chapter is as \nfollows: ** Revealed partly at Mecca and partly at \nMedina. In the name of the most merciful God .... \nA. ly. M. There is no doubt in this book ; it is a di- \nrection to the pious, who l)clicve in the mysteries of \n\n\n\n152 The Sphere of Religion \n\nfaith, who observe the appointed times of prayer, and \ndistribute alms out of what we have bestowed upon \nthem ; and who believe in that revelation, which hath \nbeen sent down unto thee, and that which hath been \nsent down unto the prophets before thee,_and have firm \nassurance of the life to come ; these are directed by \ntheir lyord, and they shall prosper. As for the un- \nbelievers, it will be equal to them whether thou ad- \nmonish them or do not admonish them ; they will not \nbelieve. God hath sealed up their hearts and their \nhearing ; a dimness covereth their sight, and they \nshall suffer a grievous punishment.\'\' \n\nThe letters \'\'A. I,. M." have had many interpreta- \ntions. The most reasonable one seems to be that they \nstand for *\'Amar li Mohammed,\'\' /. ^., *\'at the com- \nmand of Mohammed." For it is universally admitted \nthat the Koran is the work of Mohammed, and that he \ndictated it to an amanuensis. There is no evidence \nthat he himself could either read or write. \n\nThe Koran from first to last claims to be direct from \nGod. Except in a few passages where Mohammed or \nan angel is represented as speaking, God is the speaker \nthroughout, using sometimes the pronoun *\'I," but \ngenerally the plural of majesty \' \' we. \' \' The Koran itself \nclaims to be simply a copy, \'\'the original whereof is \nwritten in a table kept in heaven \' \' (last line of chapter \n85). It also states that the sacred book was \'\'sent \ndown" by God "gradually by distinct parcels " in \norder that the faithful might be the better confirmed \nin their hearts thereby. It affirms that an angel, gen- \nerally called Gabriel, but sometimes the Holy Spirit, \ndictated the revelation to the Prophet, who committed \nit to memory and did not "forget any part thereof \nexcept what God shall please " (chapter 87). \n\n\n\nThe Koran of Mohammed 153 \n\nIn chapter second is briefly stated the attitude of the \nKoran towards Jesus and Christians, and many re- \nferences to the subject occur in other chapters. *\' We \nfollow the religion of Abraham the orthodox, who was \nno idolater. Say, We believe in God, and that w^hich \nhath been sent down to us, and that which hath been \nsent down unto Abraham, and Ismael, and Isaac, and \nJacob, and the tribes, and that which was delivered \nunto Moses, and Jesus, and that which was delivered \nunto the prophets and their Lord. We make no dis- \ntinction between any of them and to God are we re- \nsigned." Farther on in the chapter frequent prayer is \nenjoined, and each believer is exhorted to "turn, there- \nfore, thy face towards the holy temple of Mecca ; and \nwherever ye be, turn your faces towards that place." \nA pilgrimage to Mecca is also enjoined and the ab- \nstaining from \'\'that which dieth of itself, and blood \nand swine\'s flesh and that upon which any other name \nbut God\'s hath been invocated. But he who is forced \nby necessity, not lusting, nor returning to transgress, it \nshall be no crime in him if he eat of those things, for \nGod is gracious and pierciful." In the middle of the \nchapter righteousness is described as follows : ** It is \nnot righteousness that ye turn your faces in prayer \ntowards the east and the west, but righteousness is of \nhim who believeth in God and the last day, and the \nangels, and the scriptures, and the prophets ; who \ngiveth money for God\'s sake unto his kindred, and \nunto orphans, and the needy, and the stranger, and \nthose that ask, and for the redemption of captives ; who \nis constant at prayer, and giveth alms ; and of those \nwho perform their covenant, when they have cove- \nnanted, and who behave themselves patiently in ad- \nversity, and hardships, and in time of violence ; these \n\n\n\n154 T^^ Sphere of Religion \n\nare they who are true and these are they who fear \nGod." \n\nWar is enjoined against the infidels when they ** ob- \nstruct the way of God" or introduce false gods. For \n\'* temptation to idolatry is more grievous than to kill." \n** When they will ask thee concerning wine and lots; \nanswer, In both there is great sin, and also some \nthings of use to men, but their sinfulness is greater \nthan their use." \n\nAfter treating of many other legislative matters \nmuch after the fashion of the Pentateuch and with \nfrequent reference to the stories and incidents recorded \nin it, the chapter closes with the prayer: *\'0 Lord, \nlay not on us a burden like that which thou hast laid \non those who have been before us ; neither make us, \nO Lord, to bear what we have not strength to bear, but \nbe favorable unto us, and spare us, and be merciful \nunto us. Thou art our patron, help us therefore against \nthe unbelieving nations." \n\nThe third sura is entitled, *\' The Family of Imram," \nwhich is the name given in the Koran to the father of \nthe Virgin Mary, and like the second treats of a great \nvariety of matters. The unity of God is constantly \nreiterated in it, also the value of the Koran as the book \nof truth, the blessedness of those who accept it, and \nthe dreadful fate of those who do not. \'\'There is no \nGod but God, the living, the self-subsisting. . . . \nO Lord, thou shall surely gather mankind together \nunto a day of resurrection ; there is no doubt of it, for \nGod will not be contrary to the promise. As for the \ninfidel, their wealth shall not profit them anything, nor \ntheir children, against God ; they shall be the fuel of \nhell fire. . . . For those who are devout are prepared \nwith their Lord gardens through which rivers flow; \n\n\n\nThe Koran of Mohammed i \n\n\n\no:) \n\n\n\ntherein shall they continue forever ; and they shall \nenjoy wives free from impurity, and the favor of God. \nVerily the true religion in the sight of God is Islam." \nA few pages of the chapter are devoted to matters con- \ncerning the Virgin, and what is said of her is taken for \nthe most part from the various traditions of the Jews. \n\nChapter four has for its title \' \' Women : Revealed \nat Medina,\'\' and chiefly treats of marriage, divorce, \ndower, the treatment of orphans, and the like. It be- \ngins, *\'0 men, fear your I<ord, who hath created you \nout of one man, and out of him created his wife, and \nfrom them two hath multiplied many men and women ; \nand fear God by whom ye beseech one another ; and \nrespect women who have borne you, and give the \norphans when they have come to age their substance ; \nand render them not in exchange bad for good ; and \ndevour not their substance by adding it to your own \nsubstance, for this is a great sin ; and if ye fear that ye \nshall not act with equity towards orphans of the female \nvSex, take in marriage such other women as please you, \ntwo, or three, or four, and no more. But if ye fear \nthat ye cannot act equitably toward so many, marr>^ \none only, or the slaves which ye shall have acquired. \nThis will be easier, that ye swerve not from righteous- \nness." The laws enjoined in this chapter concerning \nthe treatment of women and orphans do not differ ma- \nterially from those of the Pentateuch, from which they \nare manifestly derived. \n\nThe title of the fifth sura is \'\'The Table," which \ntowards the end of the chapter is said to have been let \ndown from heaven to Jesus. It is chiefly devoted to \nexhortations to follow the Koran. The law was suf- \nficient, it is argued, until the coming of Jesus Christ, \nafter which the gospel was the rule. Both are now set \n\n\n\n156 The Sphere of Religion \n\naside by the Koran because in it they both come to \ntheir proper fulfilment. \n\nTurning to the middle chapters of the book we find \nthat many of them consist only of a few pages and are \ndevoted in a large degree to the defence of the author \nas an apostle of God. They also abound in fuller and \nmore vivid descriptions of the rewards of the faithful \nand the fate of unbelievers. \n\nTake, for example chapter fifty-three, entitled ** The \nStar/\' which opens as follows : \'\'By the star when it \nsetteth ; your companion Mohammed erreth not ; nor \nis led astray ; neither doth he speak of his own will. \nIt is no other than a revelation which hath been re- \nvealed unto him. One mighty in power, endued with \nunderstanding, taught it him ; and he appeared in \nthe highest part of the horizon. Afterwards he ap- \nproached the prophet and came near unto him ; until \nhe was at the distance of two bows\' length from him, or \nyet nearer ; and he revealed unto his servant that which \nhe revealed. The heart of Mohammed did not falsely \nrepresent that which he saw." \n\nChapter fifty-four is entitled \'\'The Moon,\'\' and be- \ngins : "The hour of judgment approaches ; and the \nmoon hath been split in sunder ; but if the unbelievers \nsee a sign, they turn aside saying, This is a powerful \ncharm, and they accuse thee, O Mohammed, of impos- \nture, and follow their own lusts ; but everything will \nbe immutably fixed." \n\n" The Inevitable " is the title of the fifty-sixth sura, \nwhich starts out with a vivid description of the last \njudgment and of the final destiny of the faithful and \nthe unfaithful. \'^ When the inevitable day of judg- \nment shall suddenly come, no soul shall charge the pre- \ndiction of its coming with falsehood : it will abase some \n\n\n\nThe Koran of Mohammed 1 5 7 \n\nand exalt others, when the earth shall be shaken with \na violent shock ; and the mountains shall be dashed in \npieces, and shall become as dust scattered abroad ; and \nye shall be separated into three distinct classes : the \ncompanions of the right hand (how happy shall the \ncompanions of the right hand be ! ); and the companions \nof the left hand (how miserable shall the companions \nof the left hand be ! ) ; and those who have preceded \nothers in the faith shall precede them to paradise. \nThese are they who shall approach near unto God : \nthey shall dwell in gardens of delight : (There shall be \nmany of the former religions ; but few of the last.) Re- \nposing on couches adorned with gold and precious \nstones ; sitting opposite to one another thereon. Youths \nwhich shall continue in their bloom forever shall go \nround about to attend them, with goblets, and beakers, \nand a cup of flowing wine ; their heads shall not ache \nby drinking the same, neither shall their reason be dis- \nturbed ; and with fruits of the sorts which they shall \nchoose, and the flesh of birds of the kind which they \nshall desire. And there shall accompany them fair \ndamsels having large black eyes ; resembling pearls \nhidden in their shells ; as a reward for that which they \nshall have wrought. They shall not hear therein any \nvain discourse, or any charge of sin ; but only the \nsalutation, Peace ! Peace ! . . . And the com- \npanions of the left hand (how miserable shall the \ncompanions of the left hand be !) shall dwell amidst \nburning winds and scalding water, under the shade of \na black smoke. . . . Ye, O men, who have erred \nand denied the resurrection as a falsehood, shall .surely \neat of the fruit of the tree al Zakkuin and shall fill \nyour bellies therewith ; and ye shall drink thereon \nboiling water ; and ye .shall drink as a thirsty camel \n\n\n\n1 58 The Sphere of Religion \n\ndrinketh. This shall be their entertainment on the \nday of judgment/\' \n\nIn the fifty-seventh chapter special rewards are \npromised to those * \' who shall have contributed and \nfought in defence of the faith before the taking of \nMecca. . . . These shall be superior in degree \nunto those who shall contribute and fight for the \npropagation of the faith after the above mentioned \nsuccess. * \' \n\nSeveral chapters are then devoted to the treatment \nof women by their husbands; and some of the petty dis- \nagreements of Mohammed with his own wives, God \nis represented as discussing at length, giving to the \nprophet a dispensation from the law imposed on other \nMoslems, especially in regard to the number of his \nwives and his treatment of them. \n\nFarther on we come upon suras that are decidedly \nrhapsodic in character, abounding in strong emotion, \nindicating a high degree of religious excitement. Sura \nseventy-four begins, ** O thou covered, arise and preach \nand magnify the lyOrd, and cleanse thy garments ; and \nfly every abomination ; and be not liberal in hopes to \nreceive more in return ; and patiently wait for thy \nlyord. When the trumpet shall sound, verily that day \nshall be a day of distress and uneasiness unto the \nunbelievers. ... I will afflict hini (the unbeliever) \nwith grievous calamities : for he hath devised and \nprepared contumelious expressions to ridicule the \nKoran. May he be cursed : how maliciously hath he \nprepared the same! and again, may he be cursed/\' \n\nThe following is the conclusion of the eighty-first \nsura: "Verily, I swear by the stars which are retro- \ngrade, which move swiftly, and which hide themselves; \nand by the night when it cometh on ; and by the \n\n\n\nThe Koran of Moha7n7ned 159 \n\nmorning when it appeareth ; that these are the words \nof an honorable messenger, endued with strength, of \nestablished dignity in the sight of the possessor of the \nthrone, obeyed by the angels under his authority and \nfaithful ; and your companion Mohammed is not dis- \ntracted. He hath already seen him in the clear horizon : \nhe hath suspected not the secrets revealed unto him. \nNeither are these the words of an accursed devil. \nWhither, therefore, are you going ? This is no other \nthan an admonition unto all creatures ; unto him among \nyou who shall be willing to walk uprightly ; but ye \nshall not will, unless God willeth, the Lord of all \ncreatures/\' \n\nThe fourth from the last sura is a curse upon the \nuncle of Mohammed, who opposed the establishment \nof the new religion to the utmost of his power. * \' The \nhands of Abu Laheb shall perish and he shall perish. \nHis riches shall not profit him, neither that which he \nhath gained. He shall go down to be burned into \nflaming fire ; and his wife also, bearing wood, having on \nher neck a cord of twisted fibres of a palm-tree" [as \nfuel for hell.] \n\nThe third from the last sura is the shortest in the \nKoran, and is held in particular veneration by Moham- \nmedans. It is said to be equal in value to a third part \nof the whole Koran. " vSay, God is one God; the \neternal God : he begetteth not and neither is he be- \ngotten : and there is not any one like unto him." \n\nChapters one hundred and thirteen and one hundred \nand fourteen, the last two, are reganled by Moslems \nwith peculiar favor. " They consider them," saysSav- \nary, \'* as a sovereign specific against magic, hina influ- \nences, and the temptations of the evil spirit. They never \nfail to repeat them evening and morning." \n\n\n\n1 6 o The Sphere of Religion \n\nThe one hundred and thirteenth chapter runs as \nfollows : \'*Say, I fly for refuge unto the Lord of the \ndaybreak, that he may deliver me from the mischief \nof those things which he hath created ; and from the \nmischief of the night when it cometh on ; and from \nthe mischief of women blowing on knots ; and from the \nmischief of the envious, when he envieth." And the \nlast chapter of the book is, *\' Say, I fly for refuge unto \nthe Lord of men ; the king of men ; the God of men, that \nhe may deliver me from the mischief of the whisperer \nwho slyly withdraweth, who whispereth evil sugges- \ntions into the breasts of man ; from genii and men." \n\nFrom this general survey of the Koran it is easy to \nsee why scholars are agreed in dividing the suras into \nthree general classes, according as their contents \nrelate to the history and condition of the author, \nnamely, those delivered during the early part of Mo- \nhammed\'s preaching in Mecca, including those from \nabout the seventy-third chapter to the close of the \nbook ; the middle chapters, which were in all prob- \nability delivered during the latter part of his sojourn \nin Mecca ; and the first part of the book, where the \nchapters are probably composite in their character, \nmade up of a number of smaller discourses delivered \nduring the later years of his life at Medina. \n\nMohammed began his career as a prophet in his \nfortieth year, and continued to send forth his revela- \ntions for over twenty years. It is maintained by many \nof his followers that the earliest sura is the first part of \nthe ninety-sixth, which begins with the words, \'\' Read \n[from the scroll let down by the angel] in the name of \nthy Lord, who hath created all things/\' Others ascribe \nthat honor to the seventy-fourth, the opening verses of \nwhich have already been quoted. \n\n\n\nThe Koran of Mohammed i6i \n\nMohammed at the outset did not make any effort to \nhave his utterances preserved. Only after he had \nbecome a famous leader in the community did he begin \nto think about putting his revelations into a permanent \nform. The entire Koran is so completely the product \nof Mohammed\'s personal experiences that it cannot be \nproperly understood without taking into consideration \nsome of the chief events in the history of his life. \n\nAll authorities are agreed that he first appeared in \nMecca as a prophet about 6io a.d. According to the \nbest traditions he was born in 570, at Mecca, of very \npoor, but worthy parents, his father belonging to the \nmost powerful of the Arabian tribes of that day, the \nKoreish, to w^hom was entrusted as a matter of heredity \nthe guardianship of the Kaaba. This sacred cube-shaped \nheathen temple contained the famous black stone said \nto have been given by an angel to Abraham, and was \nthe centre of native religious rites. Mohammed\' s father \ndied two months before his birth and his mother, for \nwhom he always had the greatest veneration, six years \nafter. Being adopted by his uncle, who was a man of \nlarge family with scanty means, he spent his early \nyears in tending sheep, gathering wild berries in the \ndesert, and driving camels. On one occasion he went \nwith his uncle on a trading expedition into Syria, and \nthere met a monk whose discourses greatly influenced \nhis subsequent career. When about twenty-five years \nof age, having won by the integrity of his conduct the \nsurname of \'Hhe faithful," on the recommendation of his \nuncle he became the business agent of a wealthy widow \nof Mecca, for whom he made several successful com- \nmercial journeys* to the countries round about. In a \nfew years he married the widow and proved himself a \ndevoted and faithful husband. Seven children resulted \n\n\n\n1 62 The Sphere of Religion \n\nfrom this marriage, but his three sons died while very \nyoung. \n\nRelieved by his marriage to Khadija from the neces- \nsity of constant toil, Mohammed was able to devote his \ntime to the development of his religious sentiments, \nwhich had always had a predominating influence over \nhis conduct and thoughts. Every year he retired for \nlong periods to the fastnesses of Mount Hira, near \nMecca, and gave himself up to solitary meditation and \nprayer. \n\nIt is no longer claimed by any well-informed scholars \nthat Mohammed independently produced the ideas and \ndoctrines of the Koran. A generation at least before \nhis time the Jews had become numerous in and around \nMedina. Indeed, the whole northern part of the \nArabian peninsula began to be dotted over with Jewish \ncolonists soon after the destruction of Jerusalem. Be- \ntween them and the natives there had always existed a \nperfectly free intercourse. Beyond any doubt Moham- \nmed derived nearly all of the stories and a great part \nof the laws of the Koran from Jewish sources. Chris- \ntianity, though in a crude and degenerate form, had \nalready penetrated Arabia through Syria and Abys- \nsinia, and he had at least a partial acquaintance with \nit. The native religion in which he was brought up \nhad long recognized Allah as the highest and universal \ndeity. \n\nAccording to all authorities, when Mohammed came \nupon the scene the religious life of Arabia had reached \na most deplorable state. Star-worship of every variety \nmade up the religion of the masses, but even this \nform of religion had ceased to be regarded as of any \nvital moment. Wine-drinking, petty gambling, sensual \nlove, extortion, and robbery absorbed the time and \n\n\n\nThe Koran of Mohammed 163 \n\nenergies of the people. The status of the great ma- \njority of women was little above that of common pros- \ntitutes. Polygamy, as everywhere in the Orient, was \nthe prevailing custom and many Arabs had no less \nthan eight or ten wives, which they could at any time \nthrow out into the street without food or protection, \nentirely at their option. The habit among the Bedou- \nins of selling their new-born daughters was a gen- \neral one, and went on generation after generation \nunrebuked. \n\nA few devout souls here and there, however, were \nnot satisfied with this state of affairs, and Mohammed \nwas one of them. He saw the need of a new religious \nawakening, and by uniting the three principal religions \nof his time and country he thought he could produce \nit. This idea is now considered the key to the Koran. \nEverywhere in it the Pentateuch and the Psalms are \nrecognized as sacred revelations and so are also the \nGospels. Moses and Christ are frequently declared to \nbe genuine prophets. Resignation to the will of Allah, \nthe all-wise and almighty, the chief god of his own \ntribe and people, is the one supreme duty of man. \n\nJudaism, ChrivStianity, and heathenism all contained \nfor Mohammed important God-given truths. In the \nKoran he is constantly striving to win over the ad- \nherents of each, or else is rebuking them for the \nnon-recognition of his mission. That Mohammed \nthoroughly believed in himself, at least in the fust \nyears of his mission, is no longer questioned. At the \noutset he was probably only one among a number of \nascetics seeking their own salvation rather than that \nof others. But being possessed of a natural tempera- \nment that strongly addicted him to religious excite- \nment, when what he regarded as direct revelation from \n\n\n\n164 The Sphere of Religion \n\nGod came to him in his ecstatic visions, he was obliged \nto burst forth upon the community as a prophet. \n\nAlthough his wife at once accepted his alleged reve- \nlations, when he announced to her that the angel \nGabriel had appeared to him in the mountain and \ncommanded him to proclaim the name of Allah, most \nof his relatives scornfully rejected them. For four \nyears he preached in secret to slaves and people of \nthe lowest rank, gaining only a mere handful of fol- \nlowers. Then the call came to go forward and publicly \nto assail the superstitions of the Meccans. This he did \nwithout fear or favor, exhorting them to turn from \ntheir idols and their sensuality and worship the only \nreal and true God. The result was that he was obliged \nto flee from Mecca to Medina to escape assassination. \nThis occurred in 622, and is known as the Hegira, \nfrom which all Moslems now reckon time. \n\nThe suras of this first period breathe a genuine \nreligious spirit. The great fundamental ideas of the \nunity of God and the duty of prayer and almsgiving \nwere constantly insisted upon as the vital things for \nthis life and the life to come. But when once estab- \nlished in Medina, the consciousness of power and the \nrapid advance of the new form of religion under his \nleadership made him willing to maintain himself by \nstrategy and force and at any cost. \n\nIt must be admitted that he was at times deceitful, \ncunning, and revengeful. In one respect, at least, he \nused his authority as a prophet to make provision for \nthe flesh, excepting himself from the restrictions re- \ngarding women that were imposed upon others, as the \nKoran explicitly states. In common with his age he \nbelieved in signs and omens, and had many other super- \nstitious beliefs. Yet in general we may say that, \n\n\n\nJoseph Smitlis Book of Mormon 165 \n\njudged by the standards of his time, the cause of re- \nhgion has had few more earnest or sincere devotees. \nThe Koran will always stand as a fitting monument to \none of the world\'s master spirits. \n\nk. Joseph Smith\'s Book of Mormon.\xe2\x80\x94 In the \nyear 1830 there was published at Palmyra, a little \nvillage in what was then called the Wilderness of \nWestern New York, the first edition of a bible which \nhas since reached a circulation, it is asserted, of several \nmillions, and has been printed in nearly all the leading \nlanguages of our time. For many years missionaries \nhave been sent to all parts of the civilized world to \nspread abroad a knowledge of its contents, and they \nnever were so active or so numerous as at present. \n\nThe book is about the size of the New Testament, \nand purports to be **The Sacred History of Ancient \nAmerica from the Earliest Ages After the Flood to the \nBeginning of the Fifth Century of the Christian Era.*\' \nThe title of the volume is " The Book of Mormon ; an \naccount written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates \ntaken from the Plates of Nephi." The title-page of the \nfirst edition also bore the inscription, \'\'Joseph Smith, \nJun., Author and Proprietor," but in all subsequent \neditions this has been changed to, " Translated by \nJoseph Smith, Jun." \n\n/Immediately after the title-page comes the following \naffidavit, signed by Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, \nand Martin Harris: "Be it known unto all nations, \nkindreds, tongues, and people unto whom this work \nshall come, that we, through the grace of God the \n1^\'ather, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the \nplates which contain this record, which is a record \nof the people of Ne])hi, and also of the Lamaiiites. \ntheir brethren, and also of the people of JarLil. who \n\n\n\n1 66 The Sphere of Religion \n\ncame from the tower of which hath been spoken ; and \nwe also know that the}" have been translated by the \ngift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it \nunto us ; wherefore we know of a surety that the work \nis true. And we also testify that we have seen the \nengravings which are upon the plates ; and they have \nbeen shown unto us by the power of God, and not \nman. And we declare with words of soberness, that \nan angel of God came down from heaven, and he \nbrought and laid before our e^^es, that we beheld and \nsaw the plates, and the engravings thereon ; and we \nknow that it is by the grace of God the Father, and \nour lyOrd Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record \nthat these things are true ; and it is marvellous in our \neyes, nevertheless the voice of the Lord commanded us \nthat we should bear record of it ; wherefore to be obe- \ndient unto the commandments of God, we bear testi- \nmony of these things. And we know that if we are \nfaithful to Christ, we shall rid oiu: garments of the \nblood of all men, and be found spotless before the \njudgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him \neternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the \nFather, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which \nis one God. Amen.\'* \n\nAttached to this affidavit is another, introduced b}^ \nthe use of the same phraseology, signed b}" four mem- \nbers of the Whitmer family, the father and two brothers \nof Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of the work, and \nHiram Page, son-in-law of Peter Whitmer, Sen., in \nwhich they bear witness that *\'we have seen and \nhefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has \ngot the plates of which we have spoken." \n\nJoseph Smith, Jun., himself thus summarized the \ncontents of the book : \' \' The histor}" of America is un- \n\n\n\nJoseph SmitJis Book of Mor7no7i 167 \n\nfolded from its first settlement by a colony that came \nfrom the Tower of Babel to the beginning of the fifth \ncentury of the Christian Era. We are informed by \nthese records that America, in ancient times, has been \ninhabited by two distinct races of people. The first \nwere called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower \nof Babel. The second race came directly from the city \nof Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. \nThe Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the \nIsraelites came from Jerusalem. The principal nation \nof the second race fell in battle toward the close of the \nfourth century. The remnant are the Indians. \n\n*\' This book also tells us that our Saviour made his \nappearance upon this continent after his resurrection ; \nthat he planted the gospel here in all its fulness and \nrichness and power and blessing ; that they had apos- \ntles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists ; the \nsame order, the same priesthood, the same ordinances, \ngifts, powers, and blessing, as were enjoyed on the \nEastern Continent ; that the people were cut off in \nconsequence of their transgressions ; that the last of \ntheir prophets who existed among them was com- \nmanded to write an abridgment of their prophecies, \nhistory, etc., and to hide it up in the earth." \n\nThis so-called Bible of the Western Continent con- \nsists of fifteen books, and claims to have been written by \nauthors who were divinely appointed to rule over the \npeople of their day, and to make a record of their \ndoings upon metallic plates prepared for the purpose. \nThe l)ooks vary greatly in size. The book of Alma in \nrecent editions of the work is divided into sixty-three \nchapters, and covers nearly a hundred pages ; while \nthe book of Enos has only one chapter, and covers \na little over two pages. \n\n\n\n1 68 The Sphere of Religion \n\nThe first book in the volume is entitled \' \' The First \nBook of Nephi, His Reign and Ministry/\' and has \ntwenty-two chapters. The text is preceded by the fol- \nlowing synopsis : ^ \' An account of Lehi and his wife, \nSariah, and his four sons, being called (beginning at \nthe eldest) Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi. The \nlyord warns I^ehi to depart out of the land of Jeru- \nsalem, because he prophesieth unto the people concern- \ning their iniquity ; and they seek to destroy his life. \nHe taketh three days\' journey into the wilderness w4th \nhis family. Nephi taketh his brethren and returns to \nthe land of Jerusalem after the record of the Jews. \nThe account of their sufferings. They take the daugh- \nters of Ishmael to wife. They take their families and \ndepart into the wilderness. Their sufferings and afflic- \ntions in the wilderness. The course of their travels. \nThey come to the large waters. Nephi\' s brethren re- \nbelleth against him. He confoundeth them and build- \neth a ship. They call the name of the place Bountiful. \nThey cross the large waters into the promised land, \netc. This is according to the account of Nephi ; or in \nother words, I, Nephi, wrote this record.^\' \n\n*\' The large waters \'\' referred to are the Red Sea and \nthe Pacific Ocean. ** The promised land " is the west- \nern coast of South America. \n\nThe very first passages of the first chapter of this \nbook well illustrate the style of all the books, and, ex- \ncept where the ideas of the Old and New Testaments \nare made use of, the general nature of their contents : \n** I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, there- \nfore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my \nfather ; and having seen many afflictions in the course \nof my days \xe2\x80\x94 nevertheless, having been highly favored \nof the I/Ord in all my days ; yea, having had a great \n\n\n\nJoseph SmitJis Book of Mormo7i 169 \n\nknowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, \ntherefore I make a record of my proceedings in my \ndays ; yea, I make a record in the language of my \nfather, which consists of the learning of the Jews and \nthe language of the Egyptians. And I know that the \nrecord that I make is true ; and I make it with mine \nown hand ; and I make it according to my knowledge. \n\n" For it came to pass, in the commencement of the \nfirst year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah (my \nfather Lehi having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days), \nand in that same year there came many prophets, \nprophesying unto the people, that they must repent, \nor the great city of Jerusalem must be destroyed. \nWherefore, it came to pass that my father Lehi, as he \nwent forth, prayed unto the Lord, yea, even with all his \nheart, in behalf of his people. \n\n*\' And it came to pass, as he prayed unto the Lord, \nthere came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before \nhim ; and he saw and heard much ; and because of the \nthings which he saw and heard, he did quake and \ntremble exceedingly. \n\n" And it came to pass that he returned to his own \nhouse at Jerusalem ; and he cast himself upon his bed, \nbeing overcome with the spirit and the things which \nhe had seen ; and being thus overcome with the spirit, \nhe was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the \nheaven open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon \nhis throne, surrounded with numberless concourses c^f \nangels in the attitude of singing and praising God. \n\n*\' And it came to pass that he saw one descending \nout of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that bis \nlustre was above that of the sun at noonday ; and he \nalso saw twelve others following him, and their bright- \nness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament ; and \n\n\n\n1 70 The Sphere of Religion \n\nthey came down and went forth upon the face of the \nearth ; and the first came and stood before my father, \nand he gave him a book, and bade him that he should \nread. \n\n** And it came to pass, that, as he read, he was filled \nwith the spirit of the I^ord, and he read saying, Wo, \nwo unto Jerusalem ! for I have seen thy abominations, \' \' \netc. \n\nIn chapter ii. we have a description of several ap- \npearances of the Virgin Mary to Nephi. He also saw, \nhe afiirms, \' * the Redeemer of the world, of whom my \nfather had spoken ; and I also beheld the prophet w^ho \nshould prepare the way before him. And the I^amb of \nGod went forth and was baptized of him ; and after he \nwas baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy \nGhost came down out of heaven and abode upon him \nin the form of a dove." Many other events in the life \nof Jesus are here referred to including the crucifixion. \n\nChapter xiii. opens with a covert attack upon the \nChurch of Rome. ^ ^ And it came to pass that I saw \namong the nations of the Gentiles the foundation of a \ngreat church. And the angel said unto me, Behold \nthe foundation of a church, which is most abominable \nabove all other churches, which slayeth the saints of \nGod, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth down and \nyoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them \ndown into captivity. And it came to pass that I beheld \nthis great and abominable church ; and I saw the devil \nthat he was the foundation of it. And I also saw gold, \nand silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined \nlinen, and all manner of precious clothing ; and I saw \nmany harlots. \n\n" And the angel spake unto me, saying, Behold the \ngold, and silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and \n\n\n\nJoseph SmitJis Book of Mormon 171 \n\nthe fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the \nharlots, and the desires of this great and abominable \nchurch," etc. \n\nMany other chapters contain tirades on the \nsame theme and, for the most part, the language of \nthe book of Revelation is employed to express them. \nThese views regarding the Roman Catholic Church \nwere commonly held at the time of the appearance of \nthe Book of Mormon throughout the region of Western \nNew York. \n\nAt the close of chapter xviii. Nephi describes the \nmutiny that occurred on the ship as they were crossing \n*\' the large waters." For his brothers bound him and \npurposed to throw him overboard. But when they \nfound that in the tempest that arose they could not \nsteer the ship without him, they loosed him and \nallowed him again to assume command. \n\n\'\'I took the compass" he says, *\'and it did work \nwhither I desired it. And it came to pass that I prayed \nunto the I^ord ; and after I had prayed, the winds did \ncease, and the storm did cease, and there was a great \ncalm. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did guide \nthe ship, that we sailed again towards the promised \nland. And it came to pass that after we had sailed for \nthe space of many days, we did arrive to the promised \nland, and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch \nour tents ; and we did call it the promised land." \n\nThen follows a vivid description of the marvellous \nplenty of the country. Cows and oxen and horses ex- \nisted there in great abundance. ** And we did find all \nmanner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of cop- \nper." Out of the ore plates were made which ui>on \nwas engraved the record ot the people, in particular \nthe visions and j^rophecies of Nephi. The rest of this \n\n\n\n172 The Sphere of Religion \n\nfirst book of Nephi is taken up with an account of \nwhat was put upon these plates. The principal part \nof it consists of literal extracts from the prophecy of \nIsaiah as recorded in the Old Testament, though no \nacknowledgment is made of this fact. \n\nThe second book of Nephi is much like the first in \nsubject-matter. Leaving out the visions and prophecies \nin it, w^e have an account of the death of lychi, of the \nrebellion of Nephi\' s brethren against him, the warn- \nings of the lyord to Nephi to depart into the wilder- \nness, and his various experiences after getting there. \nThe creation of the world and the fall of Adam as we \nhave it in Genesis is described in the second chapter. \n\nThe book of Jacob comes next. This was written \nby a younger brother of Nephi. For lychi had two \nsons, Jacob and Joseph, born to him just before the \nfamily embarked upon the ship to cross *\'the large \nwaters \'\' for the promised land. Both these sons grew \nup to be ** prophets and priests unto God," and it was \nthrough this Joseph that a \' \' righteous branch \' \' was \npreserved from the Joseph of Egypt to Joseph Smith, \nJun., the translator of the Book of Mormon and the \ndivinely appointed head of the Church of Christ in \nmodern times. Jacob succeeded to the rule after the \ndeath of Nephi and added his own plates to those of \nNephi. \n\nThe book of Jacob abounds in vigorous denuncia- \ntion, not only of pride and vainglory, but especially of \npolygamy. A \'\'sore curse even unto destruction\'\' is \ncalled down upon all who practise it. \'\' Behold David \nand Solomon," it says, \'\'truly had many wives and \nconcubines, which thing was abominable before me, \nsaith the lyOrd ; wherefore, thus saith the I^ord, I have \nled this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by \n\n\n\nJoseph Smitlis Book of Mormon 173 \n\nthe power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me \na righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. \nWherefore, I, the Lord God, will not suffer that this \npeople shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore my \nbrethren, hear me, and harken to the word of the \nLord ; for there shall not any man among you have \nsave it be one wife ; and concubines he shall have \nnone ; for, I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity \nof women. And whoredoms are an abomination before \nme ; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this \npeople shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord \nof Hosts ; or cursed be the land for their sakes. \' * The \nsame views are expressed in the book of Mosiah and \nin the book of Ether. \n\nJacob, when he comes to die, hands over the plates \nto his son Enos, who writes the next book. In it he \ntells us of the wrestles he had with God before he re- \nceived a remission of his sins. Then he describes his \nown efforts and those of his people to bring the wicked \nfollowers of his uncle Laman, who had already had \ntheir white skins changed to copper-red because of \ntheir sins, back to the true faith. \n\n** But," he says, **our labors were vain; their \nhatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil na- \nture that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood- \nthirsty people ; full of idolatry and filthiness, feeding \nupon beasts of prey ; dwelling in tents, and wandering \nabout in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about \ntheir loins and their heads shaven ; and their skill was \nin their bow, and in the cimeter, and the axe. And \nmany of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat ; \nand they were continually seeking to destroy us." \nHere we have a very matter-of-fact description of the \nIndians of Western New York in the days of Joseph \n\n\n\n1 74 The Sphere of Religi07i \n\nSmitlu Many references to their life and habits occur \nin other parts of the work. \n\nThe book of Anini tells us how the Xephites came \nto discover the people of Zarahemla. who \'\' came out of \nJemsalem at the time that Zedekiah, King of Jndali, \nwas carried awa}- captive into Babylon." They cast \ntheir lot with the followers of Xephi under the rule of \nKing Mosiah. From the engravings on a large stone \nfotmd in Zarahemla it is discovered that the land had \nonce been occupied b3\' one Carlantumr whose *\' first \nparents came out from the tower at the time the Lord \nconfounded the languages of the people." Owing to \nhis disobedience of the commandments of the I/)rd and \nthe wickedness of his people, they had all been cut oflF \n\'\' and their bones lay scattered in the land northward." \nThis was a common view in Western New York of the \norigin of the many mounds containing human relics to \nbe found in that part of the country\'. \n\nThe book of Alma, the longest in this bible, devotes \nitself chiefly to the secular affairs of the people. Great \nbattles and massacres are described in it. The coming \nof Christ is predicted, but this is opposed by one \nKorihor, who uses arguments that were probably taken \nfrom Thomas Paine\' s Age of Reason, The result is \nthat he is struck dumb for his blasphemy. \n\nNear the middle of the book we have several exhorta- \ntions to repentance which show how familiar the writer \nwas with the methods of the old-time Methodist camp- \nmeeting. Amulek, the last speaker at such a gather- \ning, closes his harangue as follows : \'\' Therefore may \nGod grant unto 3\'ou, my brethren, that ye may begin \nto exercise your faith unto repentance, that ye b^n to \ncall upon His holy name, that He would have mercy \nupon you ; 3\'ea, cry unto Him for mercy ; for He is \n\n\n\nJoseph Smith\'s Book of Mormon 175 \n\nmighty to save ; yea, humble yourselves, and continue \nin prayer unto Him ; cry unto Him when you are in \nyour fields ; yea, over all your flocks ; cry unto Him \nin your houses, yea, over all your household, both \nmorning, midday, and evening; yea, cry unto Him \nagainst the power of your enemies ; yea, cry unto Him \nagainst the Devil, who is an enemy to all righteous- \nness. And now as I said unto you before, as ye have \nhad so many witnesses, therefore I beseech of you, \nthat ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance \nuntil the end ; for after this day of life, which is given \nunto us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not \nimprove our time while in this life, then cometh the \nnight of darkness, w^herein there can be no labor per- \nformed. Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that \nawful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my \nGod. Nay, ye cannot say this ; for that same spirit \nwhich doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go \nout of life, that same spirit will have power to possess \nyour body in that eternal world.\'* \n\nIn the book of Helaman we have the first of the \nattacks upon Free Masonry to be found in the Book of \nMormon. It expresses the strong antipathy to the \norganization that prevailed in Western New York at \nthe time the book appeared, owing to the abduction \nand alleged murder in 1826 of one William Morgan, \na mechanic of Batavia, by some of the Masonic frater- \nnity. The reavSon for the act, it was alleged, was the \nfact that Morgan was preparing a book to divulge the \nsecrets of the order. \n\nThe book of Nephi III., besides giving an account of \nthe secular events of this reign, describes the wonderful \nphenomena that acronipaiiicd the birth of Christ ami \nhis visit to the Nephites after the Resurrection. He \n\n\n\n176 The Sphere of Religion \n\nnot only preached to them the Sermon on the Mount, but \nalso many of his other discourses recorded in the \ngospels. He broke bread among them and performed \nmany of the same miracles that are described at length \nin the New Testament. He chose twelve apostles, \nwho taught the multitude and carried on the work of \nspreading the gospel. Things proceeded in the same \nmanner as the New Testament records show they did \nin Palestine. \n\nIn the book of Mormon, one of the last books in this \nvolume, and the one that gives name to the entire col- \nlection, we are told how in the year 384 A.D., just \nbefore a great battle in the land of Cumorah, in which \nan army of 230,000 Nephites was slain and the race \npractically annihilated, *\' I [Mormon] made this record \nout of the plates of Nephi and hid up in the hill of \nCumorah all the records which had been entrusted to \nme by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few \nplates which I gave to my son Moroni." It was these \ngolden plates that Joseph Smith alleges he, on Septem- \nber 22, 1827, under the direction of an angel, dug up \non the top of what is now known as Mormon Hill, in \nthe township of Manchester, N. Y. , about four miles \nfrom the village of Palmyra. \n\nThe plates, as he describes them, were about eight \ninches long and seven wide, and were connected to- \ngether by rings so as to form a volume about six inches \nthick. Hieroglyphic characters in an unknown lan- \nguage, which Smith declared to be Reformed Egyp- \ntian, covered both sides of the plates. By the aid of \ntwo stones, joined together into a sort of spectacles, \nwhich he found in the box, and called Urim and \nThummim, he affirms that he was able to decipher \nthe record on the plates and translate it into English. \n\n\n\nJoseph Smith\'s Book of Mormon 177 \n\nThis was taken down by an amanuensis, and makes \nthe present text of the Book of Mormon. \n\nSmith tells us that \'* multitudes" tried to get the \nplates away from him, but he held on to them. As \nfast as he translated them he handed them back to the \nangel, who keeps them in a box with other plates that \nhave not yet been unsealed. \n\nThe 22d of September, 1827, was not, according to \nSmith, the first time that he had known of the existence \nof these plates. In his autobiography published in the \nMillennial Star 2X Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1838, he affirms \nthat on the night of September 21, 1823, while he was \npraying to God for the forgiveness of his sins, his room \nsuddenly became illuminated with a great light. A \nperson clothed in a robe of exquisite whiteness called \nhim by name and announced himself to be a messenger \nsent from God. Then, as Smith describes it, the angel \ntold him where there was a book deposited, written upon \ngolden plates, giving an account of the former inhabi- \ntants of this continent and the source from whence \nthey sprang. He also said that the fulness of the \nEverlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered \nby the Saviour to the ancient inhabitants. During the \nsame vision the angel described to him the \' \' two stones \nin a silver bow " that were deposited with the plates, the \npossession of which ** constituted seers" in ancient \ntimes. By the use of these stones God would enable \nhim to read what was engraved upon the plates and \ntranslate it into English. \n\nUnder the direction of the angel he went at once to \nthe hill and found the big stone in the hollow of which \nthe plates were concealed. But he made no effort to \ngain possession of tliem as the angel informed him thai \nthe time for bringing tlRin out had not yet arrived, \n\n\n\n178 The Sphere of Religion \n\nneither would till four years from that time. But he \nwas told to come every year to the spot \' * until the time \nshould come for obtaining the plates. \' \' \n\nJoseph Smith\'s father soon after the publication of \nthe Book of Mormon gave out a vivid description of the \nway in which the plates were finally procured and the \naccount was confirmed by his mother in her Biographi- \ncal Sketches of Joseph Smith and his Progenitors, pub- \nlished some years later. The father says in this \ndescription that \' * He [Joseph] procured a horse and \nlight wagon with a chest and pillow case, and pro- \nceeded punctually with his wife to find the hidden \ntreasure. When they had gone as far as they could \nwith the wagon, Joseph took the pillow case and started \nfor the rock. Upon passing a fence a host of devils \nbegan to screech and scream, and make all sorts of \nhideous yells, for the purpose of terrifying him and \npreventing the attainment of his object ; but Joseph \nwas courageous and pursued his way in spite of \nthem.\'\' \n\nOn arriving at the rock, *\' with the aid of superhuman \npower \' \' he pried up the lid and secured the first or upper- \nmost article, \'* putting it carefully into the pillow case \nbefore laying it down." Immediately the lid fell back \ninto its original position and an angel warned him not \nto seek for anything more at the present time. He was \nalso warned not to allow any one to touch the article he \nhad \' \' for if they did, they would be knocked down by \nsome superhuman power." On getting back to the \nfence Joseph was met by another host of devils who \nyelled and shrieked much louder than the former, and \none of them struck him a blow on the side ** where a \nblack and blue spot remained three or four days." \nWhen Joseph reached home with the article **I \n\n\n\nJoseph Smith\'s Book of Mormon 179 \n\nweighed it/\' says his father, *\'and it weighed thirty \npounds. \' \' \n\nAs soon as the Book of Mormon was published it \nattracted converts and Smith immediately organized \nthem into the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, \nplacing himself at their head. At the time of his death \nat Carthage, Illinois, where he and his brother Hyrani \nwere assassinated by a mob in June, 1844, he had \nfounded a New Jerusalem of some fifteen thousand \nsouls at Nauvoo on the banks of the Mississippi, and \nwas universally recognized by his followers as the \napostle and prophet of God. Brigham Young correctly \nexpressed the position of the whole Mormon Church \nwhen he said of him shortly after his death: *\' Every \nspirit that confesses that Joseph Smith is a prophet, \nthat he lived and died a prophet, and that the Book of \nMormon is true, is of God, and every spirit that does \nnot is of Antichrist." \n\nThe Latter Day Saints have always believed and \nbelieve to-day that Smith obtained the plates in the \nmanner already described, and that the Book of Mormon \nis of a purely divine origin. Of those who do not ac- \ncept this view of the matter some hold that the work is \nthe joint product of a Congregational minister once \nliving at New Salem, Ohio, by the name of Solomon \nSpaulding, who supplied the historical part, and a \nBaptist minister by the name of Sidney Rigdon, wlio \nfilled in the religious part and brought out the book \nunder Joseph Smith\'s name and with his sanction. \nThis opinion is strongly advocated by W. A. Linn in \nhis exhaustive work on the Story of the Afonnons from \nike Date of their On\'trin to the Year igor. \n\nIn spite of all that has l)cen written in support of \nthis view by Linn and others, nobody has yet been \n\n\n\ni8o The Sphere of Religion \n\nable to show that Smith ever heard of Spaulding or his \nalleged novel about the origin of the American Indians. \nNo tangible proof of the existence of such a novel was \nforthcoming till 1885, when President Fairchild, ol \nOberlin College, claimed that he had accidentally dis- \ncovered the manuscript of it in the library of a friend \nin Honolulu. He himself admits, however, that there \nis Uttle or no resemblance between Spaulding\' s story \nentitled Manuscript Foimd and the Book of Mormon \neither in style or subject-matter, except that they both \nhave considerable to sa}^ about the Ten Lost Tribes. \nDr. Hurlburt, in whose house the manuscript was \nfound, says of it: "I should as soon think the Book of \nRevelation was written by the author of Don Quixote, \nas that the writer of this manuscript was the author ot \nthe Book of Mormon." The only similarity that he \nwas able to find between them was that they both claim \nto have been dug up out of the ground. \n\nAs to Sidney Rigdon the evidence is good that he \nhad only the slightest acquaintance with Smith until \nafter the establishment of the Church of Latter Day \nSaints, when he became one of his converts. \n\nThe more rational view of the origin of the Book of \nMormon, and the one now held by almost all com- \npetent and unprejudiced investigators, is well expressed \nby Dr. I. W. Rile}^ in his extremely able work on \nThe Fou7ider of Mor7nonis7n, when he sa3\'s: *\' Joseph \nSmith\'s record of the Indians is a product indigenous \nto the New York * Wilderness,\' and the authentic work \nof the * author and proprietor. \' Outwardly, it reflects \nthe local color of Palmyra and Manchester, inwardly \nits complex of thought is a replica of Smith\'s muddled \nbrain." \n\nIn other words, barring out the choicest parts of \n\n\n\nJoseph Smith\'s Book of Mormon 1 8 1 \n\nthe Old Testament and the copious extracts from the \ngospels that we find in the book, the history of Joseph \nSmith before the work appeared and his history after \nshow beyond reasonable doubt that he produced it by \nthe use of his own natural powers. The very first \nwords of the first chapter reveal the fact that the acts \nof Nephi are the acts of Joseph, and so on to the closing \npavssages of the last chapter. \n\nThe conversion of Joseph Smith occurred near Pal- \nmyra in 1820, when he w^as in his fifteenth year. He \nhad previously been noted \'\' only for his indolent and \nvagabondish character, and his habits of exaggeration \nand untruthfulness." His father was a shiftless farmer \nand root-digger, who had wandered from Sharon, \\\'cr- \nmont, where Joseph was born December 23, 1805, over \ninto Ontario County, New York, and there taken up a \nland claim. Both Joseph\'s father and mother were \nstrong believers in heavenly visions, faith cures, witch- \ncraft, and demoniacal possessions. The son had grown \nup in the atmosphere of these ideas, and he took to \nthem as to his natural breath. Besides this, in his \nyouth he was given to epileptic seizures, and many \ntimes he seriously injured himself while in this state. \nOn several occasions he twisted his limbs out of joint \nand severely bruised his body, having at the time no \nconsciousness of the fact. \n\nHe grew up in a most extraordinary religious en- \nvironment. Western New York in his boyhood was \nswept by wave after wave of religious excitement, and \nlater came to be generally known as the Bunit Dis- \ntrict. A multitude of contending sects existed on every \nhand. Near Ithaca there were seven different kinds \nof Baptists, and during Smith\'s stay in Palmyra four \nschisms occurred among the Metluxlists \xe2\x80\x94 the sect to- \n\n\n\n1 82 The Sphere of Religion \n\nward which he was himself more particularly inclined. \nAt Canandaigua, only ten miles from his home, the \nFox sisters by their extraordinary rapping seances \ndumbfounded their auditors and laid the foundations \nof modem spiritualism. William Miller at Rochester \nhad already successfully established the sect of Second \nAdventists. Jemima Wilkinson, who claimed to have \nbeen raised from the dead to preach the gospel and to \nbe able to work miracles, had purchased 14,000 acres \nof land in Yates County and established a colony there \nof her followers. \n\nWhat wonder that young Smith, who had had re- \nmarkable experiences of his own, early began to medi- \ntate upon the ways and means of carrying out some \nsimilar project. He was constantly having visions, \nand his conversion occurred in one of them. This he \ndescribes as follows : \' \' After I had retired into a place \nwhere I had previously designed to go, having looked \naround me and finding myself alone, I kneeled down \nand began to offer up the desires of my heart unto \nGod. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I \nwas seized upon by some power which entirely over- \ncame me, and had such astonishing influence over me \nas to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. \n\n\' \' Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed \nto me for a time as if I was doomed to sudden destruc- \ntion. But exerting all my powers to call upon God to \ndeliver me out of the power of this enemy which had \nseized upon me, and at the very moment when I was \nready to sink into despair and abandon myself to de- \nstruction, not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power \nof some actual being from the unseen world, who had \nsuch a marvellous power as I had never before felt in \nany being. Just at this moment of great alarm, I saw \n\n\n\nJoseph Smitlis Book of Mormon 183 \n\na pillar of light exactly over my head, above the bright- \nness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell \nupon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself \ndelivered from the enemy which held me bound. \nWhen the light rested upon me, I saw two personages \nwhose brightness and glory defy all description, stand- \ning above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, \n. . . When I came to myself again I found myself \nlying on my back looking up into heaven.*\' \n\nIn the second of his recorded visions, the one of \nSeptember 21, 1823, in which he was told about the \nexistence of the plates, he affirms that at midnight, \nwhile he was engaged in \'\' prayer and supplication to \nAlmighty God for forgiveness of all his sins," the \nroom became "\' lighter than at noonday,*\' and a heav- \nenly messenger came to his bedside and described the \nplates so vividly *\' that I could see the place where the \nplates were deposited, and that so clearly and dis- \ntinctly, that I knew the place again when I visited \nit." This vision was repeated three times the same \nnight and many times afterwards. \n\nIn addition he was repeatedly , told in these early \nvisions that none of the existing religious denomina- \ntions were acknowledged of God as his church and \nkingdom. " I was expressly commanded," he says, \n** to go not after them ; at the same time receiving a \npromise that the fulness of the gospel should at some \nfuture time be made known unto me." Can it be won- \ndered at under the circumstances that he set himself to \nwork to create some sort of a consistent whole out of \nthese and similar experiences, making use of all \nother available data that he had at his command ? \n\nIt is true that Smith lived in the backwoods and had \nlittle schooling, but he still was alive to what was \n\n\n\n1 84 The Sphere of Religion \n\ngoing on in the community and had access to a few \ninexpensive books that were in common circulation. \nBesides the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments \nhe undoubtedly had the New England Primer, which \nnearly every child of that period thumbed from cover \nto cover and was supposed to know almost by heart. \nIt contained the Westminster Confession of Faith, \nwhich, as Dr. Riley has shown, is closely paralleled \nin the speech of Nephi to his brethren. Then, as has \nalready been pointed out, he probably was more or less \nfamiliar with Paine\'s Age of Reason, Beyond all ques- \ntion he had every opportunity to acquaint himself by \nreading or by hearsay with the creeds and disciplines \nof the numerous sects that were laboring to make \nconverts in that region. \n\nSmith\'s Lamanites actually have the very same be- \nliefs that existed in his own locality. In harmony \nwith his times he takes it for granted that the primitive \nred men had the idea of one great Spirit and the various \nnotions that flow from it. The modern student of the \nsubject would not agree with this position. For he \nmaintains that such beliefs arose among these people \nonly after long famiUarity with the doctrines of \nChristianity. \n\nThe theory that the Indians were the remnant of the \nTen Lost Tribes of Israel was an idea current almost \nfrom the first settlement of the country. The early \nSpanish priests identified the natives with them, and so \ndid a Jewish rabbi as early as 1650. John Eliot, *\' the \nApostle to the Indians in Massachusetts,\'\' wrote an \nessay in favor of it. Roger Williams, William Penn, \nand Jonathan Edwards advocated this view, and Smith \nmust have been familiar with it from early boyhood. \n\nBut the most striking thing in Smith\'s surroundings \n\n\n\nJoseph SmitJis Book of Morvion 185 \n\nwas the large number of mysterious aboriginal remains \nthat abounded on every hand. *\' Along the shores of \nlyake Ontario there was a series of ancient earthworks, \nentrenched hills, and occasional mounds or tumuh." \nHuman bones and relics had been found on an em- \nbankment in Canandaigua. Livingston County had \na big artificial ditch of sixteen acres, and Seneca \nCounty had ancient caches full of art relics and frag- \nments of pottery. Near Geneva were the remains of a \nso-called Indian castle, and in the vicinity of Smith\'s \nhome spear-heads and hatchets had been dug up in \nabundance. \n\nIn early youth Smith had been a money digger, and \nIndian mounds were the most attractive and profitable \nplaces in which to search for hidden treasures. As \nDr. Riley has well said, "He [Smith] mixed up what he \nknew about living Indians with what he could gather \nabout dead ones, and the amalgam was the angel \nMoroni\'s \' brief sketch concerning the aboriginal \ninhabitants of this country.\' " \n\nThat Smith was capable of composing the Book of \nMormon from the material at his disposal is also seen \nby comparing its vStyle and matter with other works \nthat he unquestionably produced. No sooner had he \ncompleted his labors on the Book of Mormon than \nhe went to work on the Visions of Moses, and six \nmonths later he brought out the Writings of Moses. \nLater he completed a Revised Translation of the Old \nand New Testaments. In 1842, as the editor of Times \nand Seasons, he published a "Translation of Some \nAncient Records, that have fallen into our hands from \nthe Catacombs of Kgypt, the Writings of Abraham \nwhile he was in Ki;ypt called the Book of Abraham, \nwritten by his own hand upon Papyrus." This was a \n\n\n\n1 86 The Sphere of Religion \n\n\' * book \' * that he had made up from the hieroglyphics \nfound in the casings of some Egyptian mummies that \nhe had persuaded the church to buy for him of a show- \nman passing through the place. From the day he \nassumed the title of \'\'Prophet, Seer, and Revelator*\' \nat the age of eighteen to the end of his career he was \nconstantly claiming to receive direct communications \nfrom the Almighty on almost every conceivable sub- \nject. These \'\'revelations" were collected together \ninto what he called the Doctrine and Covenants of \nthe Church of the Latter Day Saints. \n\nIn all of these productions we have unmistakable evi- \ndence from the style of composition and general subject- \nmatter that their author is identical with the writer of \nthe Book of Mormon and of the afl&davits that were \nsigned by the eleven witnesses regarding the plates \nupon which it was engraved. \n\nBefore the book was completed Smith began to make \npreparations for carrying out the idea that he was the \nlineal descendant of Joseph, the prime minister of an- \ncient Egypt, and the divinely appointed head of all \nLatter Day Saints. On May 15, 1829, he took Cow- \ndery, his amanuensis, with him into the woods and \nearnestly besought the Lord to inform him about how \nto carry out the baptism mentioned in the plates. \nSpeedily John the Baptist, he says, appeared to them \nin a cloud of light, * \' and having laid his hands upon \nus, he ordained us, saying unto us : \' Upon you, my \nfellow-servants, in the name of the Messiah, I confer \nthe priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the \nministering angels, and of the Gospel of repentance, \nand of baptism by immersion for the remission of \nsins.^ \'\' \n\nLater he received from Peter, James, and John, he \n\n\n\nJoseph SmitJis Book of Mormon 187 \n\nasserts, ** the power of laying on of hands for the gift \nof the Holy Ghost," thus supplanting even the bishops \nof the Roman Church, who get their power through \na succession of popes and not direct from heaven. \n\nWhen Smith wanted anything done he got a reve- \nlation for it just as he thought was the custom of all \nprophets. He was often in such a state of mind that \nhe could not distinguish between subjective illusions \nand objective realities. It seems quite impossible, there- \nfore, in his case to draw the line between self-deception \nand conscious duplicity. \n\nHis remarkable success in attracting followers, over \nmany of whom he exerted a strong hypnotic influence, \nwas attended not only with a growing sensualism \nwhich ultimately led to his secret adoption of polygamy , \nbut also developed a colossal egotism which surpassed \nall bounds. He soon came to think and talk of him- \nself, says Dr. Riley, as *\' the smartest man in Amer- \nica/* and fully equal to any conceivable position or \ntask. \n\nIn 1843 he went to Washington and presented to \nPresident Van Buren a bill for $i,38i,044.55>^ to com- \npensate himself for the damages to his property and \ncharacter that he had received from the United States. \nAs Congress that winter did not make the necessary \nappropriation to pay it, he had his followers nominate \nhimself for President. One of his last addresses was \nentitled, " Views of the Powers and Policy of the Gov- \nernment of the United States," in which there are \nquotations not only in English, but also in Italian, \nDutch, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Chaldec, so intro- \nduced as to convey the impression that it was a matter \nof utter indifference to him in what language he chose \nto exj)ress his thoughts. \n\n\n\n1 88 The Sphere of Religion \n\nJosiah Quincy tells us in his Figures of the Past that \nwhen he and Charles Francis Adams visited the Mor- \nmon colony at Nauvoo in 1843, Smith explained to \nthem the inscription on his Egyptian mummy by say- \ning : " That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father \nof the Faithful. This is the autograph of Moses, and \nthese lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here \nwe have the earliest account of the creation, from which \nMoses composed the book of Genesis.\'\' \n\nSmith\'s own written assertion concerning himself is: \n* \' I know more than all the world put together. . . . \nI cut the Gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathe- \nmatical problems of universities with truth, diamond \ntruth, and God is my right-hand man." \n\nWhen we consider what a conglomeration of ideas \nthe Book of Mormon reall}^ is and Joseph Smith\'s \nhistory before and after its appearance ; when we recall \nthe fact that it was nearly seven years from the first \nvision of the plates to the actual publication of the \nbook, and that during a large part of this time, at least, \nhe was cogitating upon its contents, it seems wholly \nunnecessary to assume that the work was beyond his \nnatural powers. \n\nThe influence that the book has had and still has \nover many minds lies not only in the descriptions of \nthe marvellous that abound in it, but also in the great \nand vital truths the author has incorporated in the bodj^ \nof the work taken literally from such parts of the Old \nand New Testaments as the prophecies of Isaiah and \nthe discourses of Jesus. \n\nI.Mrs. Eddy and "Science and Health."\xe2\x80\x94 An- \nother book that has recently been exalted to the dig- \nnity of a bible by its devotees is Mrs. Mary Baker \nG. Kddy\'s work entitled Science and Healthy with Key \n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy and \'\' Science a7id Health " 189 \n\nto the Scriptures, the first edition of which was \npublished in I^ynn, Mass., in 1875. \n\nAs the founder of the sect of Christian vScientists and \nthe pastor of its Mother Church, Mrs. Eddy made not \nlong ago the following announcement : \n\n*\' Humbly, and as I believe, divinely directed, I \nhereby ordain the Bible, and Science and Health, \nwith Key to the Scriptures, to be hereafter the only \nPastor of the Church of Christ, Scientist, throughout \nour land and in other lands. \n\n\'\' From this date, the Sunday services of our de- \nnomination shall be conducted b}^ Readers, in lieu of \npastors. Each church, or society formed for Sunday \nworship, shall elect two Readers : a male, and a female. \nOne of these individuals shall open the meeting by \nreading the hymns, and chapter (or portion of the \nchapter) in the Bible, lead in silent prayer, and repeat \nin concert w^th the congregation the Lord\'s Prayer. \n. . . The First Reader shall read from my Book, \nScience and Health, with Key to the Scriptures, \nalternately in response to the congregation, the Spiri- \ntual interpretation of the Lord\'s Prayer ; also shall read \nall the selections from Science and Health referred \nto in the Sunday Lessons. The Reader of the Scrip- \ntures shall name, at each reading, the book, chapter, \nand verses. The Reader of Science and Health, with \nKey to the Scriptures, shall commence by announcing \nthe full title of this book, with the name of its author, \nand add in the announcement the Christian Science \ntext-book.\'\' \n\nAt the same time Mrs. Eddy prescribed that "this \nform shall also be observed at the Comnumion service.\'* \nAnd when she arranged a monthly serA\'ice for the chil- \ndren, she desired that ** a sermon shall be preached to \n\n\n\nI go The Sphere of Religion \n\nthe children, from selections taken from the Scriptures \nand Science and Health, especially adapted to the \noccasion, and read after the manner of the Simday \nservice." \n\nIn prescribing the duties of those who are authorized \nby her to teach Christian Science, she says, " they \nshall steadily and patiently strive to educate their \nstudents in conformity to the unerring wisdom and \nlove of God, and shall enjoin upon them habitually to \nstudy His revealed word, the Scriptures, and Science \nand Health, with Key to the Scriptures.\'\' Thus we \nsee that whenever Christian Scientists meet together \nfor worship or instruction, the Bible and Science and \nHealth are put by their leader upon equal terms. \nThe objection made by some of her followers that this \nis not done cannot be allowed. \n\nIn August, 1906, Mrs. Eddy\'s book had already \nreached the 434th edition of one thousand copies each, \naccording to the reports of the Society having the pub- \nlication in charge, 77,000 copies of the work having \nbeen sold the previous year. New editions of the \nwork are constantly being issued to meet the increas- \ning demand. At one time the book was published in \ntwo volumes, probably in imitation of the Old and New \nTestaments, but of late it has appeared in one volume, \noften in heavy Oxford India bible paper. It now con- \nsists of about 600 pages. A concordance is published \nto accompany it of about the same size and price as the \nbook itself. \n\nThe different editions of Science and Health vary \ngreatly in the arrangement of the chapters. There is \nlittle or no logical connection between them, and it \nwas probably never intended that there should be an3\\ \nEach chapter easily stands alone by itself, and each \n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy and ** Science and Health " 191 \n\nchapter sets forth by constant reiteration Mrs. Eddy\'s \nfundamental ideas. In many of the later editions the \nfirst chapter is entitled Prayer, but some of the earUer \neditions open with the chapter on The Science of \nBeing, which begins as follows : \n\n** In the year 1866 I discovered metaphysical healing, \nand named it Christian Science. The Principle thereof \nis divine and apodictical, governing all, and it reveals \nthe grand verity that one erring mind controlling \nanother (through w^hatever medium) is not Science \ngoverned by God, the unerring Mind. \n\n\' \' When apparently near the confines of the death \nvalley, I learned certain truths : that all real being is \nthe Divine Mind and idea ; that the Science of Divine \nMind demonstrates that Life, Truth, and Love are all- \npowerful and ever-present ; that the opposite of Science \nand Truth, named Error, is the false supposition of a \nfalse sense. This sense is, and involves a belief in, \nmatter that shuts out the true sense of Spirit. The \ngreat facts of omnipotence and omnipresence, of Spirit \npossessing all powers and filling all space, \xe2\x80\x94 these facts \ncontradicted forever, to my understanding, the notion \nthat matter can be actual.\'* \n\nIn this passage Mrs. Eddy describes how she came \nto discover what she claims to be the way in which \nChrist regarded this universe, and the ultimate prin- \nciple upon which he based all of his labors for the \nelevation of men. This ultimate principle, she affirms, \nis the truth that the Divine Mind and its ideas are the \nonly actualities. Hence, every one who holds that the \nknowledge of Christ is valid knowledge, as she does, is \na Christian Scientist, and must maintain that matter \nin all its forms has no reality. Its alleged existence is \nan illusion of the senses. vSin, sickness, and death, not \n\n\n\n192 The Sphere of Religion \n\nbeing the ideas of the Divine Mind, cannot have any \nreality. They are simply the false ideas of our mor- \ntal minds and are to be banished from our thoughts \nforever. \n\nMrs. Eddy claims to have received these truths di- \nrect from Christ. \' ^ No human tongue or pen, \' \' she says, \n*\'has suggested the contents of Science and Health, \nnor can tongue or pen overthrow it. Whatever men \nmay now think of it, its truths will remain for the \nChrist-inspired to discern and follow." \n\nJesus, wherever he went, says Mrs. Eddy, ** demon- \nstrated the power of the Divine Science to heal mortal \nminds and bodies." And it is the greatest need of \nthis age that his disciples should literally follow his \ncommand, \'\' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the \nlepers, cast out demons." This injunction is stamped \non the cover of every copy of Science and Health as \ngiving the keynote of its entire contents. \n\nThese views are reiterated again and again through- \nout this chapter. Only a page or two beyond the \npassage first quoted we read : \' \' The only realities are \nthe Divine Mind and its ideas." \'\' Sin, sickness, and \ndeath are comprised in a belief in matter." \'* Because \nSpirit is real and harmonious, everything inharmonious \n\xe2\x80\x94 sin, sickness, death \xe2\x80\x94 is the opposite of Spirit, and \nmust be the contradiction of reality, must be unreal." \n\n*\' Nothing hygienic," says Mrs. Eddy, \'\' can exceed \nthe healing power of mind. By mind alone I have \nprevented disease, preserved and restored health, \nhealed organic as well as acute ailments in their sever- \nest forms, elongated shortened limbs, relaxed rigid \nmuscles, restored decaying bones to healthy conditions, \nbrought back the lost substances of the lungs and \ncaused them to resume their proper functions. \' \' \n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy and " Science and Health \'\' 193 \n\nA little farther on, Mrs. Eddy describes what she \nmeans by \'\' mortal mind " : \'\'Usage classifies both evil \nand good together as mind ; therefore, to be under- \nstood, I will call sick and sinful humanity mortal mind, \n\xe2\x80\x94 meaning by this term, the flesh that is opposed to \nSpirit, human error and evil in contradistinction to \nGoodness and Truth, Matter is the primitive belief of \nmortal mind, that has no cognizance of Spirit. To \nmortal mind substance is matter and evil is good.\'\' \n\n\'\' Understanding spiritual law, and knowing there is \nno law of matter, Jesus said : \' These signs shall follow \nthem that believe : they shall take up serpents ; and if \nthey drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. \nThey shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall re- \ncover.\' Jesus\' promise was perpetual. Had it been \ngiven only to his immediate disciples, the Scriptural \npassage w^ould residjoUy not t/ie/n.\'" \n\nIn the chapter on Physiology, Mrs. Eddy aflSrms \nthat " Anatomy, physiology, treatises on health, \xe2\x80\x94 sus- \ntained by whatever is termed material law, \xe2\x80\x94 are the \nhusbandmen of sickness and disease. It is proverbial \nthat as long as you read medical works you will be \nsick." \'\' Because Science is at war with physics, even \nas Truth is at war with error, the old schools will \noppose it. When there were fewer doctors, and less \nthought was given to sanitary subjects, there were \nbetter constitutions and less disease. In olden times \nwhoever heard of dyspepsia, cerebro-spinal meningitis, \nhay-fever, and rose-cold ? " \n\n"What an abuse of nature to say that a rose, the \nsmile of God, can produce suffering. The joy of its \npresence, its beauty and modesty, should uplift the \nthought and destroy any possible fever. It is profane \nto fancy that the sweetness of clover and breath of \n\n\n\n194 ^^^ Sphere of Religion \n\nnew-mown hay may cause, like snuff, sneezing and \nnasal pangs.\'* \n\n\'\' The primitive privilege, to take no thought about \nfood, left the stomach and bowels free to act in obe- \ndience to nature, and gave the gospel a chance to be \nseen in its glorious effects upon the body. A ghostly \narray of diseases was not kept before the imagination. \nFewer books on digestion, and more * sermons in stone \nand good in everything \' gave better health and greater \nlongevity to our forefathers. When the mechanism \nof the human mind goes on undisturbed by fear, \nselfishness, or malice, disease cannot enter and gain a \nfoothold.\'* \n\n** Shall a regular practitioner,** continues Mrs. Eddy, \n*^ treat all the cases of organic disease, and the Chris- \ntian Scientist lay his hand only on hysteria, hypo- \nchondria, or hallucination? One disease is no more \nreal than another. All disease is the result of hallu- \ncination, and can carry its ill effects no further than \nmortal mind maps out. Facts are stubborn things. \nChristian Science finds the decided type of acute \ndisease, however severe, quite as ready to yield as \nthe less distinct type and chronic forms of disease. \nIt handles the most malignant contagion with perfect \nassurance.** \n\n*\' You can even educate a healthy horse so far in \nphysiology that he will take cold without his blanket ; \nwhereas the wild animal, left to his instincts, sniffs the \nwind with delight. Epizootics] is an evolved ailment, \nthat a natural horse never has.\'* \n\n\'* I have discerned disease in the human mind, and \nrecognized the patient*s fear of it, many weeks before \nthe so-called disease made its appearance in the body. \nDisease being a belief, \xe2\x80\x94 a latent creation of mind, be- \n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy and ** Science and Health \'\' 195 \n\nfore it appears as matter, \xe2\x80\x94I am never mistaken in my \nscientific diagnosis of disease. \' \' \n\n\'* We walk in the footsteps of Truth and Love by \nfollowing the example of our Master, and having the \nunderstanding of metaphysics. Christianity is its \nbasis; and physiology, that pins our trust to matter \ninstead of God, is directly opposed to it. " " We are \nChristian Scientists only as we quit our hold upon \nmaterial things, and grasp the spiritual, \xe2\x80\x94until we have \nleft all for Christ.\'^ \n\nIn the chapter on Imposition and Demonstration \nMrs. Eddy says : * * Let us rid ourselves of the belief \nthat man is a separate intelligence from God, and obey \nthe unerring principle of Life and Love. Jesus acted \nboldly against the accredited evidence of the senses, \nagainst Pharisaical creeds and practices. He refuted \nall opponents with his healing power. We never read \nthat Jesus made a diagnosis of a disease, in order to \ndiscover some means of healing it. He never asked if \nit were acute or chronic. He never recommended at- \ntention to laws of health, never gave drugs, never \nprayed to know if God were willing that man should \nlive. He understood man to be an immortal, whose \nlife is in God, \xe2\x80\x94 not that man has two lives, one to be \ndestroyed and the other to be made indestructible.\'* \n\n** Jesus established his church, and maintained his \nmission, on the basis of Christian healing. He taught \nhis followers that his religion had a Principle that \ncould cast out errors, and heal both the sick and the \nsinful. He claimed no intelligence, action, or life \nseparate from God. Despite the persecutions this \nbrought upon him, he used his divine power to s;ive \nmen both bodily and spiritually." "As in Jesus* \ndays, tyranny and pride need to be whipped out of \n\n\n\nig6 The Sphere of Religion \n\nthe Temple, while humility and Divine Science are \nwelcomed in.\'\' \n\n\' \' The Man of Sorrows best understood the nothing- \nness of material life and intelligence, and the mighty \nactuality of all-inclusive Mind. These are the two \ncardinal points of Mind-healing, or Christian Science. \nThe highest earthly representative of God, speaking of \nhuman ability to reflect divine power, prophetically \nsaid to his disciples, \' The works that I do shall ye do \nalso.\' " \n\nThe following extracts from the chapter on Healing \nand Teaching give a fair illustration of its general \ncontents : \n\n\' \' Fear is the foundation of all disease. " * \' Remember \nthat all is Mind. You are only seeing and feeling a \nbelief, whether it be cancer, deformity, consumption, \nor fracture that you deal with." \'^Sickness is a dream \nfrom which the patient needs to be awakened." *\' In- \nstruct the sick that they are not helpless victims ; but \nthat if they only know how, they can resist disease and \nward it off, just as positively as they can a temptation \nto sin. Instead of blind and calm submission to incip- \nient or advanced stages of disease, rise in rebellion \nagainst them." \n\n*^ The depraved appetite for alcoholic drinks, tobacco, \ntea, coffee, opium, is destroyed only by the mastery of \nMind over body." ^*Pufl&ng the obnoxious fumes of \ntobacco, or chewing a leaf naturally attractive to no \nanimal except to a loathsome worm, is self-evident \nerror." *\' Man\'s enslavement to the most relentless \nmasters \xe2\x80\x94 passion, appetite, or malice \xe2\x80\x94 is conquered \nonly by a mighty struggle. . . . Here Christian \nScience is the sovereign panacea, giving to the weak- \nness of mortal mind, strength from the immortal and \n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy and ** Science and Health " 197 \n\nomnipotent Mind, lifting humanity above itself, into \npurer desires, \xe2\x80\x94 even into moral power and good will \nto man/\' \n\n\'*We must have faith in all the sayings of our \nMaster, though they are not included in the teachings \nof the schools, and not understood generally by our \ninstructors in morality. Jesus said (John viii. 52), \n* If a man keep my sayings, he shall never taste of \ndeath.\' " \'\'If man is never to overcome death, why \ndo the Scriptures say, * The last enemy that shall be \ndestroyed is death \' ? " ** Sin brought death, and death \nwill disappear with sin. Man is immortal, and the \nbody cannot die, because it has no life of its own. The \nillusions named death, sickness, and sin are all that \ncan be destroyed. \' \' \n\nIn later editions of Science and Health the chapter \non Healing and Practice is somewhat enlarged, and has \nthe title of Christian Science Practice. Among the \nadded instructions Mrs. Eddy gives to her students in \nit we have the following: ** Until the advancing age \nadmits the efficacy and supremacy of Mind, it is better \nto leave the adjustment of broken bones and disloca- \ntions to the fingers of a surgeon, while you confine \nyourself chiefly to mental reconstruction, and the j)rc- \nvention of inflammation or protracted confinement. \nChristian Science is always the most skilful surgeon, \nbut surgery is the branch of its healing which will be \nlast demonstrated. However, it is but just to say that \nthe author has already in her possession well-authen- \nticated records of the cure, by herself and her students, \nthrough mental surgery alone, of dislocated joints and \nspinal vertebrae." \n\nThe last chapter in many editions of vSciencc and \nHealth is entitled Glossary, in which is given the \n\n\n\nigS The Sphere of Religion \n\nspiritual meaning that words used in the Scriptures \nhave according to Mrs. Eddy. This meaning varies \ngreatly from that ordinarily accepted. One of her \nmaxims is that \' * the literal or material reading is the \nreading of the carnal mind, which is enmity toward \nGod." Even proper nouns, she claims, do not have \nin the Bible their usual significance. For example, \nEuphrates means, *^ Divine Science, encompassing the \nuniverse and man,\'^ *^ Metaphysics, taking the place of \nphysics,\'\' ** a state of sinless mortal thought." Eve is \ndefined as *\' mortality," \'\'a futile belief of life, sub- \nstance, and intelligence in matter," ** self-imposed \nfolly." And of Adam she says : ** Somewhat in this \nway ought Adam to be thought of: as a dam, an ob- \nstruction, as error opposed to truth, \xe2\x80\x94 as standing for \nthat which is accursed, spoiled, or undone." Every- \nthing in the Scriptures, according to Mrs. Eddj^ is \nmisunderstood until it has a spiritual, or what she calls \na ** metaphysical " interpretation, and this she claims \nis found alone in her Key. \n\nThe lyord\'s Prayer, which she requires to be used in \nall Christian Science churches, she spiritually inter- \nprets as follows : \n\n\' \' Principle, eternal and harmonious, \n\nNameless and adorable Intelligence, \n\nThou art ever present and supreme. \n\nAnd when this supremacy of Spirit shall appear, \nthe dream of matter will disappear. \n\nGive us the understanding of Truth and Love. \n\nAnd loving we shall learn God, and Truth will \ndestroy all error. \n\nAnd lead us unto Life that is Soul, and deliver us \nfrom the errors of sense, sin, sickness, and death. \n\nFor God is Life, Truth, and Love forever." \n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy and ** Science and Health \'\' 199 \n\nWith this general summary of the contents of Science \nand Health before us, our next endeavor will be to \nascertain what there was, if anything, in Mrs. Eddy\'s \nearly history that will enable us to account for the \norigin of the book. And the moment we open her \nautobiography, to which she has given the title /?i/ro- \nspectioji and Retrospection^ we find that her exj^eriences \nhave always been in her opinion of the most unusual \nsort. \'* When I was about eight years old," she writes, \n*\'I repeatedly heard a voice, calling me distinctly by \nname three times, in an ascending scale." At first the \nvoice frightened her, but as soon as she learned to an- \nswer the call by replying, *\' Speak, I^ord, for thy ser\\\'ant \nheareth," every fear vanished, and all became peace \nand joy. \n\nIn describing her early education she tells us that \n*\'at ten years of age I was as familiar with Lindlcy \nMurray\'s Grammar as with the Westminster Catechism ; \nand the latter I had to repeat every Sunday. My \nfavorite studies were Natural Philosophy, Logic, and \nMoral Science. From my brother Albert I received \nlessons in the ancient tongues, Hebrew, Greek, and \nLatin." In accounting for the slight evidence of this \nknowledge in her works she says, \'* After my dis- \ncovery of Christian Science, most of the knowledge I \nhad gleaned from schoolbooks vanished like a dream.*\' \n\nJust before she was admitted to the Congregational \n(Trinitarian) Church at the age of twelve, as she tells \nus in a chapter entitled Theological Reminiscences. \n** the doctrine of Unconditional Election or Predesti- \nnation greatly troubled me. ... So perturbed was I \nby the thoughts aroused by this erroneous dcxrtriiie \nthat the family doctor was summoned and pronounced \nme stricken with fever." \n\n\n\n2 00 The Sphere of Religion \n\nWhile in this condition, her father, she says, tried \nhis best to convert her to his man-made creed, but to \nno purpose. On the contrary, \'\' My mother," she con- \ntinues, * \' as she bathed my burning temples, bade me \nlean on God\'s love, which would give me rest, if I \nwent to Him in prayer, as I was wont to do, seeking \nHis guidance. I prayed ; and a soft glow of ineflFable \njoy came over me. The fever was gone, and I rose \nand dressed myself, in a normal condition of health. \nMother saw this and was glad. The physician mar- \nvelled ; and the * horrible decree \' of Predestination \xe2\x80\x94 \nas John Calvin rightly called his own tenet \xe2\x80\x94 forever \nlost its power over me.\'* \n\nOut of this experience and others of a similar char- \nacter grew Mrs. Eddy\'s favorite doctrine of the supe- \nriority of the feminine element in matters of religion. \nWoman she describes as ** a higher term for man." \nShe alone *\' gives the full spiritual compound idea of \nHim who is Life, Truth, and lyove." \'\' She is the first \nto abandon the belief in the material origin of man and \nto discern spiritual creation." It is this quality of \nsuperior spiritual insight that *\' enables woman to be \nfirst to interpret the Scriptures in their true sense." \nJust as *^ Jesus was the offspring of Mary\'s self-conscious \ncommunion with God," so when Divine Science comes \ninto the world, *\' woman must give it birth. It must \nbe begotten of spirituality, since none but the pure in \nheart can see God." \n\nMrs. Eddy\'s doctrine on this subject reaches its \nclimax in the clear intimation, if not the direct asser- \ntion, that she is herself the woman referred to in the \ntwelfth chapter of the Book of Revelation, which opens \nas follows: *\'And there appeared a great wonder in \nheaven ; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon \n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy and \'\' Science and Health \'\' 201 \n\n\n\nunder her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve \nstars/\' \n\n\'\' When quite a child,\'\' she writes, " w^e adopted the \nGraham system for dyspepsia, ate only bread and vege- \ntables, and drank water. Following this diet for years, \nwe became more dyspeptic, however, and, of course, \nthought we must diet more rigidly ; so we partook of \nbut one meal in twenty-four hours, and this consisted \nof a thin slice of bread, about three inches square, \nwithout water; our physician not allowing us, with \nthis ample meal, to wet our parched lips for many \nhours thereafter ; whenever we drank it produced vio- \nlent retchings. Thus we passed most of our early years, \nas many can attest, in hunger, pain, weakness, and \nstarvation." \n\nHere we find most unmistakably one of the cliicf \nsources of Mrs. Eddy\'s ultra opinions so often reiterated \nabout the futility of any attempt to regain health by \nfollowing the law^s of hygiene, or any prescription \nbased upon material science. \n\nFrom this and similar experiences she says herself \nthat she learned to bid defiance to the \'\'medicine- \nmen." ** Metaphysical Science came in and saved \nme." ** Truth, opening my eyes, relieved my stomach, \nand I ate without suffering, giving God thanks." " I \nlearned also that food gives no strength or weakness \nto the body, that mind alone does that." \n\nMrs. Eddy\'s birthplace was in the town of Bow, \nN. H., in sight of her present home at Pleasant View \nin Concord, the capital of the State. While she was \nstill a young girl, her parents moved to Tilton, a village \neighteen miles north of Concord, adjoining the town of \nCanterbury, where there was a flouri.shing settlement \nof Shakers. From them she undoubtedly received \n\n\n\n202 The Sphere of Religion \n\nmany ideas and suggestions that greatly influenced \nher tendencies of thought. The doctrine of * * divine \nillumination," for which the Shakers were famous, she \nmust have become familiar with, as it was one of the \ncurrent topics of conversation in all that region. Her \nbrother Albert worked in the law ofl&ce of Franklin \nPierce (afterward President of the United States), who \nwas counsel for the Shakers, and had charge of an \nimportant trial of some of their number in Concord \nin 1848. \n\nBeing impelled, as she says herself, *^ from my very \nchildhood by a hunger and thirst after divine things, \xe2\x80\x94 \na desire for something higher and better than matter \nand apart from it," she must certainly have read with \navidity the current literature of this ** Church of Jesus \nChrist and Mother Ann," which she could so easily \nobtain from any of her neighbors. In it we find the \nsame outbursts against putting confidence in matter \nthat we find in Science and Health. Both the Shakers \nand Mrs. Eddy reject and almost abhor the literal \ninterpretation of the Bible, and constantly insist that \nthe symbolic interpretation is the only true one. Both \naffirm that the last dispensation will be one of healing \nby spiritual means alone. Both teach that the Second \nComing of Christ must of necessity be in the form of a \nwoman. In fact, if we should take the declaration of \nthe Shakers, as expressed in their Manual, that \n* \' Shakerism is the only religious system that teaches \nScience by Divine Revelation," we should only need \nto change the first word of the sentence to have a \nsatisfactory statement of Mrs. Eddy\'s claim. \n\nMother Ann\'s personal experiences must have made \na deep impression upon Mrs. Eddy, and their lives \nhave much in common. Mrs. Ann lyce Stanley, who \n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy and \'\' Science and Health " 20 \n\n\n\nJ \n\n\n\nhad succeeded to the leadership of the Shaking Quakers \nin England, came to this country with a few of her fol- \nlowers in 1774, and settled in Watervliet, New York, a \nfew miles from Albany. She was acknowledged as a \n*\' Mother in Christ" by her devotees, and early as- \nsumed the title of \'\'Ann, the Word.\'^ She believed \nthat she was constantly inspired from on high, and \nthat she had the power to work miracles. A civil \ncharge was brought against her for high treason and \nwitchcraft, and for some years vShe was imprisoned at \nAlbany and Poughkeepsie. The result of this alleged \npersecution was that her followers rapidly multiplied. \nSettlements were formed in New Hampshire, Connect- \nicut, Ohio, and other States to carry out her doctrines. \nAfter her death it was asserted by many of her followers \nthat messages were received from her both orally and \nin writing. Both Ann Lee and Mrs. Eddy early in \nlife had their heavenly visions. Their extraordinary- \nascetic practices were very similar, and their views \nabout marriage and the motherhood of God were strik- \ningly alike. They both taught their followers to apply \nto them "the endearing term of mother," and they \nboth claimed the possession of superhuman powers. \nFor these and other reasons, the evidence is most \ndecisive that the influence of the one upon the other \nwas direct and intimate. \n\nIn 1843 Mrs. Eddy married her first husband, a Mr. \nGlover, of Charleston, South Carolina, but he died the \nfollowing year, and she returned to the paternal roof in \nTilton to take up afresh her search for health. ** I \nwandered," she says, "through the dim mazes \nof Materia Medica, till I was weary of \'scientific \nguessing,* as it has been called. I .sought knowledge \nfrom the different schools\xe2\x80\x94 Allopathy, Honueopathy, \n\n\n\n204 The Sphere of Religion \n\nHydropathy, Electricity, and from various humbugs \xe2\x80\x94 \nbut without receiving satisfaction. . . . Neither \nancient nor modern philosophy could clear the clouds, \nor give one distinct statement of the spiritual Science \nof Mind-healing. Human reason was not equal to it." \n\nAnother experience that furnished Mrs. Eddy with \nmuch material for Science and Health was her sojourn \nin the sanitarium of P. P. Quimby, a noted mental \nhealer of Portland, Maine. For many years after her \nsecond marriage to Dr. Patterson, she remained an in- \nvalid, and no relief came to her aid until in 1862 she \nwas taken for treatment to Portland. For seven years \nprevious to her going to Quimby, she says in a letter \nquoted by Dr. Riley in his valuable article on **The \nPersonal Sources of Christian Science\'\' {PsychoL Rev,, \nNov., 1903), " I was confined to my bed with a severe \nillness and seldom left my bed or room." So much \ndid he help her that ^\' in less than one week," accord- \ning to her own statement, she ** ascended by a stairway \nof one hundred and eighty- two steps to the dome of the \nCity Hall," and was almost entirely well. \n\nQuimby\' s method of treatment is thus described in \none of his circulars of 1859 : \'* I make no outward ap- \nplication, but simply sit by the patient, tell him what \nhe thinks is his disease, and my explanation is the \ncure. If I succeed in correcting his errors, I change \nthe fluids of his system and establish the truth or \nhealth. The truth is the cure." \n\nMr. Quimby died the 3"ear before Mrs. Eddy made \nwhat she calls her \' \' Great Discovery, \' \' that all is mind \nand mind is all. Of the parallelisms between Mrs. \nEddy\'s views as found in Science and Health and \nQuimby\' s. Dr. Riley in the article quoted above writes \nas follows : \'\' At first sight Eddyism might seem noth- \n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy and \'\' Science and Health " 205 \n\ning but Quimbyism. He taught a \' Science of \nHealth \' ; she wrote \' Science and Health \' ; both em- \nployed the tenn Christian Science. Again, Mrs. Eddy \nhas her reversed statements, propositions which are \noflFered as self-evident because they read backward. \nShe propounds this concatenation : \' There is no pain \nin Truth, and no Truth in pain ; no matter in mind, \nand no mind in matter ; no nerve in Intelligence, and \nno Intelligence in nerve ; no matter in Spirit, and no \nSpirit in matter.\' Similar patent reversibles are to be \nfound in Quimby\'s * Science of Man \' : \' Error is sick- \nness, Truth is health ; Error is matter, Truth is God ; \nGod is right, error is wrong.\' *\' \n\nIt is beyond reasonable doubt that both Mr. Quimby \nand Mrs. Eddy got many of their ideas from the books \nin common circulation in their day dealing with the \nsubjects in which they had a deep personal interest. \nAnd it is nothing to their discredit that such was the \ncase. Durant\'s New Theory of Animal Magnetism, \nwith a Key to the Mysteries, was a book that then \nhad many readers. Dr. Dod\'s book on the Philo- \nsophy of Electrical Psychology must have been fre- \nquently at hand, to say nothing of Grimes\'s Mys- \nteries of Human Nature, of which almost ever>\'body \nin that day had something to say pro or con. \n\nFurthermore, Mrs. Eddy repeatedly refers to her \nexperiences with Homoeopathy as greatly influencing \nher views. \'\'I found," she says, in her diapter on \nIntrospection and Retrospection, *\' in the two hundred \nand sixty-two remedies enumerated by Jahr, one jkt- \nvading secret, \xe2\x80\x94 namely, that the less material medicine \nwe have, and the more mind, the better the work \nis done ; a fact which seems to prove the principle of \nMind-healing. One drop of the thirtieth attenuation \n\n\n\n2o6 The Sphere of Religion \n\nof Natrum Muriaticum, in a tumblerful of water, and \none teaspoonful of the water mixed with the faith of \nages, wotdd cure patients not aflfected by a larger \ndose/\' \n\nWith these numerous sources to draw from, we can- \nnot admit Mrs, Eddy\'s assertion that what she calls \n\'*The Precious Volume" is \'\'hopelessly original," \nand that all other systems of mental healing are pla- \ngiarisms from it. Much less can we assent to her pre- \nposterous claim when she says: ** I should blush to \nwrite of Science and Health, with Key to the Scrip- \ntures, as I have done, were it of human origin, and I, \napart from God, its author ; but as I was only a scribe, \nechoing the harmonies of Heaven in divine meta- \nphysics, I cannot be supermodest of the Christian \nScience text-book. \' \' \n\nThe work before us plainly grew up out of Mrs. \nEddy\'s peculiar experiences and environment. It is \nthe product of the application of her own natural \npowers to the data thus acquired, and its value ought \nto be determined by just the same tests as we apply to \nall similar products, namely, by the success with which \nit accounts for all the actual facts. \n\nNow nothing is better established by observation and \nexperiment than that the mind under certain condi- \ntions can to a remarkable degree affect the activities of \nthe body. Great mental excitement has often made \npeople insensible to what would otherwise have \nbeen excruciating pain. Paralytics in numerous in- \nstances have risen from their beds and fled unaided \nfrom burning buildings. Many persons have brought \non sickness and death by the morbid dread of certain \ndiseases. Others have maintained themselves in health \nand strength against extraordinary odds by a cheerful \n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy and \'\' Science and Health " 207 \n\nand hopeful spirit. These facts have been noted almost \nfrom the dawn of history, and are made use of to-day \nby the Hottentots of South Africa as well as by the \nmost refined and cultivated people of the globe. \n\nAs Professor Angell has expressed it in his excellent \ndiscussion of " Christian Science from a Psychologist\'s \nPoint of View\'\' i^The World To-day^ April, 1905). \n** Mesmerists, hypnotists, Christian Scientists, faith \ncurists, mental healers, medicine-men, priests, saints, \nand physicians, one and all succeed, by playing upon \nthe imagination, in producing remarkable changes in \nbodily health." Suggestive therapeutics has undoubt- \nedly healed a long list of diseases, all the way from in- \nsomnia and neuralgia up to alcoholism and asthma in \nsome of its worst forms. It has also greatly mitigated \nthe distressing symptoms of other troubles in which the \nnervous system plays an important part. But there is \nlittle or no proof that the diseases caused by bacilli, \nsuch as typhoid fever, smallpox, and bubonic plague, \nor cases of fracture, can be helped in this manner. \n\nMrs. Eddy is right in appealing to religion in the \ncare of the body as well as of the soul. For ** religious \nenthusiasm has always been one of the most effective \nspurs to human action," and only the greatest good \ncan come from urging the patient to commit himself \nunreservedly to the kindly purposes of God. But there \nis not a particle of reason in this position for holding \neither that there is no body, or that disease has no \nexistence at all. \n\nThe fact that we may sometimes be in a condition iu \nwhich we are not thinking of our bodies, does not prove \nthat we never had any. Because we may sometimes \nbe ignorant of the existence of a disease, that should \nnot argue that we have established the non-existence \n\n\n\n2o8 The Sphere of ReltgioJi \n\nof all disease. Xor have we an\\^ ground for holding \nthat sin, sickness, and death have the same relation to \nrealit}\' that darkness has to hght, as Mrs. Eddy con- \nstantty asserts. Darkness is mereh^ the absence of \nlight, but sin is not merely the absence of goodness. \nSin is the product of a bad intention, and a bad inten- \ntion is just as real as a good intention. Sickness is not \nmerel}^ the absence of the idea of health. It is a dis- \nordered condition of the body and is just as real as a \nwell-ordered condition, which is health. \n\nMoreover, our knowledge of our individual existence \nis to us the most fundamental fact in the universe. We \ncannot consider ourselves as the mere idea of some other \nbeing, even of God. Nor can we regard God as all-in- \nall in the sense in which Mrs. Eddy regards him, \xe2\x80\x94 as \nthe sum-total of the universe, \xe2\x80\x94 although we can talk \nabout such a being just as we can talk about round \nsquares and quadrilateral triangles. \n\nThe position taken in Science and Health ignores the \nteachings of histor}\'. Mrs. Eddy has recently said in a \nletter to the New York. A merica7i, dated Nov. 22, 1906: \n\'\'I do not find my authority for Christian Science in \nhistory-, but in revelation. If there had never been such \na person as the Gahlean Prophet, it would make no \ndifference to me. \' \' \n\nIt is equally at variance with Mrs. Edd3\'\'s position to \nlook through nature up to God. As there is no such \nthing as matter, the heavens for her do not declare the \nglor}\' of God, nor does the firmament show forth his \nhandiwork. There is nothing to be learned b}\' con- \nsidering the lilies of the field or the fowls of the air. \nJust as we must reject Mrs. Eddy\'s psycholog>^ as an \nunjustifiable exaggeration and per\\\'ersion of a great \ntruth, so we must refuse to accept her one-sided con- \n\n\n\n1 \n\n\n\nMrs, Eddy and \'\' Science and Health " 209 \n\nception of the universe in which we live and its relation \nto our Maker. \n\nMost emphatically ought we to protest against the \nclaim she makes in her Miscellaneous Writings (p. 364) \nfor Christian Science that \'\'it is the soul of divine \nphilosophy and there is no other philosophy. It is not \na search after wisdom, it is wisdom : it is God\'s right \nhand grasping the universe." \n\nThere is much ground for the statement of an able \nand careful critic of Christian Science that the proper \npoint of view from which to judge of Mrs. Eddy\'s con- \ntribution to the cause of religion is to be found in the \nanalysis of her own statement: *\' I am a Christian Scien- \ntist, the Founder of this System of Religion,\xe2\x80\x94 widely \nknown, one readily sees that this science has distanced \nall other religions and pathological systems for physical \nand moral reformation." \n\nIn spite of all this egotism and misrepresentation of \nthe truth, it must be admitted that Christian Science \nhas an important message for this present materialistic \nage ; for it emphasizes the fact that the mental and \nspiritual things in this universe are vastly more impor- \ntant than the material, and that the most fundamental \ntruths with which we have to do are not obtained through \nthe senses, but are immediately discerned. It makes \nvivid the fact that man is not a mere machine, or a slave \nof the body, but a living spirit ; and it brings promi- \nnently to view the much neglected truth that the mission \nof religion is to purify and ennoble the l)ody as well as \nthe soul. \n\nChristian Science is not by any means to be regarded \nas a delusion and a snare. The way to make it useful \nto the religious progress of mankind, as a writer in the \nOutlook (June 23, 1906) has well said, is **to leach \n\n\n\n2 1 o The Sphere of Religion \n\nwith greater clearness and power the three truths of \nwhich its votaries regard themselves as peculiar proph- \nets, namely, the spiritual nature of man, the imme- \ndiacy of the soul\'s knowledge of the spiritual world, \nand the curative power of Christianity ; and to teach \nthese truths freed from the accompanying errors of \nChristian Science that the body is but a shadow, \nspiritual visions are infallible guides, and the cure of \nevil, whether moral or physical, is thinking that it \ndoes not exist." \n\nm. Madame Blavatsky\'s " Isis Unveiled." \xe2\x80\x94 It \nis a striking fact that during the same period of time \nin which Mrs. Mary Baker G. Eddy was strenuously \nlaboring to place the Christian Science religion upon \na firm foundation in and around Boston, a Russian \nnoblewoman, by the name of Madame Helena P. \nBlavatsky, was working with even greater zeal and \nenergy to establish Theosophy, or the \'\' Wisdom \nreligion," in New York. \n\nMrs. Eddy had been brought up very simply in the \ncountry, and had spent her life almost wholly in a \nsmall portion of New England. Madame Blavatsky \nwas a typical cosmopolitan, having from her girlhood \nbeen a great traveller, and having acquainted herself, \nby actual contact, with the people and customs of a \nlarge portion of the globe. \n\nBoth of these women claimed to be directed by \nsuperhuman powers and to speak with an authority \nnot born of the earth. The text-book prepared by \nMrs. Eddy for her followers was entitled Science and \nHealth, with Key to the Scriptures. Madame Blavat- \nsky called her work Isis Unveiled ; a Master-key to \nthe Mysteries of Ancient and Modern Science and \nTheology, The former bible was published in 1875; \n\n\n\nMadame Blavatsky s \'\' Isis U7iveiled\'\' 211 \n\nthe latter in 1876. Very few copies of Science and \nHealth were sold for months after its issue. The en- \ntire first edition of his Unveiled was taken up within \nfourteen days. \n\nThe circumstances that led Madame Blavatsky to \nthe writing of his Unveiled are substantially as fol- \nlows : Alone and with very little money she landed in \nNew York on the 7th of July, 1873, having crossed the \nAtlantic on a French steamship sailing from Ha\\Te. \nFor several weeks after her arrival she had lodgings in \na cheap east-side tenement-house, and supported her- \nself by sewing cravats for a Hebrew shopkeeper near \nher quarters. \n\nAs soon as her family found out her whereabouts \nthrough the Russian consul in New York, they sent \nher ample means to establish herself in comfort at \n16 Irving Place, near Union Square, where she was \nsoon surrounded by a large circle of admirers. To \nthem she entrusted the fact that she had left Paris \non a day\'s notice by order of certain Tibetan *\'Ma- \nhatmas\'* or ** Masters," residing in the fastnesses of \nthe Himalayas, who had directed her to go at once \nto New York and await further orders. \n\nDuring the first year of her residence in America she \ndevoted her energies to the ardent defence of Spiritual- \nism from the many fierce attacks to which it was at \nthat time subjected, owing to the remarkable mani- \nfestations being given through the Fox sisters in and \naround Rochester, N. Y. In a letter to The Spiritualist \nin 1874 she wrote : ** For over fifteen years have I \nfought my battle for the blessed truth ; have travelled \nand preached it \xe2\x80\x94 though I never was bom for a lec- \nturer\xe2\x80\x94from the snow-covered tops of the Caucasian \nMountains as well as from the sandy valleys of the \n\n\n\n2 12 The Sphere of Religion \n\nNile. I have proved the truth of it practically and by \npersuasion. For the sake of Spiritualism I have left \nm}\'- home, an easy life amongst a civilized society, and \nhave become a wanderer upon the face of the earth. \n. . . Knowing this country to be the cradle of Modem \nSpiritualism, I came over here from France with feel- \nings not unlike those of a Mohammedan approaching \nthe birthplace of his Prophet/* \n\nMadame Blavatsky did not, however, adopt the \nspiritualistic explanation of the phenomena produced. \nIn a note found in one of her scrap-books written about \nthis time, referring to her connection with the Spirit- \nualists, she says : ** I was sent from Paris to America \non purpose to prove the phenomena and their reality, \nand to show the fallacy of the spiritualistic theory of \nspirits. But how could I do it best? I did not want \nthe people at large to know that I could produce the \nsame things at will. I had received orders to the con- \ntrary.\'\' In another note, written shortly after the one \njust quoted, we read : \'\' Ordered to begin telling the \npublic the truth about the phenomena and their me- \ndiums, and now my martyrdom will begin. I shall \nhave all the Spiritualists against me in addition to the \nChristians and the Sceptics. Thy will, oh M., be \ndone. H. P. B." \n\nBy a strange coincidence, only a few months after \nMadame Blavatsky \'s appearance in America some very \nremarkable spiritualistic phenomena began to manifest \nthemselves at the farmhouse of the Eddy famil}^ in \nthe town of Chittenden, Vermont. Visitors alleged \nthat through the help of William Eddy, one of the two \nilliterate, hard-working brothers who owned the place, \nthey could see, and even touch and converse with, de- \nceased relatives, and that other experiences of an \n\n\n\nMadame Blavatsky s \'\'his Utiveiled\'^ 213 \n\nequally extraordinary character frequently occurred in \nhis presence. People soon began to flock to the town \nfrom all parts of the country. \n\nAmong others to come to the place was Colonel Henry \nS. Olcott, an eminent lawyer of New York, who after a \ncareful examination pronounced the phenomena gen- \nuine and wrote extensive descriptions of them for the \nNew York Daily Graphic, On reading these reports of \nthe so-called *\' Eddy ghosts" at Chittenden, Madame \nBlavatsky at once hastened thither, and there met \nthe author of the articles in the Daily Graphic, with \nwhom she maintained from that time forth the closest \nrelations. \n\nColonel Olcott opens his recent book. Old Diary \nLeaves ; a True History of the Theosophical Society, with \nthis description of their first meeting : " Since I am to \ntell of the birth and progress of the Theosophical So- \nciety, I must begin at the beginning, and tell how its \ntwo founders first met. It was a very prosaic incident ; \nI said \' Permettez-inoi, Madame,\'\' and gave her a \nlight for her cigarette ; our acquaintance began in \nsmoke, but it stirred up a great and permanent fire \'* \n\n(p- 1)- \n\nImmediately after the arrival of Madame Blavatsky, \nor H. P. B., as she preferred to be called, the phe- \nnomena at the Eddy homestead underwent a marked \nchange in their character. From the small closet in \nwhich William Eddy secreted himself at the beginning \nof the seances there issued not only the phantoms of \ndead men and women once known in that locality, but \nthose of other nationalities, such as a Russian peasant \ngirl, a mussulman from Tiflis, a Kourdish cavalier \nvvitli scimitar, pistols, and lance, a hideous negro sor- \ncercr from Africa, and the like. "There was ^nven,** \n\n\n\n214 "The Sphere of Religion \n\nsays Colonel Olcott, \'* to every eye-witness a convincing \nproof that the apparitions were genuine \'\' (p. 8). \n\nAfter some days at Chittenden, Madame Blavatsky \nreturned to New York. Colonel Olcott soon joined her \nand became one of her most devoted pupils in the study \nof eastern occult religion. Together with a number \nof mutual friends, they formed in 1875 the Theosophi- \ncal Society, of which Colonel Olcott was chosen presi- \ndent, an office w^hich he held to the day of his death in \n1907. The object of the society was to acquaint its \nmembers with the original occult sources of religion \nand establish a universal brotherhood of man. It took \nfor its motto that of the Maharajah of Benares, " There \nis no Religion higher than Truth. \' ^ Madame Blavatsky \nbeyond all question was the originator of the new \nmovement and its undisputed leader and head. Ac- \ncording to Colonel Olcott, she offered almost daily \nmany infallible proofs that she was endowed with \nsuperhuman powers. \n\nThe following are samples of those he has recorded \nas occurring at this early period of her career in Amer- \nica : \'* Among her callers was an Italian artist, a \nSignor B., formerly a carbonaro. I was sitting alone \nwith her in her drawing-room when he made his first \nvisit. They talked of Italian affairs, and he suddenly \npronounced the name of one of the greatest of the \nAdepts. She started as if she had received an electric \nshock ; looked him straight in the eyes and said (in \nItalian), \' What is it? I am ready.* He passed it off \ncarelessly, but thenceforth the talk was all about \nMagic, Magicians, Adepts. Signor B. went and opened \none of the French windows, made some beckoning \npasses toward the outer air, and presently a pure white \nbutterfly came into the room, and went flying about \n\n\n\nMadame B lav at sky s \'\'his Unveiled\'\' 215 \n\nnear the ceiling. H. P. B. laughed in a cheerful way \nand said : \' That is pretty, but I can also do it ! \' She, \ntoo, opened the window, made similar beckoning \npasses, and presently a second white butterfly came \nfluttering in. It mounted to the ceiling, chased the \nother around the room, played with it now and then, \nwith it flew to a corner, and, presto ! both disappeared \nat once while we are looking at them. \' What does \nthat mean ? \' I asked. * Only this, that Signor B. can \nmake an elemental turn itself into a butterfly and so \ncan I.\'" \n\n\'\'One cold winter\'s night, when several inches of \nsnow lay upon the ground, she and I were working upon \nher book until a late hour at her rooms in Thirty-fourth \nStreet. I had eaten some saltish food for dinner, and \nabout I A.M., feeling very thirsty, said to her, * Would \nit not be nice to have some hot-house grapes ?\' So it \nwould, \' she replied, \' let us have some. \' \' But the shops \nhave been closed for hours and we can buy none,\' I \nsaid. * No matter, we shall have them all the same.\' \nwas her reply. \' But how ?\' \' I will show you, if you \nwill just turn down that gaslight on the table in front \nof us.\' I turned the cock unintentionally so far around \nas to extinguish the light. \' You need not have done \nthat,\' she said, \' I only wanted you to make the light \ndim. However, light it again quickly.\' Abox of matches \nlay just at hand, and in a moment I had relit the lamp. \n* See !\' she exclaimed, pointing to a hanging book sliclf \non the wall before us. To my amazement there hung \nfrom the knobs at the two ends of one of the shelves \ntwo large bunches of ripe Hamburg grapes, which we \nproceeded to eat. To my question as to the agency \nemployed, she said it was done by certain elcmcntals \nunder her control " (pp. 15-17). \n\n\n\n2 1 6 The Sphere of Religion \n\nAccording to the account we have of the matter, \nMadame Blavatsky began writing, quite unconscious of \nthe real nature of her task. \n\n*\'One day in the summer of 1875, H. P. B. showed me," \nsays Colonel Olcott, \'\' some sheets of manuscript which \nshe had written and said : \' I wrote this last night "by \norder," but what the deuce it is to be I don\'t know. \nPerhaps it is for a newspaper article, perhaps for a book, \nperhaps for nothing ; anyhow, I did as I was ordered\' " \n(p. 202). After he had looked at it she threw the MS. \ninto her desk, and nothing more was said about the \nmatter until her return from a visit to her friends. Prof, \nand Mrs. Corson of Cornell University, a few months \nlater. Encouraged by them, she took up the task of \nwriting out what her Masters made known to her, and \nshe kept at it with prodigious and unrelenting energy \nuntil the fall of 1876, when his Unveiled, consisting of \ntwo large volumes of over 600 pages each, was placed \nin the hands of the printer. \n\nIn a letter to one of her family in Russia quoted by \nA. P. Smnett{Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky, \npp. 205-206) she says: " When I wrote * Isis,\' I wrote \nit so easily that it certainly was no labor, but a real plea- \nsure. Why should I be praised for it ? Whenever I am \ntold to write, I sit down and obey, and then I can write \neasily upon almost anything, \xe2\x80\x94 metaphysics, psychol- \nogy, philosophy, ancient religions, zoology, natural \nsciences, or what not. I never put myself the question, \n* Can I write on this subject ? . . . \' or * Am I equal \nto the task,\' but I simply sit down and write. Why? \nBecause somebody who knows all dictates to me. ... I \ntell you candidly that whenever I write upon a subject \nI know little or nothing of, I address myself to them \n[the Mahatmas], and one of them inspires me ; 2. ^., he \n\n\n\n\n\n\nMadame Blavatskys \'\' Isis Unveiled\'\' 2 1 7 \n\nallows me to simply copy what I write from manuscripts \nand even printed matter that pass before my eyes in the \nair, during which process I have never been unconscious \none single instant. ... It is that knowledge of His \nprotection and faith in His power that have enabled me \nto become mentally and spiritually so strong. \' \' \n\nIn another letter to her sister she says : " I certainly \nrefuse point-blank to attribute it [the book] to my own \nknowledge or memory, for I could never arrive alone \nat either such premises or conclusions. ... I tell \nyou seriously I am helped, and he who helps me is my \nGuru.\'* \n\nCol. Olcott asserts that many pages of the book were \nthus written for her, a *\' foreign entity " making use of \nher organism or *\' shell" while she was asleep. He \nrefers to the beginning of the chapter on the civilization \nof ancient Egypt (vol. i., chap, xiv.) as an illustration \nof the passages composed in this manner. Another large \npartof the subject-matter of Isis, he maintains, could have \nbeen drawn from no other source than \'\'from the Astral \nLight \' \' over which she had such a wonderful control. \n\nThe first volume oi Isis Unveiled is devoted to ** Sci- \nence " and the second to \'\' Religion," but no one claims \nthat either volume has any definite plan or logical ar- \nrangement of material. All admit that many passages \nunder "Science" might equally well be put under \n*\' Religion" and that many parts of " Religion " might \nmore appropriately come in volume i. This is accounted \nfor to the satisfaction of Madame Blavatsky\'s disciples \nby the statement that she wrote down the communi- \ncations as they were made to licr, logical consistency \nnot being considered in the matter. \n\nIn the preface to tlie first volume of Isis Unveiled, \nMadame Blavatsky tells us that " when, years ago, we \n\n\n\n2 1 8 The Sphere of Religion \n\nfirst travelled over the East, exploring the penetralia \nof its deserted sanctuaries, two saddening and ever- \nrecurring questions oppressed our thoughts ; where, \nwho, what is God ? Who ever saw the immortal spirit \nof man, so as to be able to assure himself of man\'s \nimmortality ? \n\n\' * It was while most anxious to solve these perplexing \nproblems that we came into contact wdth certain men, \nendowed with such mysterious powers and such pro- \nfound knowledge that we may truly designate them as \nthe sages of the Orient. To their instructions we lent \na ready ear. They showed us that by combining \nscience with religion, the existence of God and im- \nmortality of man\'s spirit may be demonstrated like a \nproblem in Euclid . , , ex nihilo nihil fit ; prove the \nsoul of man by its wondrous powers \xe2\x80\x94 you have proved \nGod.^^ \n\n*\' In our studies," she continues, "mysteries w^ere \nshown to be no mysteries. Names and places that to \nthe Western mind have only a significance derived \nfrom Eastern fable were shown to be realities. Rev- \nerently we stepped in spirit within the temple of Isis, to \nlift aside the veil of * the one that is and was and shall \nbe \' at Sais ; to look through the rent curtain of the \nSanctum Sanctorum at Jerusalem ; and even to inter- \nrogate within the crypts which once existed beneath \nthe sacred edifice the mysterious Bath-Kol." \n\nFollowing the preface comes a section consisting of \nabout forty pages, entitled \' * Before the Veil, \' \' in which \nMadame Blavatsky claims that the present chaotic state \nof aff\'airs in all lands on the subject of religion is wholly \ndue to the fact that the modem world is unwilling \nto follow the wisdom handed down to us from the \nprehistoric sages of the Far East. \n\n\n\n\nMadame Blavatskys \'\'his Unveiled\'\' 219 \n\nThe greatest revealer of divine truths within the \npast twenty-five centuries, she declares, was Plato, and \nhe "mirrored faithfully in his works the spiritualism \nof the Vedic philosophers who lived and wrote thou- \nsands of years before his day, and its metaphysical \nexpression. Nyasa, Djeming, Kapila, Vrihaspati, Su- \nmati, and so many others will be found to have trans- \nmitted their indelible imprint though the interv^ening \ncenturies upon Plato and his school " (p. xi.). \n\nThey all sought for the truly real, the always- \nexisting, the permanent as distinguished from the \nfleeting and transitory, and they found it in God as \nthe first principle of all principles, the Supreme Idea \nupon which all other ideas are grounded, the ultimate \nsubstance from which all things derive their being and \nessence. With these sages God is discernible only by \nthe elect, by those who have prepared themselves by a \nrigid discipline of the mind and body to receive him. \n*\'This," saj\'S Madame Blavatsky, **was also the \nteaching of Jesus, one of the greatest of the The- \nosophists, who said to his little circle of chosen dis- \nciples, * To you it is given to know the mysteries of \nthe Kingdom of God, but to them [the uninitiated \nmasses] it is not given.\' " \n\nAmong the ancient institutions that Madame Blavat- \nsky highly extols are the Eleusinian Mysteries of the \nGreeks. These she regards as the type of all true \nreligion, and claims that only those who have passed \nthrough such an initiation as they prescribe are fitted \nto have *\' friendship and interior communication with \nGod, and the enjoyment of that felicity which arises \nfrom intimate converse with divine l^eings.\'* \n\nMany pages of this section of her bo<^k Madame \nBlavatsky devotes to an explanation of tlie unusual \n\n\n\n2 2 o The Sphere of Religion \n\nterms she makes use of. The following are a few of \nthem : \' \' ^throbacy is the Greek name for walking or \nbeing lifted in the air ; levitation, so-called, among \nmodern spiritualists. It may be either conscious or \nunconscious. . . .*\' ** Were our physicians to experi- \nment on such levitated subjects, it would be found that \nthey are strongly charged with a similar form of elec- \ntricity to that of the spot which, according to the law \nof gravitation, ought to attract them, or rather prevent \ntheir levitation. And, if some physical nervous dis- \norder, as well as spiritual ecstasy, produce uncon- \nsciously to the subject the same effects, it proves that \nif this force in nature were properly studied, it could \nbe regulated at will." \n\n** Everything pertaining to the spiritual world must \ncome to us through the stars, and if we are in friend- \nship with them, we may attain the greatest magical \neffects." \n\n\'\'The Astral lyight is identical with the Hindu \nAkasa. . . . The language of the Vedas shows \nthat the Hindus of fifty centuries ago ascribed to it the \nsame properties as do the Thibetan lamas of the present \nday. That they regarded it as the source of life, the \nreservoir of all energy, and the propeller of every \nchange of matter." \'* The Brahmanical expression \' to \nstir up the Brahma,\' means to stir up this power. . . . \nThis is the evident origin of the Christian dogma of \ntransubstantiation/ \' \n\n" Elemental spirits " are \'* the creatures evolved in \nthe four kingdoms of earth, air, fire, and water, and \ncalled by the kabalists gnomes, sylphs, salamanders, \nand undines. They may be termed the forces of na- \nture, and will either operate effects as the servile agents \nof general law, or may be employed by the disembodied \n\n\n\nMada^ne Blavatskys \'\'his Unveiled\'\' 221 \n\nspirits \xe2\x80\x94 whether pure or impure \xe2\x80\x94 and by living adepts \nof magic and sorcery, to produce desired phenomenal \nresults. Such beings never become men. \nThey have been seen, feared, blessed, banned, and in- \nvoked in every quarter of the globe and in every age. \n. . . These elementals are the principal agents \nof disembodied but never visible spirits at seances, \nand the producers of all the phenomena except the \nsubjective." \n\nMadame Blavatsky strongly commends the fakirs of \nIndia, who generally are attached to the Brahmanical \npagodas and practise the laws of Manu. She says of \nthem that they are so genuinely devoted to religion \nthat they go about almost naked, carrying only a \nfew such objects as a tiny flute for charming ser- \npents, and a magical bamboo-rod, about a foot long, \nwith the seven mystical knots upon it. These they \nconceal in their long hair when they are not in use. \nNo fakir will allow any one to take his rod from him, \nbecause he received it from his guru on the day of his \ninitiation, and he produces all of his marvellous occult \nphenomena through its power. The self-imposed pun- \nishments he inflicts upon himself, such as flaying the \nlimbs alive, cutting off the toes or feet, tearing out the \neyes, immensely hasten the development of his relig- \nious life. He thus attains such a high degree of saint- \nhood that he will laugh to scorn every imaginable \ntorture, persuaded that the more his outer body is \nmortified, the brighter and holier becomes his inner, \nspiritual body. \n\nMadame Blavatsky makes much of the word ** Her- \nmetic," which she defines as coming "from Hermes, \nthe god of Wisdom, known in I?gy[>t, vSyria, and \nPlKL-nicia, as Tliot, Tat. Adad, vSctli, Sat an (the latter \n\n\n\nI \n\n\n\n2i2 2 The Sphere of Religion \n\nnot to be taken in the sense applied to it by Moslems \nand Christians), and in Greece as Kadmus/\' He is \nknown in Egypt as \' \' the friend and instructor of Isis \nand Osiris." \n\n*\' Initiates," according to Madame Blavatsky, meant \n\'\'in times of antiquity those who had been initiated \ninto the arcane knowledge taught by the hierophants \nof the Mysteries ; and in our modern days those w^ho \nhave been initiated by the adepts of mystic lore into \nthe mysterious knowledge, which, notwithstanding the \nlapse of ages, has yet a few real votaries on the earth." \n\nBefore concluding this introduction, Madame Bla- \nvatsky summarizes the two remaining sections of her \nwork with the following statement : " In undertaking \nto inquire into the assumed infallibility of Modern \nScience and Theology, the author has been forced, \neven at the risk of being thought discursive, to make \nconstant comparison of the ideas, achievements, and \npretensions of their representatives, wdth those of the \nancient philosophers and religious teachers. . . . \nWe wish to show how inevitable were their innumer- \nable failures, and how they must continue until these \npretended authorities of the West go to the Brahmans \nand Lamaists of the Far Orient, and respectfully ask \nthem to impart the alphabet of true science. \' ^ \n\nThe first of these sections begins with these w^ords : \n\'\'There exists somewhere in this wide w^orld an old \nbook, \xe2\x80\x94 so very old that our modern antiquarians might \nponder over its pages an indefinite time, and still not \nquite agree as to the nature of the fabric upon which \nit is written. It is the only original copy now in \nexistence. \n\n\' \' The most ancient Hebrew document on occult learn- \ning \xe2\x80\x94 the Siphra Dzeniouta \xe2\x80\x94 was compiled from it, and \n\n\n\nMadame Blavatskys \'\' his Unveiled\'\' 223 \n\nthat at a time when the former was already considered \nin the light of a literary relic.\'* \n\nThe following extracts fairly illustrate the character \nand contents of this so-called scientific section of the \nwork. *\' A conviction founded upon seventy thousand \nyears of experience, as they allege, has been entertained \nby Hermetic philosophers of all periods that matter has \nin time become, through sin, more gross and dense than \nit was at man\'s first formation ; that at the beginning, \nthe human body was of a half-ethereal nature ; and that, \nbefore the fall, mankind communed freely with now \nunseen universes." "The same belief in the pre-ex- \nistence of a far more spiritual race than the one to which \nwe now belong can be traced back to the earliest tra- \nditions of nearly every people. In the ancient Quiche \nmanuscript, published by Brasseur de Bourbourg \xe2\x80\x94 the \nPopol Vuh, \xe2\x80\x94 the first men are mentioned as a race that \ncould reason and speak, whose sight was unlimited, and \nwho knew all things at once. . . . And the unequi- \nvocal statement of the anonymous Gnostic who wrote \nthe Gospel according to John that \' as many as received \nHim,\' i.e., who followed practically the esoteric doc- \ntrine of Jesus, would \' become the sons of God,\' points \nto the same belief. . . . From the remotest periods \nreligious philosophies taught that the whole universe \nwas filled with divine and spiritual beings of divers \nraces. From one of these evolved, in course of time, \nAdam, the primitive man." \n\nAt the outset of the second volume, Madame Blavat- \nsky asserts that every Christian doctrine had its origin \nin a lieathen rite, and says that wliat she undertakes to \ndo is " to compare the Christian dogmas and miracles \nwith tlie doctrines and phenomena of ancient niai^ic." \n\n*\' Tlicrr ncv\'fr was," slic declares, " nor e\\ cr will he \n\n\n\n2 24 The Sphere of Religion \n\na truly philosophical mind, whether Pagan, heathen, \nJew, or Christian, but has followed the same line of \nthought. Gautama-Buddha is mirrored in the precepts \nof Christ ; Paul and Philo Judaeus are faithful echoes \nof Plato ; and Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus won their \nimmortal fame by combining the teachings of all these \ngr at masters of true philosophy \'\' (p. 84). \n\nThe subsequent pages of the work attempt to vindi- \ncate this assertion. By copious quotations from the \nwritings of a great array of religious leaders, ancient and \nmodern, she undertakes to show that all true doctrines \nin religion have come down to us from a pre- Buddhistic \nrace of beings, and are not in any sense the product of \nmodern thought. \n\nIn order more fully to explain her views, Madame \nBlavatsky followed his Unveiled with another larger \nwork, entitled The Secret Doctrine, But as neither \nwork sets forth any definite notions as to her positive \nreligious beliefs she prepared a hand-book for her dis- \nciples with the title. The Key to Theosophy. To show \nwhat modern Theosophy really claims to be, we quote \na few passages from this work : \n\n*\' Theosophy is Divine Wisdom, such as that possessed \nby the gods." \n\n** We believe in a Universal Divine Principle, the root \nof All, from which all proceeds, and within which all \nshall be absorbed at the end of the great cycle of Being." \n*\' When we speak of the Deity and make it identical, \nhence coeval, with Nature, the eternal and uncreated \nnature is meant." \n\n\' \' An Occultist or a Theosophist addresses his prayer \nto his Father which is in secret . . . and that * Father ^ \nis in man himself." \'^ The inner man is the only God \nwe have cognizance of. " \n\n\n\nMadame B lav at sky\'s \'\' Isis Unveiled\'\' 225 \n\n\'\'Our philosophy teaches us that as there are seven \nfundamental forces in nature, and seven planes of being, \nso there are seven states of consciousness in which man \ncan live, think, remember, and have his being " (p. 89). \n\nThese " seven planes of being " vary all the way from \nthat of the rupa or physical body up to the atma or pure \nspirit. \n\n\'\' The spiritual ego can act only when the personal \nego is paralyzed. . . . Could the former manifest \nitself uninterruptedly, and without impediment, there \nwould be no longer men on earth, but we should all be \ngods\'\' (p. 131). By the proper training of his faculties \nman passes from the Lower to the Higher Life in ac- \ncordance with the law of Karma, or \'\' the universal law \nof retributive justice. \' \' \n\n*\'Theosophy considers humanity as an emanation \nfrom divinity on its return path thereto. At an advanced \npoint upon the path, Adeptship is reached by those \nwho have devoted several incarnations to its achieve- \nment\'* (p. 217). \n\nThe chief duty of a Theosophist is \'\'to control and \nconquer through the higher, the lower self. To purify \nhimself inwardly and morally ; to fear no one and \nnought, save the tribunal of his own conscience" \n(p. 241). \n\nMadame Blavatsky, whose maiden name was Helena \nPetrovna Hahn, was born in the southern part ot \nRussia, of noble and wealthy parents, July 31, 1831. \nShe was a bright, excitable, and erratic child, with a \nstrength of body far beyond her years. According to \nthe recently published letters of her sister, she was \nfrequently doing things in the presence of her playmates \nthat were beyond the ken of man to understand. \n\nAt sevtMitiH\'ii years of age she ni:nrir(l a prominent \n15 \n\n\n\n2 2 6 The Sphere of Religion \n\ncouncillor of state, but lived with her husband only a \nfew weeks, when they separated by mutual consent. \nEntirely dissatisfied with the traditional and formal \nreligion of her country, and impelled by a genuine \ndesire to know more about the extraordinary religious \nexperiences of the Orient, of which she had often heard, \nshe left her home and went to India. Although igno- \nrant of the language and customs of the country, she \nspent several years in penetrating almost every nook \nand corner of the Orient in search of ancient mysteries \nand sacred lore. She seems to have been almost wholly \ndependent upon what was told her, and beyond ques- \ntion she was often radically misled by those with whom \nshe came in contact. \n\nIn 1 85 1 she visited Quebec to study the Indians in \nthat vicinity, and then went to New Orleans to ac- \nquaint herself with the Voodoos. From there she went \nto Mexico and back to Bombay. Later, she made a \ntrip around the w^orld, stopping in New York, Chicago, \nand San Francisco, and spending several months in \nJapan. In 1855, after many previous unsuccessful \nattempts, she finally obtained an entrance into Tibet, \none of the most inaccessible portions of the earth, where \nfew, if any, white women had ever before been allowed \nto penetrate. \n\nIn all probability, after some years she was initiated \nby the priests of the country into their sacred mystical \nrites. While in Tibet she fell from her horse dowm a \nsteep embankment, receiving injuries w^hich resulted \nin a fracture of the spine. In consequence of this \naccident, it is stated on good authority that she went \nthrough many strange psychological experiences, and \nfor eighteen months led a completely dual existence. \n\nOn leaving Tibet she conceived the idea of founding \n\n\n\nMadame B lav at sky s \'\'his Unveiled\'\' 227 \n\na new religion for the Western world, and she entered \nheart and soul into the undertaking. Starting out with \nthe assumption that every founder of a religion must \nwork miracles, she often allowed herself to indulge in \nthe most barefaced trickery to gain attention to her \ncause. In view of the exposures made by the Society \nfor Psychical Research of her performances, none of her \nadmirers deny the fact, but they explain it on the basis \n(as one of them expresses it) that any religion, in order \nto grow, must be manured ; that people are so averse \nto a new religious truth that any means of arousing \ntheir interest in it is legitimate. \n\nAs to the character and value of Madame Blavatsky\'s \nclaims regarding the religions of India, no man is more \ncompetent to tell us than Max Miiller, the famous \nOriental scholar of Oxford University. The statements \nthat follow are taken almost wholly from his article in \nThe Nineteenth Century on *\' Esoteric Buddhism," pub- \nlished shortly after Madame Blavatsky\'s death in \nLondon in 1891. \n\n\'\'I am quite willing," he says, \'* to allow that \nMadame Blavatsky started out with good intentions, \nthat she saw and was dazzled by a glimmering of truth \nin various religions of the world, that she believed in \nthe possibility of a mystic union of the soul with God, \nand that she was most anxious to discover in a large \nnumber of books traces of that theosophic intuition \nwhich re-unites human nature with the Divine. Un- \nfortunately, she was without the tools to dig for these \ntreasures in the ancient literature of the world, and her \nmistakes in quoting from vSanskrit. Greek, and Latin \nwould be amusing if they did not appeal to our sym- \npathy rather for a woman who thought she could fly \nthough she had no wings, not even those of Icarus." \n\n\n\n2 28 The Sphere of Religion \n\nIsis Unveiled Professor Miiller regards as a work of \nprodigious labor and ingenuity, bristling with notes \nand references both wise and foolish, \xe2\x80\x94 a monument of \nmisdirected energy. The fundamental ideas upon \nwhich it is based, so far as we can get at them, have \nin point of fact little or no tangible ground. \n\nSpeaking of the pre- Vedic documents and the Mahat- \nmas, of which Madame Blavatsky makes so much, he \nwrites : ** When asked for the production of those MSS., \nor for an introduction to these learned Mahatmas \xe2\x80\x94 for \nIndia is not so diflficult to reach as it was in the days \nof Marco Polo, \xe2\x80\x94 they are never forthcoming. Nay, the \ncurious thing is that real Sanskrit scholars who have \nspent their lives in India, and who know Sanskrit and \nPali well, know absolutely nothing of such MSS., \nnothing of such teachers of mysteries. They are never \nknown except to people who are ignorant of Sanskrit \nor Pali." \'\'The very idea that there are secret and \nsacred MSS., or that there ever was any mystery about \nthe religion of the Brahmans, is by this time thoroughly \nexploded.\'\' \n\n*\' Madame Blavatsky\'s powers of creation were very \ngreat ; whether she wished to have intercourse with \nMahatmas, astral bodies, or ghosts of any kind. . . . \nSo long as she placed her Mahatmas beyond the Hima- \nlayas, both she and her witnesses were quite safe from \nany detectives or cross-examining lawyers.\'\' \n\n*\' But when we come to examine what these deposi- \ntaries of primeval wisdom, the Mahatmas of Tibet and \nof the sacred Ganges, are supposed to have taught her, \nwe find no mysteries, nothing very new, nothing very \nold, but simply a medley of well-known, though \ngenerally misunderstood, Brahmanic and Buddhistic \ndoctrines." \n\n\n\nMadame Blavatskys \'\'his Unveiled\'\' 229 \n\nThat there are in India, Mahatmas or " Great Souls/\' \nas the word literally signifies, no one doubts. The \nterm is applied to men who have retired from the w^orld \nand by long ascetic practices have subdued their pas- \nsions and have acquired a reputation for sanctity and \nknowledge. They often perform startling feats and \nsubmit themselves to terrible tortures. A few of them \nhave distinguished themselves as scholars. \n\nBut, says Professor Miiller, \' \' that some of these so- \ncalled Mahatmas are impostors is but too well known to \nall who live in India. I am quite ready to believe, there- \nfore, that Madame Blavatsky and her friends w^ere taken \nin by persons who pretended to be Mahatmas, though \nit has never been explained in what language even \nthey could have communicated their Esoteric Buddhism \nto their European pupil. Madame Blavatsky was, ac- \ncording to her own showing, quite unable to gauge \ntheir knowledge or to test their honesty." \n\nWith these facts before us, it does not need any further \nargument to show that no discoverable ground exists \nfor the claim that the bible of the Theosophists, or fol- \nlowers of the so-called Wisdom Religion, sets forth *\'a \nprimeval, preternatural revelation granted to the fathers \nof the human race." It grew up, as we have found all \nother bibles to have done, out of the experiences, real \nor imaginarj^ of man. \n\nThis position does not belittle the fact that every relig- \nion of to-day is immensely indebted to the religions of \nthe past. It is almost impossible to conceive of an ab- \nsolutely new religion. At all events, every religion we \nknow presupposes an antecedent religion, just as every \nman we know presupposes an antecedent man. No relig- \nion better illustrates this truth than Christianity. For \nit presupposes Judaism and Greek philosophy, and Juda- \n\n\n\n230 The Sphere of Religion \n\nism presupposes the religions of Babylon and Nineveh. \nThey in turn reach back to a more ancient Accadian \nreligion. Farther our present knowledge will not per- \nmit us to go. \n\nThe Theosophists have undoubtedly carried their \nrespect for antiquity entirely too far. They are greatly \nmisled by accepting many of the exploded notions of \nthe past, but the emphasis they put upon the universal \nbrotherhood of man is worthy of the highest regard. \n\nSince his Unveiled first appeared in New York, the \nTheosophical Society, like every other similar under- \ntaking, has had its successes and failures. In 1879, its \nheadquarters were moved to Adyar, Madras, India, \nwhere Colonel Olcott till 1907 presided over its destinies. \nIn 1905, he reported that 600 branches of the society \nnow exist in forty-two countries. In Ceylon alone he \ntells us the society has 250 schools and three colleges \nwith over 30,000 pupils. According to some authorities, \nit has many thousand followers in France, where they \noften call themselves Christian Buddhists. \n\nThe head of the English branch, and the successor of \nMadame Blavatsky, is Mrs. Annie Besant. She is re- \nported to be one of the most eloquent women of her time. \nProf, Max Miiller says that when Madame Blavatsky \nwent to Oxford to lecture, he was told on good author- \nity that the students sat and listened to her for six hours \nin succession. A gentleman who w^as present on the \noccasion told the writer that Mrs. Besant had almost \nthe same experience when she lectured a few years ago \nto the students in Glasgow. Her article in the Outlook \nfor October 14, 1893, entitled, "What is Theosophy?\'* \nexplains her views. \n\nThere are branches of the society in New York and \nother American cities, but the most successful Raja Yoga \n\n\n\nMadame Blavatskys \'\' his Unveiled\'\' 231 \n\nschool in this country is probably at Point Loma, Cal., \nwhich is fully described in the January number of the \nAmerican Magazine for 1907. It is presided over by \nMrs. Katherine Tingley, a Massachusetts woman who \nwas for many years engaged in philanthropic work in \nand about New York. The school is liberally supported \nby a number of wealthy men from diflFerent parts of the \nUnited States who are now members of the Brotherhood, \nsuch as A. G. Spalding and F. M. Pierceof New York, \nW. C. Temple of Pittsburg, and W. F. Hanson of \nGeorgia. Ex-Secretary Lyman B. Gage, though not \nliving in the Brotherhood, resides near it and is \ndeeply interested in its work. \n\n*\' Theosophy,\'* saysE. D.Walker in the A re7ia (Janu- \nary, 1893), *\' enrolls the founders of all religions \xe2\x80\x94 ^Jesus, \nGautama, Confucius, Zoroaster, and Mahomet. It \nincludes the great religious spirits of every age \xe2\x80\x94 like \nSwedenborg, Madame Guyon, Saint Martin, and Jacob \nBohme. Especially notable is the theosophical trend \nof those seers of all times, the poets. Conspicuous just \nnow are Browning, Swinburne, Tennyson, Aldrich, \nWhitman. The great philosophers, too, run in the \nsame direction. . . . Theosophy regards pure Chris- \ntianity as the best religion for the western world. Jesus \nwas an Adept of the highest order \xe2\x80\x94 a perfect man, re- \npresenting what we may attain ultimately. But the \npure fountain has been .so fouled by the church that a \ncareful filtering is needed to obtain the crystal water of \nlife." \n\n\n\nII \n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. \n\nTHK RKI.ATION OF THK FINE^ ARTS TO RKIvIGION. \n\nArt, in the broadest sense of the term, denotes \nsimply the use of means for the accomplishment of \nsome desired end or purpose. It is not applied to the \nactivity or products of nature, although it is closely re- \nlated to those products. Strictly speaking there is no \npicture till man paints it, no music till man makes it, \nno poetry till man composes it. Nevertheless, nature \nfurnishes all the material for art to work upon, and is \nthe guide of man in its pursuit. \n\nIt is not the mission of any art to invent new ele- \nments. Its only function is to put the old into new \nforms and combinations. No genius in art, however \ngifted, can add a new species to either the animal or \nvegetable kingdom, or a new aspect to land or sea or \nsky. All any artist can possibly do is to make use \nof the boundless variety of elements that nature has \nalready presented to him, and he has neither the ability \nnor the opportunity to transcend these limits. \n\nFor this reason, art must always at first be imitative. \nIt is in this sense, and this only, that it is the business \nof art to \'\' hold the mirror up to nature." Not until \nart has first mastered the material that nature offers \nand discerned its law and method of working, can it go \nforward and reproduce it in new combinations with \nsomething like the freedom and boldness of nature. \nFor she scorns to imitate, and never repeats herself. \nNo art can be true to nature, in the proper sense of that \n\n232 \n\n\n\nThe Fine A rts and Religion 233 \n\nterm, until it has so perfectly acquired a knowledge of \nnature\'s elements and ways of working that it goes \ninfinitely beyond imitation ; until, indeed, the power \nof creating new forms has so developed that all need of \nimitation has ceased to exist. \n\nFor the real artist is not held down by the limitations \nof the individual characteristics of the object before \nhim, but he sees the specific or typical in it, and this it \nis that he endeavors to express. The actual in its pre- \ncise historic existence has appeared but once, and will \nnever appear again. In its essentials, however, it is \ncontinually reappearing and ever repeating itself \nHence it is that the ideal is of far more value than the \nreal. As another expresses it, \'\'There is more truth \nin that which may often be than in that which is known \nto have been but once." Any work of art that tells us \nwhat has been a thousand times and what may be a \nthousand times again has gained a mastery over the \nactual, and for that very reason captivates the heart. \n\nAll the arts that man has devised are conveniently \ndivided into those that minister to his material neces- \nsities or convenience, and those that are intended to \narouse and satisfy his higher aesthetic powers. The \nformer are properly called useful or mechanical arts, \nand their number and variety greatly vary with the \nprogress of a people in industry and wealth. The \nlatter, because they appeal to and delight the sense of \nbeauty, have come to be knowni as the beautiful or fine \narts in all the languages of modern civilized lands. \nThe fine arts are often found in combination with the \nuseful arts, but it is usually an easy matter in such \ncases to separate the part that is beautiful from the \npart that merely serves a practical purpose. \n\nl^y common consent the five priiicijKil fine arts are \n\n\n\n234 T^^^ SpJiere of Religion \n\nArchitecture, Sculpture, Painting, Music, and Poetry. \nBut how they should be arranged or classified is still \nfar from settled. Some would treat them from the \nstandpoint of their conformit}^ to nature ; others from \nthe point of view of their historical development ; and \nothers still from the ps3\'chological impulse which called \nthem into being. But the classification of Hegel is the \nmost satisfactor}^ for our purpose, for he treats them \nfrom the standpoint of the ideas that they express, and \nthe amount of matter that is needed to express them. \nArchitecture is therefore the lowest of the fine arts. It \nis primarih\' a useful art, and only secondarily a fine \nart. Stone is its most natural material. lyarge quanti- \nties of it may be used in its constructions, which are \nheld together by the great universal force of gravity. \nMassiveness, silent earnestness, immovability, are its \nfundamental characteristics. \n\nSculpture is a higher art than architecture. For \nalthough its chief material is also stone, it advances \nfrom the inorganic world to the organic. It fashions \nthe stone into a bodily form, and makes ever}^ part of \nit a vehicle of thought and feeling. In any genuine \npiece of sculpture there is nothing left of the material \nthat does not serve in some way to give expression to \nthe thought of the artist. Every part of the Apollo \nBelvedere, for example, breathes forth a magnificent \ndefiance and disdain of the enem}^ just as the writer of \nthe Iliad depicts him. Even the scarf on his arm is \ninstinct with passion. \n\nWith painting the medium is no longer a coarse \nmaterial substance like stone or bronze, but merel}^ a \nplain colored surface ; and 3^et on that surface it can \nrepresent all the dimensions of space. It expresses its \nideas and feelings b}\' the mere play of light and shade. \n\n\n\nThe Fine Arts and Religion 235 \n\nOn a small bit of canvas can be compressed a multitude \nof individual forms, each animated with his own char- \nacteristic thoughts, and giving vent to his own peculiar \npassions. \n\nMusic manifests itself through sound alone. It is \na mode of motion, and motion is the natural language \nof emotion. It arouses the mind to activity through \nthe ear, just as architecture and sculpture and paint- \ning do through the eye. Certain aerial vibrations fall- \ning upon the auditory nerve give rise to regularly \nvarying mental images, called sensations of tone. \' \' Of \nthe ten or eleven thousand tones which may be dis- \ntinguished in consciousness, music uses a comparatively \nsmall number. Our own elaborate musical system in- \ncludes only eighty-five or ninety, ranging from about \nforty to four thousand vibrations per second ; some- \nthing less than seven octaves." Through this exceed- \ningly limited medium music makes its appeal to all the \nmental powers. For it arouses thought and action, as \nwell as feeling. The hearer may be stirred by it to \nform imaginations, retrospections, and resolves as truly \nas emotions and desires. \n\nPoetry is the tongue of art let loose, so to speak. It \ncan represent everything by mere words, and a word is \na sign or representation of an idea. In a certain sense \nit can make all the other arts contribute to its purpose. \nWith the least amount of matter it can communicate \nthe greatest variety of ideas, extend itself over the \ngreatest range of feeling, and most powerfully affect \nthe will. \n\nHere we need to note the fact and point out in some \ndetail its importance to our subject that the fine arts \ndescril^ed above, even when carried to the climax of \ntheir (lcvclo])nK\'iit, include onl\\\' a ])ortion, anil that a \n\n\n\n236 The Sphere of Religion \n\n\n\nsmall one, of the field of the beautiful. As Plato has \nwisely said, all beauty is the outshining of the truth. \nWherever any truth shows itself in some concrete form, \nthere is beaut}^ All the truth there is in this world \nis manifested to us in the works of God. All beauty, \ntherefore, is the expression of his thoughts, and man \nis enabled to express beaut}^ as he gets acquainted with \nthose thoughts. The fine arts are merely the attempts \nof man to embody as best he may some of the thoughts \nof God. In other words, every object in the universe, \nwhether the product of God or man, is beautiful just in \nproportion as it reveals ideal perfection. \n\nMatter alone is not beautiful. It is only the idea or \nthought that the matter expresses that is beautiful. \nHence it is that objects in nature or art are beautiful in \ndifferent degrees. The ideals they represent are of \nhigher or lower grades according to the value of the \nelements that enter into their composition. The ideal \nof a human being is higher than that of any animal, \nand the ideal of a tree than that of a pebble. Even one \nMadonna differs from another Madonna in glory. For \nsome represent merely the happy mother, while others \nchiefly magnify the sense of relationship to the divine. \nAlthough any object is beautiful that reveals ideal per- \nfection, the perfection it reveals must be of its own kind, \nand in harmony with its own character. A dog, if \nrepresented as a dog, is beautiful, but if given the neck \nof a giraffe or the proboscis of an elephant, he becomes \nridiculous, because fantastic and unreal. For the same \nreason the human form with wings attached to it is ac- \ntually grotesque, although the term angel is often used \nto designate the combination. \n\nMany limit the beautiful to objects perceivable by the \nsenses, but there is no rational basis for such a position. \n\n\n\nThe Fine Arts and Religion 237 \n\nEvery object is beautiful that reveals in some concrete \nform ideal perfection, and this applies, as Dr. Samuel \nHarris has so ably shown, to human actions as well as \nto material objects. We as properly speak of a beautiful \ncharacter as of a beautiful face or a beautiful sunset. \nWe often see manly fortitude or womanly patience \nexhibited under circumstances so adverse that we ac- \ntually do \'\'behold a spectacle worthy of a God." \nBeauty of spirit is of the same quality as all other beauty, \nand the admiration we have for it is not to be distin- \nguished from any other genuine aesthetic emotion. \n\nEqually valid is it to speak of the beauty of an argu- \nment, of a military campaign, of a scheme for social \nadvancement. Power of any sort is beautiful when \nproperly regulated, as in a perfectly adjusted watch or \nlocomotive. Otherwise, it is only a source of fear or \nconsternation. Regulated motions are beautiful motions \nbecause they could, if measured, be described with \nmathematical exactness. They thus represent the ideal, \nand reveal mind. Symmetry is beautiful, because \nfounded upon mathematical ratios and proportions ; \nand the curve is the line of beauty not alone, as Max \nMiiller maintained, because the eye can trace a curved \nline with less fatigue than a straight one, but chiefly \nbecause it deviates at ever}^ point from a straight line ac- \ncording to a law, thus manifesting a controlling plan or \npurpose. Mathematics, having to do with the properties \nof space and time, lies at tlie foundation of all the sci- \nences. For this reason beauty has well been described \nas the outshining of exact mathematical truth. Noth- \ning that is at variance with mathematics can be beautiful. \nFor no ideal could be formed of such a thing, and it \ncould represent no truth. \n\nThe more deeply we go into the subject, tlu- ni.ir.- \n\n\n\n238 The Sphere of Religion \n\nclearly we see that all beauty in nature and art is nothing \nless than the revelation of spirit to spirit. The joy that \ncomes to me from the contemplation of a beautiful ob- \nject is primarily due to the discovery in the object of \nanother mind which is capable of forming ideals such \nas I am capable of forming, and of expressing them in \nsuch a way that I feel the throb of a kindred spirit. \nWhen I survey the starry heavens and take in even a \nfraction of the beauty there expressed, the emotion of \ndelight arises within me because I am so made that I \ncan form some sort of an ideal of such a combination of \nobjects, and enter into relationship with the infinite mind \nthat created them. I have the same experience, only \nin a less degree, when I stand before the masterpieces \nof Raphael and Michel Angelo. The delight that comes \nto me arises from finding myself enveloped, as it were, \nin their lofty thoughts. \n\nOne of the striking facts about all beautiful objects \nand the joy that comes to us from contact with them, \nis that instead of wishing to conceal them from the sight \nof others, we long to have as many as possible know of \ntheir existence. We want everybody to have the same \ndelightful experience with them that we have had. No \none who is capable of appreciating a thing of beauty \nwants to destroy it, but to preserve it as a joy forever \nto himself and all his fellows. \n\nThe emotions of a scientific man when at their climax \nurge him to cry out with Archimedes, \' \' Eureka, Eu- \nreka,^\' to all within his call. Those of the ethical man \nkeep him ever on the alert for the plaudit, ** Well done, \ngood and faithful servant. \' \' But the emotions of beauty \nhold their possessor transfixed with a quiet all-absorb- \ning joy. The mission of a man of science is to pick \nthings to pieces in order to find out how they are made. \n\n\n\nThe Fine Arts and Religion 239 \n\nand he has the joy of his reward. The student of ethics \nsets forth the goal of future endeavor, and points out \nthe means of attaining it, and he has his reward. But \nhe who deals with the beautiful brings his works with \nhim, and places them on exhibition before you. If you \nactually acquaint yourself with them and take in their \nmeaning, you commune with their author as friend \ncommunes with friend. \n\nGenuine beauty in all its forms, being based upon \nthe recognition of ideal perfection in some concrete act \nor object, is not to be confounded with agreeableness or \nusefulness, much less with mere wonder or surprise. \nThe beautiful is the agreeable, but the reverse is not \nalways true. A bed or easy chair may be very agree- \nable to a weary man, but they are not beautiful for \nthat reason. The same thing may be said of a hungry \nman\'s experience with a big plate of baked beans or a \nhot mutton chop. Sweet things are agreeable to some \npersons and sour to others. Education makes little if \nany difference in these matters, but it does inmiensely \naffect one\'s appreciation of the beautiful in nature and \nart. Nearly all of the beautiful things around us con- \nstantly escape our notice for lack of a mind cultured \nenough to detect them. \n\nUseful things exivSt to serve some ulterior end, but \nthings of beauty are an end in themselves. The cob- \nbler forms his shoes into this shape and that in order \nto have somebody wear them. The baker makes his \nbread and cakes in order that somebody may devour \nthcni. But Michel Angelo carved his Moses out of a \nrough block of marble simply to give perpetual joy \nand delight to all beholders who have mental develop- \nment enough to cutcli the inspiration o{ the divine \nthought that he endeavored to convey. \n\n\n\n2 40 The Sphere of Religion \n\nWonder and surprise at the unexpected and the \nextraordinary are perfectly legitimate emotions. Every \none has experienced them who has witnessed the per- \nformances of a juggler or gazed at some monstrosity in \na dime museum. But they are not emotions of the \nbeautiful. They often accompany such emotions, be- \ncause our obsen^ation of the beautiful things about us \nis so rare that we are usually filled with surprise when \none is discovered. But if we were thoroughly attuned \nto the thoughts that the universe is capable of express- \ning, we should never be surprised by the unexpected. \nThe freshness and eagerness with which we should \nenjoy every new object of beauty would not, however^ \nbe diminished, but greatly enhanced thereby. \n\nLeast of all should the emotion arising from the con- \ntemplation of the beautiful be confounded with mere \nexcitement. Under certain conditions good dramas \nand novels have a decidedly elevating influence upon \nour minds and lives. A drama is essentially a play, \nand, like the play of children, is a representation of \na life higher than our own; and just as children get \npleasure and enjoyment b}^ imagining themselves en- \ngaged in the pursuits of men and women, so may \nworks of art in the form of a good drama or novel give \nus a vision of life that will greatly enlarge our con- \nceptions of heroism, and of beauty and grace. But \nwhen these are read or witnessed on the stage merely \nfor the excitement of the moment, simply to have the \nfeelings wrought up to their highest intensity, the \nmind loses all its power for aesthetic enjoyment, and \nsoon becomes a hopeless victim of the intoxication \nhabit. In such a condition nothing but a blood-and- \nthunder novel or a bull-fight will suffice. \n\nThe close relationship of all genuine aesthetic emo- \n\n\n\nThe Fine Arts and Religion 241 \n\ntion to the sublime needs here to be pointed out, and \ncannot be too strongly emphasized. In fact, sublimity \nis the same as beauty, only it is beauty greatly ex- \npanded or enlarged. When a beautiful scene unfolds \nitself beyond our capacity to comprehend it and leads \nus up to the infinite, it is something more than grand \xe2\x80\x94 \nit is sublime. Any object, however trivial, may lead \nus to the sublime, if we are capable of comprehending \nits significance. For every door, however small, opens \ninto the Infinite. A pebble on the seashore ordinarily \nattracts little attention, but if we reflect upon the \ntitanic forces that have conspired through countless \nages and with ceaseless persistency to produce it, we \ncannot help being stirred in some degree by the sub- \nlimity of the thought. A moonlit night on the Acrop- \nolis is beautiful, but the thought of all the starr>^ \nhosts of heaven, arranged system upon S3\\stem, with \ntheir immense distances and masses, all moving in ac- \ncord with a common law, suggests an ideal that the \nimagination of man finds it impossible to portray. All \none can do is to stand with head uncovered in the very \npresence of the Infinite. When the emotion of beauty \nrises into sublimity, as in such an experience as this, \nthe mind cannot help being filled with awe and rever- \nence for a greatness that transcends all finite powers. \n\nThis exposition of the fundamental nature of beauty \nmakes the relation of the fine arts to religion a most \nvital one, and the soundness of this view is strikingly \nconfirmed by an appeal to history. For art and re- \nligion are both as old as civilization itself, and their \nconnection can be traced in many countries and under \nconditions most diverse. We always find that they \nspring up together, that they develop together, and \nthat they decline together. A brief .survey of the \n\n\n\n242 The Sphere of Religion \n\norigin and history of the principal fine arts will make \nthis evident. \n\nArchitecture is not only the most elementary of the \nfine arts, but it is also, so far as relics go, much the \noldest. The only works of man in far distant ages \nthat have been able to survive the ravages of time are \nthe temples of the gods and the tombs of kings, their \nsupposed ambassadors. The ruins of these first concrete \nexpressions of the religious ideas and sentiments of the \npeople are found in almost every part of the globe. \n\nSome of the most important of these ruins are in \nthe valley of the Nile. The solid limestone pyramids \nof Ghizeh are still among the most colossal works of \nman ; that of Cheops covering an area of thirteen acres \nand reaching a height of four hundred and eighty feet. \nThese royal shrines date as far back as 3500 B.C., and \nare in marked contrast with the abodes of the people, \nwhich were probably but one or two stories in height, \nand built of wood and sunburnt brick. The two great \narchitectural caverns of surpassing magnificence at Ip- \nsambul cut in the solid rock are the remains of temples, \nand so are the colossal ruins at Karnak. In Assyria, \nas in Egypt, the most ancient structures are temples, \nsome of them dating back, according to our best \nscholars, much beyond 2000 B.C. The first great per- \nmanent structure in Jewish history was Solomon\'s \ntemple, dating about 1000 B.C. \n\nAlthough the beginnings of Greek architecture are \nveiled in obscurity, its most ancient ruins now extant \nare the temple at Corinth, erected about 650 b. c, and \nthe temple at Selinus, in Sicily, of the same period. \nThe great classic models of architecture of to-day are \nthe temples of Zeus at Olympia and of Athene on the \nAcropolis, to say nothing of the Parthenon and others \n\n\n\nThe Fine Arts and Religion 243 \n\nof lesser note scattered here and there over Greece. \nThe Romans were not an original people. In their \nearly history they followed the Etruscans, to whom \nthey owe the arch and vault. Later, Greek artists \ntook possession of the field, and the Pantheon of \nAgrippa is the noblest of their works. \n\nThe oldest remains of the fine arts in China and \nIndia are temples and pagodas. In the new world the \noldest as well as the best specimens of native art are \nthe architectural ruins among the Mayas of Central \nAmerica. Of these Dr. Brinton, probably the highest \nauthority on such matters, does not hesitate to say that \n\'* there is no doubt but that the destination of most of \nthese structures was for religious or ceremonial pur- \nposes, and not as dwellings.\'\' \n\nWhen the early Christians were permitted to erect \nsuitable places of worship for themselves, a new archi- \ntecture, based upon the basilica, sprang into being. It \nis known as the Byzantine architecture, and it reached \nits culmination about the middle of the sixth century \nin the church at Constantinople dedicated by Justinian \nto the Divine Wisdom, now miscalled St. Sophia. This \nis \'\'by many considered to be internally the most \nbeautiful church ever erected " (A. D. F. Hamlin). \nThe famous St. Mark\'s Cathedral at Venice, modelled \nafter the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople \nlong ago demolished by the Mohammedans, is another \nbrilliant example of the Byzantine style. \n\nAs Christianity vSpread through western and northern \nEurope, another form of architecture was developed to \nmeet its growing needs. Though varying in details \naccording to locality, it is marked by certain common \ncharacteristics to which the name of romanesque is \nnow applied. The lyombard churches of northern \n\n\n\n2 44 ^^^^ Sphere of Religion \n\nItaly, the magnificent abbeys of the Rhenish provinces, \nand the cathedrals at Durham, Peterborough, and St. \nAlbans, in England, are among the best products of \nthis style. \n\nLater, when enthusiasm for a still worthier expres- \nsion of the religious sentiments of the age made its \nappearance, romanesque architecture was developed \ninto the gothic. The thirteenth and fourteenth cen- \nturies became the cathedral era par emi7ience. For \nnothing like it has ever been seen in history, or is likely \nto be. The works of this period still remain the master- \npieces of modern architecture, \xe2\x80\x94 such as the cathedrals \nof Amiens, of Rouen, of Rheims in France ; of Milan \nand Assisi in Italy ; of Toledo and Seville in Spain ; of \nStrassburg and Cologne in Germany ; and of Lincoln \nand Salisbury in England. \n\nThe gothic cathedral in its infinite diversity of de- \ntails was a miniature representation of the heaven of \nthe medieval imagination. Even hobgoblins, vampires, \nand other denizens of the lower world were pressed into \nservdce as waterspouts to show that devils also must \ncontribute, however unwillingly, to the glory of the \nMost High. Many persons competent to have an \nopinion upon the subject would fully agree with Comte, \na great opponent of Christianity, when he says : \n\'^The ideas and feelings of man\'s moral nature have \nnever found so perfect expression in form as they found \nin the noble cathedrals of cathoUcism." The highest \nspecimens of architecture in our own day in all lands \nare not theatres, or public halls, or private dwellings, \nbut temples and churches, and it would certainly be a \nmark of great degeneration if such should cease to be \nthe case in the future. \n\nWhen we turn to sculpture, w^e find that it originated \n\n\n\nThe Fine Arts and Religion 245 \n\nin the same way as architecture, and has had a similar \nhistory. Its first office was to embellish and adorn the \nabodes of the gods. The earliest sculpture known to his- \ntory is perhaps that found in the ancient temples and \nshrines of Egypt, and the clumsy massive strength that \ncharacterizes it is derived from the sombre stolidity of \nthe religion that it attempts to represent. Assyrian \nand Babylonish sculpture has similar characteristics \nand for the same reason. It is formal, conventional, \nand symbolic, lacking in subtlety and progressive \ndevelopment. \n\nBut the Greeks had a decidedly different conception \nof their deities, and this accounts for the fact that \ntheir sculpture took on such varied and elastic forms. \nThey thought of their gods as social beings like them- \nselves, and lived on familiar terms with them. Ever}\'- \nwhere before their time the gods were largely the \nproduct of superstitious fears, and the source of a \nmultitude of malign influences that must be evaded or \ndoggedly endured. To the Greeks these superhuman \nbeings are most enjoyable personalities, having all the \npowers and attractions imaginable to man. Hence \ntheir ideals of them were their highest poetic creations, \nand they freely endeavored to depict them with all pos- \nsible skill and grace. As another expresses it, \'\'The \nfreedom of Homer in poetry became the freedom of \nPhidias in sculpture." \n\nA Greek statue was not an idol to be valued simply \nfor its sanctity, but a real work of art to be admired for \nits inherent beauty. This is why the Greeks went so \nimperceptibly from the divine to the human, from the \ngods of Olympia to the victors of the Isthmian games. \nThey understood and felt the beautiful .so keenly \nthat wherever they found it, wliether in gods, or \n\n\n\n246 The Sphere of Religion \n\nmen, or even animals, they identified it with the \ndivine. \n\nNor were they so sensuous in their sculpture as those \nthat came after them, or so fond of the nude as is com- \nmonly supposed. To them Venus was not a symbol of \nvoluptuousness, but the combined expression of wisdom \nand love. Careful students tell us that among them \n*\' fifty works in drapery were found for every nude \nstatue. \' \' After two thousand years they still remain \nunrivalled for such marvellous representations of their \ngods and goddesses as the Zeus and Pallas by Phidias, \nthe Venus de Medici^ probably copied from Praxiteles, \nthe Niobe group by Scopas, the Farnese Bull and the \nTorso of Hercules by ApoUonius, not to mention such \nmasterpieces as the Veyius de Milo and the Apollo \nBelvedere. \n\nThe Romans, because they conceived of their gods \nless vividly and felt their infiuence less keenl}\'^, failed \nfor the most part as sculptors, and were chiefly depen- \ndent upon the Greeks. Occasionally an Emperor like \nHadrian appeared who had a genuine appreciation of \nsculpture, and did what he could to cultivate it ; but \nevery effort was powerless to stay its general decline, \nand by the time of Constantine it had lost its former \nglory. \n\nThen for a thousand years, although Christianity had \ngained control of the civilization and power of the world, \nsculpture remained quiescent, because the religion of \nthat period opposed everything that pertained to the \nancients, and made such a distinction between the di- \nvine and the human that all art of every kind was robbed \nof its nobleness and power. Only scenes of suflFering, of \nascetic privation, of voluntary torture, were regarded as \nproper objects of religious contemplation. \n\n\n\nThe Fine Arts and Religion 247 \n\nBut when these views began to give way to more \nrational conceptions of the relation of man to God and \nof this world to the world to come, the era of cathedral \nbuilding broke out with unwonted power, and sculpture \nwas again called back into service. To it was assigned \nthe work of ornamenting altars and pulpits and screens, \nand of devising all sorts of figures for the appropriate \nembellishment of capitals, portals, and facades. \n\nAs the knowledge of ancient art increased, the church \ncalled for the highest qualities of workmanship in this \nart. Nicola Pisano carved his remarkable pulpits at \nPisa and Siena ; Lorenzo Ghiberti wrought his famous \ngates for the baptistery at Florence ; Donatello produced \nhis Anmcnciation in the Church of Santa Croce ; and \nMichel Angelo, the first pre-eminent representative of \nmodern sculpture, brought out his Moses, his David^ \nand his monuments to the Medici. Since Angelo\'s \ntime the most notable works, like those of Canova, for \nexample, have been mythological in their character, \nor monuments embodying some religious ideal. Even \nThorwaldsen has been rightly called a * \' posthumous \nGreek." \n\nSculpture to-day gets its chief inspiration directly or \nindirectly from the religious masterpieces of the past, \nand it is not at all likely that any high art in this direc- \ntion will appear in the future that sets them at naught. \nA piece of sculpture, even of an animal or a flower, must \nrepresent what we believe a god would think of it, if it \nis going to satisfy the intellect and delight the heart. \n\nAlthough painting in its developed form is one of the \nmore modern of the fine arts, yet like sculpture it first \narose in coiniection with ancient architecture, and for \nmany centuries it was almost wholly employed in dec- \norating tombs and temples. The ancient Egyptians \n\n\n\n248 The Sphere of Religion \n\ncolored everything, even hard stones like granite and \nbasalt. The remains of painting in Babylonia and \nAssyria are very scanty, and so they are among the \nGreeks, but it is not generally supposed that they carried \nthe art to a high degree of excellence, although some \nglowing eulogies of their work have come down to us \nfrom their contemporaries. \n\nDuring the decline of the Roman Empire, the early \nChristians were the only ones to manifest any vital in- \nterest in this art. They began to develop it in the \ncatacombs, their subterranean places of worship, the \nwalls of which they covered with rudely delineated \nimages of the fish, the anchor, and the cup. For several \ncenturies after the time of Constantine their work in \nmosaics had considerable merit. Painting during the \nByzantine Empire is chiefly known to us in illuminated \nmanuscripts. \n\nIn the Middle Ages painting on the walls of churches \nwas common, but it was mainly decorative in character. \nNot until after the great era of cathedral building of \nthe thirteenth and fourteenth centuries did painting \nreach a high degree of perfection. And the chief thing \nthat brought it forward was the great demand for the \nproper adornment of churches, monasteries, oratories, \nand other buildings devoted to religious uses. The \nuniversal feeling was that every altar must have an \naltar-piece, every chapel must be embellished with illus- \ntrations of the life and miracles of the saint to whom it \nwas dedicated, every refectory must have a picture of \nthe Last Supper. \n\nSome of the forei:unners of this movement were \nCimabue, Giotto, and Fra Angelico, but it reached the \nfull tide of its power in such works as the paintings of \nthe Sistine Chapel by Michel Angelo, the Trans^gura- \n\n\n\nThe Fine Arts and Religion 249 \n\ntion by Raphael in the Vatican palace, and Leonardo \nda Vinci\'s Last Supper at Milan. \n\nThe unrivalled pre-eminence of these masters is due \nnot only to the fact that they possessed unusual technical \nskill, and exercised great freedom and boldness in the \nformation of their ideals, but chiefly because they clung \ntenaciously to the loftiest subjects that could engage \ntheir powers. The relations of the human to the divine \ninspired their imagination and persistently absorbed \ntheir thought. Murillo painted the Immaculate Con- \nception twenty-five times before he was willing per- \nmanently to abandon the theme. Raphael\'s Sistijie \nMadonna at Dresden is said to be the fortieth in a list of \nforty-eight, but who can ever look upon this mar\\^ellous \nrepresentation of the Virgin Mother and her won- \ndrous child wdthout being stirred to the depths of his \nbeing with the emotions of gratitude and awe ? \n\nPainting, like any other art, can degenerate. Nor is \nit always used to ennoble and inspire. There are acres \nof canvas in the galleries of Europe that have anything \nbut an uplifting and spiritualizing influence. Painting \nhas often been the servile minister of superstition and \nlust, the lust debasing the superstition, and the super- \nstition sanctifying the lust. Such are nearly all the \nrepresentations of the nude in art in our day. For no \none in modern society is accustomed to see virtue and \nnobleness exhibited in such a state, or would take \ndelight in beholding a member of his family or any \none he loved and admired held up to public gaze void \nof appropriate attire. What wonder that copies of such \npaintings speedily find their way to drinking saloons \nand haunts of vice ? \n\nIt is the mission of the painter not merely to paint, \nbut to paint something that is worthy of continued con- \n\n\n\n2 50 The Sphere of Religion \n\ntemplation, that inspires noble and lofty thoughts. It \ndoes not matter so much what the object painted is, \nas how the painter causes the beholder to regard it. \nlyandseer has taught the world that animal life repre- \nsented in its true spirit is far nobler, far more divine, \nthan higher life protrayed with only moderate power. \nEvery visible scene and object can be regarded approxi- \nmately as God regards it, and when we see it so depicted \nby the artist, we commune with God by sharing with \nhim one of his thoughts. Only thus can any art be \nbrought to reveal its true glory, and mankind be per- \npetually inspired and blessed thereby. \n\nMusic in its most elementary form probably originated \nin the rhythmic marking of time for the dance at a re- \nligious festival in honor of some god or goddess. For \nuntold centuries it made little or no progress, and only \nwithin the last three or four hundred years has it ac- \ntually become a fine art and reached a high degree of \ndevelopment. All historical records and still existing \nmonuments of antiquity show that architecture, sculp- \nture, and painting rose practically to the climax of \ntheir power long before music attained any special \neminence. It remained an enigma, even to the most \nbrilliant periods of ancient civilization and intellectual \nculture. Not till near the close of the Middle Ages \ndid any master mind appear to reveal its long hidden \nbeauties or discover and systematize its fundamental \ntruths. \n\nAs a matter of fact, the demand for music of a high \norder was not called into being until the magnificent \ncathedrals had been completed, and their niches and \naltar-pieces had been properly adorned. Then a mighty \nlonging arose for a voice that could translate all this \nsublimity into sound, and utter its aspirations in a \n\n\n\nThe Fine Arts and Religion 251 \n\nmanner befitting the place and the new conditions. \nThe bell-chimes from the tower, however sweet and \nfar-reaching they might be, were only a call to prayer. \nSomething else must be found that would give appro- \npriate expression to the prayer itself. \n\nSuch a medium was discovered in the organ. Con- \nsequently it was greatly enlarged in its proportions and \npowers. Soon vaulted roof and clustered column and \nstoried wall, even the very crypt itself, were resounding \nwith a symphony of sweet sounds to the glory of the \nAlmighty. In connection with the organ, all known \nmusical instruments w^ere called into requisition, and \nothers invented to swell the volume of praise and adora- \ntion. Every form of musical composition was carried \nto its highest perfection to satisfy, if possible, the \nreligious requirements of the age. \n\nMusic in the service of religion has passed through \nfour stages : \xe2\x80\x94 i. The rhythmic, like that of the Indian \nwar-dance of to-day ; 2. The melodic, made up of va- \nriations upon a single theme, like the music of the \nOriental and Asiatic nations of ancient and modem \ntimes ; 3. The harmonic, consisting of several co- \nexisting melodies, which chiefly characterized the \nmusic of the Middle Ages ; and 4. The symphonic, \na succession of harmonies with constantly varying \nthemes, the music of the most highly cultured nations \nof our own time. It is the opinion of many that this \ndevelopment has already been carried so far as to leave \nlittle room for further discovery either in its scientific \nprinciples or practical application, but of the truthful- \nness of this position there is room for doubt. \n\nMusic is the art of sensibility par excellence. In \nmodern times it has become an instrument of over- \n|X)wering significance. "Music," says Ilaweis, "is \n\n\n\n252 The Sphere of Religion \n\npre-eminently the art of the nineteenth century, be- \ncause it is in a supreme manner responsive to the \nemotional wants, the mixed aspirations, and the pas- \nsive self-consciousness of the age " {Music and Morals, \np. i). It is peculiarly the disinterested art, and that \nfact qualifies it for its high religious mission, making it \nso essential to the adequate expression of reverential \nawe, heartfelt thanksgiving, and genuine praise. \n\nAt the same time it has to be admitted that music, \njust because it is capable of traversing the entire key- \nboard of our desires, may be employed to arouse base \nand sensual ambitions as well as those that elevate and \ninspire. It is hardly too much to say with another \nthat *\'it can be impressed with equal felicity in the \nservice of church or tavern.\'\' Nevertheless, its great \nmasters have always been those who have used it as a \npowerful, uplifting influence, who have evoked its aid \nto elevate our thoughts and feelings to the Infinite. \nOtherwise, the Bachs, the Handels, the Haydens, the \nBeethovens, the Chopins, and the Brahmses of history- \nwould not be ranked with the Michel Angelos, the \nRaphaels, the Dantes, the Miltons, and the Tennysons \nas among the great ennobling forces of the world. \n\nThe beginnings of poetry in all probability first \nshowed themselves, as with music, in connection with \nthe rhythmic motions of the religious dance. It is \nalmost inevitable that words uttered in accompaniment \nto the dance should partake of its rhythmic character. \nSo far as all historic records go, the oldest forms of \nliterature of any considerable extent in all languages \nwere odes to the gods. At these primitive religious \nfestivals all the principal forms of poetry were gradually \ndeveloped. The epic poem recounted the doings of \nthe gods and the exploits of heroic men, their chief \n\n\n\nThe Fine Arts and Religion 253 \n\nearthly representatives. The lyric poem gave voice to \nthe thoughts and feelings that these mighty acts in- \nspired. The drama set forth in vivid and concrete \nform for the edification of the beholders some particular \nseries of events in which the gods played the principal \nr61es, and thus displayed their superior wisdom and \npower. \n\nIt is no exaggeration to say that out of these humble \nbeginnings have arisen all of the great poetic composi- \ntions of the world. The Rig- Veda consists chiefly of \nhymns to the gods, and is the foundation upon which \nthe Mahabharata, the great epic of the Hindus, is based. \nThe Iliad of Homer had a similar origin. It gathers \nup all the great features of the polytheistic faith of the \nancient Greeks, and was treated by them with all the \nreverence of Holy Writ. Vergil\'s ^neid performed a \nlike mission for the ancient Romans. Milton\'s Paradise \nLost and Dante^s Divine Comedy grew up under similar \nconditions, and still remain the great standard epics of \nmodern times. No more recent poet has felt equal to \nthe task of surpassing them, and, besides, the novel \nhas in our day usurped their place in the popular \ndemand. \n\nWhen we turn to lyric poetry, we find nothing in \nany language that can compare with the psalms and \nhymns of the Christian church for awakening in man \nprofound emotions and arousing lofty thoughts. And \nthis has been true of the hymns of every religion in \nevery age of the world, and in every stage of civiliza- \ntion. The historic fact is that both tragedy and \ncomedy originated in connection with the worship of \nthe god Dionysus, the frivolity of the latter being \nthe natural reaction from the seriousness of the fonner. \nThe very term, tragedy, comes from the Greek word \n\n\n\n2 54 ^^^ Sphere of Religion \n\nfor goat, and arose either from the fact that a goat was \nsacrificed at the festivals of this god, or because the \nactors who danced around the altar chanting songs in \nhis honor partially clad themselves in the skins of this \nanimal. The great tragic poets of the ancient world, \nas ^schylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, took such high \nsubjects as Prometheus Bound, the punishment of \nCEdipus, and the sacrifice of Iphigenia for their themes. \nFor nothing less than the doings of a god, or some \nother being elevated above the level of humanity, could \nstir their powers to their best effort, or satisfy the \ndemands of those who were to listen to and criticise \ntheir products. \n\nThe Athenian tragedy was not a mere amusement, \nbut a serious religious function. Aristotle says in his \nPoetics that its mission was to purify the passions of \npity and fear, as he thought this was the natural \nreaction from seeing them carried to excessive indul- \ngence on the stage. It not only originated in a popu- \nlar religious festival, but it became the vehicle of \nthe deepest religious thoughts and ideals of the people. \nWhen it ceased to fulfil this function, it lost its vital- \nity, and disappeared as an important factor in their \nlives. \n\nNo drama in our own day attains a high degree of \nexcellence that does not appeal to that in man which is \nabove himself, and in some effective way arouse his \nambition to act in a manner worthy of a being possessed \nof godlike powers. Shakespeare, Goethe, Schiller, \nRacine, and others who attained great eminence in \nthis art in their day, held undisputed sway over the \nminds of men, because they depicted in a masterful \nmanner the eternal value of truth and righteousness, \nthe corner-stones of religion, to the welfare and happi- \n\n\n\nThe Fine Arts and Religion 255 \n\nness of man. And this remains to-day the secret of \ntheir continued supremacy in this field. \n\nThus we see that the actual history of the fine arts \nteaches us the common lesson that they all spring out \nof man\'s powers to search for ideal perfection, and that \ntheir mission is to elevate him to the divine. So long \nas the human soul yearns after the perfect and the in- \nfinite, so long it will seek to embody its ideals in the \nforms of art. The seriously-minded Puritan scowled \nupon the beautiful as a lovely devil, because he thought \nit the enemy of religion. He did not see that it is in \nreality its handmaid and friend. In point of fact, there \nis no high art without religion, and no high develop- \nment of religion without art. For art is the high \npriest of nature, and nature is the manifestation of the \ndivine. \n\nArt is the concrete expression of some of God\'s \nthoughts, as they are suggested to us in the things \nthat are made. It is, therefore, indispensable to man \nin his effort to understand the meaning of the universe. \nWithout it he cannot see the harmony there is in it, or \nrealize in any effective way its rational purpose. If we \nwere fully attuned to the beauty that lies all about us, \nrevelation would be as natural as breathing. *\'The \nwhole thought of art," says Phillips Brooks, \'\' must be \nenlarged and mellowed, till it develops a relation to \nthe spiritual and moral natures, as well as the senses \nof mankind." \n\nWe should never speak of art for art*s sake, but ot \nart for man\'s sake, to acquaint him with the actual \nmeaning of things, and bring him into conscious and \njoyful accord with his Maker. \n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. \n\nKBUGIOX THE KZY TO HISTORY. \n\nGuizOT on one of the first pages of his History of \nCivilizatio7i makes the following remarkable assertion : \n** At all times, in all countries, religion has assumed the \nglory of having civilized the people. " \' To what extent \nand in what sense this is a true statement it is the pur- \npose of this chapter to point out. \n\nIn the first place we need to note that the time has \ngone by when we can speak of the history of religion as \nsomething distinct from general histon.\'. This view has \nalways had many advocates. It was held by Eusebius, \nthe father of church history. Augustine taught it in \nhis great work, The City of God, and the position was \nuniversally maintained by the churches of ancient and \nmedieval times. \n\nThe Catholic churches of our own day still regard it \nas the correct view. God, they maintain, has endowed \nhis people with an infallible doctrine, has placed over \nthem infallible leaders, and has established a course of \naction that is to go on unchanged to the end of time. \nThey admit, to be sure, that the church is not wholly \nout of relation to the rest of history, but they insist that \nits affairs are aflFected by secular history only in the \nmost casual and superficial way, agitating at times per- \nhaps its outermost borders, but never extending to its \ncentre or core. \n\nXor did the Protestants of the sixteenth century- in \n\n\n\nReligion the Key to History 257 \n\nreality give up this view. They rejected, it is true, the \nidea that the external rites and government of the \nchurch are of supernatural origin. But the spiritual \nchurch, which they made so much of, the church within, \nthey regarded as in a special sense divine. They recog- \nnized two distinct kinds of events in the world, just as \nthe ultra-orthodox do in the Protestant churches of to- \nday, the miraculous and non-miraculous, the superna- \ntural and the natural, the sacred and the profane. This \nuniverse to them was not what it is to the thinkers of \nto-day, one great and orderly universe, \xe2\x80\x94 what Sir \nOliver Lodge calls "a single undeviating law-satu- \nrated cosmos." They had no inkling of the thought \nthat all of the events of history are regulated accord- \ning to the one principle of unity and uniformity, and \nthat there is no possible ground for regarding them as \ntwo-fold. \n\n*^It was in the seventeenth century," says Prof. \nHamack in his address at the St. Louis Exposition in \n1904, \'\'that certain enlightened spirits first shook off \nthis wrong notion. The eighteenth century further \ndeveloped the knowledge thus won ; in the nineteenth \nit was partly obscured again, but in the end it held its \nown. We can now say : The history of the Church is \npart and parcel of universal history, and can be under- \nstood only in connection with it." Our real inquir>^ \nthen, is, what is this connection ? How has the relictions \nelement in history affected the other elements, and how \nis it likely to affect them in the future ? \n\nHistory, as the term is used in our day, is concerned \nwith all the past doings and experiences of man. It \ntraces out the rise and progress of culture and civiliza- \ntion in all its various branches. But in the narrower \nsense it confines itself to the ongoings of naticMis. It \n\n\n\n258 The Sphere of Religion \n\ndeals with their internal progress and their mutual re- \nlations. In other words, it is identical with political \nhistory. It is chiefly in this sense that the term is used \nhere. For, as another has well said, * \' on the way in \nwhich men are formed into communities everything else \nthat happens and all development depends." Our in- \nquiry then is, what efiect has religion had upon the \ngrowth and expansion ol the body -politic in the past, \nand what have we every reason to expect will be its in- \nfluence in the future ? \n\nAs far back as we can trace the internal development \nof any tribe or nation, we always find that to renounce \nthe gods of the country was equivalent to giving up all \nallegiance to that country. In Babylonia and in Egypt \nit was not thought possible for a foreigner to become a \ncitizen, but in Greece, where it could sometimes be done, \nthe most important act leading to it was the adoptipn \nof the worship of the Greek gods. In case one country \nsubdued another, it was assumed that the god of the \nconquering country had adopted into his family the god \nof the people conquered. This extension of territory by \na nation did not, however, do away with the local wor- \nship or affect the position of the gods who presided over \nthe destinies of other nations. \n\nWhen the Assyrians subjugated the kingdom of Israel \nand deported great numbers of its inhabitants, the col- \nonists who were sent to take their places did not bring \ntheir Assyrian cult with them, but sought out the pro- \ntection and care of Jahveh or Jehovah, the god of the \nplace. In all the conquests of the Romans, they re- \ngarded the religions of the countries they conquered as \npermanent institutions, and did not consider it as within \ntheir mission to disturb local ceremonies and rites. \n\nThe first people to refuse to adopt the religion of \n\n\n\nReligion the Key to History 259 \n\nthe country in which they found themselves were the \nancient Hebrews. When they were deported to Baby- \nlonia, many of them still kept up the worship of Jahveh. \nThis was the beginning of a new and larger conception \nof religion, \xe2\x80\x94 namely, that it was superior to and could \nnot be upset by changes in locality or political condition. \nThe Jewish people were, to be sure, slow in adopting \nthis conception. It was a great shock to them when \ntold by Isaiah and Jeremiah that Jahveh could survive \nthe destruction of the Holy City and would even help \nin its downfall if his people continued in their sins. For \nmany centuries the majority of the Hebrews clung to \nthe idea that a religious life was inseparably connected \nwith political organization. It was not until the coming \nin of Christianity that the idea of the universal character \nof religion began to prevail. \n\nBut even Christianity could not practically carry out \nits theory that religion is superior to all forms of politi- \ncal organization. When it became the official religion \nof the Roman Empire, the old idea of the inseparable \nunion of religion with political organization came vig- \norously to the front, and never in ancient times was it \ncarried to greater extremes than during the Middle Ages. \n\nThe events of the Protestant Reformation did not \nessentially change this situation. Luther disbelieved \nin the political claims of the church of his day, as well \nas in the religious claims of monastic life, but in their \nplace he strongly advocated the inalienable and divine \nright of princes and kings. He regarded it as the chief \nmission of the civil power to wrest from the papacy its \nusurped prerogatives and take them to itself. Both by \ntemper and by circumstances he was a strong supporter \nof the divine authority of those who rule. \n\n*\' Luther," says the Cambridge Modern History \n\n\n\n2 6o The Sphere of Religion \n\n(vol. iv., p. 741), \'\'not only did not arrest, he actively \nassisted the development of the princely authority ; he \nasserted its divine ordination and universal competence ; \nhe proclaimed the duty of enduring tyranny as God\'s \npunishment for sins ; nor can it be said that he showed \nany sympathy for representative institutions. A com- \npact territory governed by a religious autocrat, with \nfamily life well ordered, was his ideal.\'* \n\nFor two centuries after the outbreak of the Reforma- \ntion, politics continued to become more and more theo- \ncratic. The undue value attached to the Old Testament \nwas chiefly the cause of it. Even Grotius interpreted \nthe passage in the fifty-first Psalm : \' \' Against thee, \nthee only, have I sinned," as clear proof of the \nirresponsibility of kings. \n\nThe uprising of the peasants and the temporary suc- \ncess of the Anabaptists at Miinster compelled the re- \nformers to take the extreme view that the church, as \na visibly organized body, was merely a necessary evil. \nThe state was to them the one divine institution, and \ndamnation was the penalty for attempting to resist it. \nTheir purpose was by no means to minimize religion \nor to make it play a secondary part to politics. On the \ncontrary, their chief motive was to exalt it. What \nthey desired to do was to overthrow the existing form of \nreligion, and they took the most efl&cient way in their \ntime of doing it. \n\nThey had no thought of grounding the state upon \nthe doctrine of Hobbes, that the natural condition of \nman is that of incessant war; that only a "leviathan \npower \' \' could stay the clash of individual wills and \nthus bring peace and order out of chaos. Nor did they \nagree with Machiavelli, whose ideal prince was Cesare \nBorgia, maintaining himself by any means in his power. \n\n\n\nReligion the Key to History 261 \n\nregardless of the welfare of his subjects or the principles \nof morality. Their standard was that of the theocratic \nkings of the Old Testament. And every monarch who \ndid not carry out their views, they denounced as doing \nevil in the sight of God, and not good. All their \npolitical doctrines were adopted in order to enlarge \nwhat they considered to be the true sphere of religion, \nnot to belittle its power. \n\nInteresting and valuable illustrations of how religion \nlay at the foundation of all the struggles of this period \nfor the supremacy of the state are found in Catholic \nlands, as well as in Protestant. When the Doge of \nVenice, in the early years of the seventeenth century, \nstarted out to arrest canons of the church for flagrant \nimmoralities, to limit the number of churches, to pass \nlaws restraining gifts in mortmain and the like, Pope \nPaul V. placed the country under a ban and excom- \nmunicated the Doge and the Senate. This he did on \nthe ground that by the sacred doctrine of the \' \' pleni- \ntude of power " of the Pope, priests were supreme over \nprinces. But the Venetians rose up in their might and \nvigorously asserted \'\'the natural right given by God \nto the state.\'\' The result was that Pope Paul had \neventually to give way, and from that day to this the \nefforts of his successors to re-establish themselves as \nking of kings and lord of lords have been for naught. \n\nMost of the early reformers carried their doctrine of \nthe divine right of kings to such an extreme that they \nfreely admitted not only the right but the duty of sov- \nereigns to persecute. The Religious Peace of Augs- \nburg, made in 1555, gave to each prince the right to \nchoose between the Roman Catholic faith and the \nAugsburg Confession, and to expel those of his sub- \njects who differed from him in reliL^ion. That is. each \n\n\n\n262 The Sphere of Religion \n\n\n\ngovernment was empowered to choose the creed of its \nsubjects, and no one in any matter was ever to resist a \nlegitimate monarch. Nearly a hundred years elapsed \nbefore this position was modified by the regulations \nwhich were finally adopted at the Peace of Westphalia \nin 1648. \n\nAs time went on there came almost everywhere to \nbe found larger or smaller bodies of people who pro- \nfessed a form of religion different from that of their \nsovereign. Their leaders naturally betook themselves \nto the discussion of such questions as the following : \nAre subjects in duty bound to obey their rulers when \ntheir commands are contrary to the laws of God? \nShould a sovereign be resisted who is planning to \nabrogate the laws of God and demolish the church ? \nOught the rulers of adjoining countries to help the \nsubjects of another if they are being persecuted for \ntheir religion or are being continually subjected to \nvicious maltreatment by a tyrant ? \n\nIt was also out of discussions such as these that the \ndoctrine of Original Contract was developed, to which \nas a transition theory to the position of to-day the \nwhole modern world is indebted far more deeply than \nis commonly supposed. According to this view it was \nmaintained that there are in every state two contracts ; \none God makes with the king that He will give pros- \nperity to the nation over which the King rules pro- \nvided it serves God and does not worship idols. The \nsecond is between the king and the people. They \nagree to submit to his rule so long as he gives them \na good government, and only so long. \n\nBefore this theory was developed out of the religious \nexigencies of the age, no right to rebel under any con- \nditions was recognized. Sovereigns were supposed to \n\n\n\nReligion the Key to History 263 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nmake any laws they pleased and to be released from \nany duty to keep their promises. The only recourse \nwas to prayers and tears. From this time on, resist- \nance to tyrants began to be regarded as a justifiable \nact, and a series of revolutions was started affecting \ntwo continents which made possible the political free- \ndom of our day. Thus it came about that \'\'religion \nalone gave the leverage to liberty, which otherwise \nwould have perished in the development of the central \npower. \' * \n\nIt is easy for us in our time to see the defects in this \ntheory of Original Contract, and we repudiate it as w^e \ndo the theory of the divine right of kings. Both these \ntheories were necessary when they arose, and they \nYurnish the connecting link between the ideas of the \nmedieval and modern world. The latter carried the \nsource of all authority and power back to God ; \nthe former prepared the way for the doctrine that God \nhas so made this world that all earthly sovereignty \nreposes in the people as a body-politic and not in any \npriest or king. \n\nOnly as men have changed their ideas regarding \ntheir fundamental relations to God and been moved by \nmotives that appeal chiefly to conscience have they \nbeen willing to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve \nfreedom of religious belief, and it is simply a fact of \nhistory that religious freedom always precedes political \nfreedom. "Religious liberty," says the Cambn\'di^c \nModern History (vol. iii., p. 769), " is rightly described \nas the parent of political. ... It was only the re- \nligious earnestness, the confessional conflicts, and the \npersecuting spirit of the sixteenth century, that kept \nalive political liberty, and saved it from a colla])se more \nuniversal than that which befell Republican ideals at \n\n\n\n264 The Sphere of Religion \n\nthe beginning of the Roman Empire. To the spiritual \nintensity of the Reformers and the doctrinal exclusive- \nness of the confessions \xe2\x80\x94 at once the highest and the \nlowest expressions of the theological age \xe2\x80\x94 we owe the \ncombination of liberty with order which is our most \ncherished possession to-da^\'." \n\nAndrew D. White, so long our distinguished ambas- \nsador to Berlin, in his recently pubhshed Autobiography \n(vol. ii., p. 226) assigns the first place among the \nforces that have contributed to the wonderful advance \nof Germany as a nation within the last fifty years to \n**her religious inheritance." This it is that "gives \nthe best stimulus and sustenance to the better aspira- \ntions of her people." Writing in another chapter \n(vol. ii., p. 439) about his interview with Tricoupis, \nthe prime minister of Greece, he clearly approves of \nTricoupis\' s assertion that modern Greece owes her \npolitical independence to religion. It was the church, \nhe said, that kept alive the language and nationality of \nthe people during the long years of Turkish rule. \n\nAccording to Guizot, democracy was first introduced \ninto Europe by the foreign missionary- Paul. But it \ntook man}^ centuries to giv^e it concrete expression in \nany effective wa}\'. Not until the people of France \nhad successfully carried out their repeated revolutions \nagainst arbitrary monarchial institutions backed up \nby equally arbitrar>^ ecclesiastical authority, and the \nUnited States, stimulated by their example, had success- \nfully thrown off its oppressive yoke, do we have the \nbeginning of modem popular government. The so- \ncalled separation of church and state that was then \neffected destroyed the legal authorit}^ of religion, but \ngreatly increased its moral power. \n\nJudge Simeon E. Baldwin, in his address as President \n\n\n\nReligion the Key to History 265 \n\nof the American Historical Association for 1906, em- \nphasizes the fact that the relation of religion to history \nhas greatly changed since the overturning of the order \nof things that prevailed at the close of the eighteenth \ncefitur>\\ \'\' But," he adds, " its strength remains the \nsame. Once that strength was largely found in the \npower of an established church, or of a sentiment in \nopposition to an established church. Now it is coming \nmore from the force of the principles for which, at \nbottom, churches stand, in influencing public opinion." \n\nA few of the people in a nation, even among the \nleaders, may for a time be indifferent to religion, but \nthe whole people never will be. In our day public \nopinion holds the place of power ; and among all the \nforces that contribute to the formation of public opinion, \nreligion holds the first place, as it always has held it. \nAny plan or purpOvSe that fails to receive the sanction \nof the religious ideas of the time will not go on mi- \nopposed and cannot permanently prosper. A policy \nthat is clearly in accord with the religious sentiments \nof a people is at once accepted and approved. Public \nopinion under such conditions will find a way to ex- \npress itself, which no party machinery can successfully \nresist. \n\nReligion is a large subject, and may be viewed from \nmany different standpoints. The word signifies more \nthan can be expressed in any single sentence. In a gen- \neral way it designates one\'s conception of what is proper \nin a superhuman system of things. Hence its meaning \nmust constantly vary with the changing knowledge \nand experiences of the individual. If a person\'s intel- \nlectual development is meagre and his vision narrow, \nhis religion will l)e also. Two savages differ little in \ntheir religious notions. Their daily routine is almost \n\n\n\n266 The SpJio^e of Religion \n\nidentically the same, and their mental horizon scarcelj^ \nreaches beyond their cabins. The starry heavens is \nnot the Starr}\' heavens to them, and the voice of con- \nscience receives only now and then a passing recog- \nnition. Hence they usually regard the unseen beings \nabove them merely as arbitrary, inconstant powers, \nwhose favor is to be obtained or ill-will averted by the \nuse of magical charms. \n\nAs knowledge increases and the experiences of men \nenlarge, some reaching out in one direction and some \nin another of this vast universe, the material that dif- \nferent individuals gather together out of which to con- \nstruct their religious ideals varies enormously, and \nthere should always be ample room made for this \ndifference. Strict agreement is out of the question \nexcept in the savage state of development, and the \nmore people progress the greater will be the variety \nof their religious beliefs. Any religious system that \ncannot make room for this variety cannot permanently \nendure. \n\nAll the progressive nations of the world in the past \nhave changed the form of their religion with changing \nconditions, and this is what is taking place among the \nprogressive nations of to-day. The fundamental motive \nof religion does not change, nor does it end. The re- \nligious element in man is an essential part of his nature. \nEducation does not give it, and education cannot take \nit awa}\'. It is universal and abiding. Xo man can \nthink of himself as unrelated to something higher and \nstronger than himself. He may call this something \nGod or Nature, or designate it by any other term he \nchooses. Still he cannot help giving his relation to it \na dominant place in his history. His views pro or \ncon on the subject, whether we consider him as an \n\n\n\nReligion the Key to History 267 \n\nindividual or as a member of the state, have always \nvitally affected his conduct and always will. \n\n** Convince the mass of any people," says Judge \nBaldwin in the address above referred to, *\'that a \nchange of custom or of law, or no change of custom \nor law ; that a war or no war ; the maintenance of an \nancient policy or the substitution of another ; the sup- \nport of an existing government or its overthrow, is \ndemanded by duty to God, and you have a motive of \naction that is likely to prove irresistible." \n\nIt is a universally observed fact that w^omen are far \nmore interested in religion than men, and far more \naffected by its influence. The reason for this is that \nthey are by nature less self-centred and self-satisfied \nthan men. They are far more eager than men are to \nplace themselves under the protecting care of some \nhigher and stronger power. Even when happily mar- \nried and securely established in a house of their own \nthey tend far more than men do to look upon all the \nblessings that come to them as gifts from Heaven and \nto express their gratitude in the worship and serv^ice of \ntheir lives. \n\nNow when the babe is born into the world, the first \nperson he has consciously to do with is his mother. \nTo her he looks for support and protection, to her \nhe gives his confidence and his love. As he grows \ninto childhood, she is the one who instructs him as to \nhis relations to others and to God. Women have aiul \nalways will have the early training of the race, ami \nthese early religious impressions are never absolutely \nforgotten. They will at least come to the front in \nmoments of deepest feeling and su])remc effort. \n\nAs the influence of women increases in matters of \neducation and tliLV come to take a larger interest in \n\n\n\n268 The Sphere of Religion \n\npublic affairs, religious considerations will have a cor- \nresponding increase in the state. Men will pay more \nheed to them in their own conduct and in their rela- \ntions to their fellows. They will more strenuously \nfavor what the religious sentiments of the family ap- \nprove, and withhold their support from what those \nsentiments condemn. \n\nThe third volume of the Camb7ddge Modern History^ \nfollowing the one on the Reformation, is entitled \' \' The \nWars of Religion." But, as everybody must admit, the \nw^ars of religion did not by any means end in the seven- \nteenth century. The religious motive in war. Judge \nBaldwin asserts, *\' is as strong to-day as it was a thou- \nsand years ago." He thinks the downfall of Napoleon \nIII. was chiefly due to ecclesiastical intrigues, and also \nthat the war between Germany and Austria in 1866 \nwas fomented at Rome to check the growth of Pro- \ntestantism in Europe. The Germans went on from \nvictory to victory at any cost because they believed \nthat the}^ were fighting for God and fatherland. The \nAmerican Civil War, perhaps the most destructive of \nmen and property in all history, was fought to the bitter \nend to establish the divine rights of man. \n\nEmperor William of Germany in an address before \nthe naval recruits at Wilhelmshaven declared that the \ndefeats of the Russians in the war with Japan were due \nto the deplorable condition of Russian Christianity. On \nthe other hand, the Japanese poured out their blood like \nwater because they were fighting for him whom they \nregarded as their real spiritual leader, as well as earthly \nsovereign. As another has well said, Admiral Togo\'s \nmessage to the Mikado, attributing the annihilation of \nthe Russian fleet to his superhuman influence, \'\'spoke \nthe real conviction of a great man and a great people." \n\n\n\nReligion the Key to History 269 \n\nThe religion of Islam rules the heart of every Moham- \nmedan, regardless of his status or locality. At the call \nof the Sultan of Turkey, the Commander of the Faithful, \nevery Moslem would rush to arms. In a remarkable \nletter written to I/3rd Cromer not long ago by one pur- \nporting to be a representative of the Egyptian people, \nthe writer extols the wonderful improvement in material \naflfairs wrought by the English in Egypt. But all this, \nhe declares, would count for nothing if the Sultan should \nonce ask for soldiers to fight his cause. \n\n**As men,*\' he says, *\'we do not love the sons of \nOsman ; the children at the breast know their words, \nand that they have trodden down the Egyptians like dry \nreeds. But as Moslems they are our brethren; the \nKhalif holds the sacred places and the noble relics, \nthough the Khalif were hapless as Bajazid, cruel as \nMurad, or mad as Ibrahim, he is the shadow of God. \nand every Moslem must leap up at his call as the willing \nservant to his master, though the wolf may devour his \nchild while he does his master\'s work. . . . If it be \nwar, be sure that he who has a sword will draw it, he \nwho has a club will strike with it. The women will cry \nfrom the housetops, * God give victory to Islam.\' " \n\nThe repeated uprisings of the natives in Morocco in \nthe spring and summer of 1907 alarmed Europe not so \nmuch because of their actual violence at the time, but \nbecause it was feared that they were the first signs of a \nvast, volcanic, religious crusade to exterminate the in- \nfidels, started by some \'\' real " Mahdi in some oasis of \nthe desert. The New York Tribune of August 4th of \nthat year in an editorial on the Casablanca uprising \nthat had occurred the day before said aniongotherthings: \n"That the next holy war whenever it comes will far \nsurpass in bitterness and range the vSoudan hostilities ot \n\n\n\n270 The Sphere of Religion \n\nMohammedan Ahmed, is firmly believed by many stu- \ndents of Islam. And there are several significant facts \nwarranting this fear; above all others the zeal with \nwhich Mohammedan leaders from Morocco to Mindanao \nhave been striving to bring together the thousand war- \nring sects of Islam into one universal organization. \nThis movement has apparently gone far enough to \nsimplify considerably the task that a would-be Mahdi \nmust do. Many sects have hopes that some day a \nMahdi, the great successor of the Prophet, will come to \nlead all true believers in a final triumphant war against \nthe infidels and to divide all the world\'s wealth equally \namong the faithful. The good efforts of Pan-Islamists \nmay thus readily be made to help the wildest fanaticism \nand greed, if only a scoundrel clever enough and fana- \ntical enough arises to lead the hosts. Has such a man \narisen ? The Western world is not yet sure. Some of \nEngland\'s best advisers on Islamic affairs believe he \nhas already established himself somewhere in the east- \nern Sahara. Others scoff at this conjecture. But \neverybody interested either in Islam or the economic \ndevelopment of North Africa hopes that French spies \nwill soon be able to settle definitely the rumors of a \nMahdi. \'^ \n\nThe English have always had a serious problem be- \nfore them in their efforts to govern India and never was \nthe problem more serious than at present. The main \ntrouble is not to be attributed to harsh and oppressive \nlaws, for these are often acknowledged by the natives \nto be just and beneficial. The real cause is the differ- \nence in religion. Even in those localities where there \nhas been the most striking improvement in material \nconditions the natives persistently stand aloof from the \nofficials of the government and the most strenuous ef- \n\n\n\nReligion the Key to History 271 \n\nforts to win their confidence and good-will are of little \navail. \n\nChina has remained torpid for two thousand years \nbecause of the unprogressive character of its religion. \nIt is now being awakened out of its slumbers by the \nintroduction among the people of truer and saner relig- \nious ideals. When President Angell of the University \nof Michigan returned some years ago from a govern- \nmental mission to that country, he said in an address \nat Detroit : ** There is not a foot of railroad in China \nto-day. There were twelve miles laid but the natives \nbought it and tore it up ; and the troops have had to \nprotect the telegraph which was built while I was there. \nIt all comes of their religious belief. It is not a pre- \njudice against invention ; it is because a railroad or a \ntelegraph or a reaping-machine interferes with their \nmost sacred religious beliefs ; and you cannot move them \none inch until their belief in ancestral worship and \nConfucianism is shattered to the very base." Since \nthese words were uttered the shattering process has \ngone on at a rapid pace. Examination in the Confucian \nclassics is no longer required for appointment to public \noffice among the Chinese, and this fact alone marks an \nimmense change in their religious standards. \n\nNo intelligent observer will find it difficult to discover \nthe reason why Spain has in recent years become a \nstagnant nation. In these days of religious enlighten- \nment and progress she still imposes upon her rulers the \nfollowing coronation oath, even Princess Ena, the niece \nof King Ivdward, being obliged to subscribe to it before \nher marriage to Alphonso could be solcnniized, and she \ncould be recognized as his queen : *\' I, recognizing as true \nthe Catholic and apostolic faith, do hereby i)ublicly ana- \nthematize every heresy, especially that to which I have \n\n\n\n272 The Sphere of Religion \n\nhad the misfortune to belong. I agree with the Holy \nRoman Church, and profess with mouth and heart my \nbelief in the Apostolic See, and my adhesion to that \nfaith which the Holy Roman Church, the evangelical \nand apostolic authority, delivers to be held. Swearing \nthis by the sacred Homoousion, or trinity of the same \nsubstance, and by the holy gospels of Christ, I do pro- \nnounce those worthy of eternal anathema who oppose \nthis faith, with their dogmas and their followers. And \nshould I myself at any time presume to approve or pro- \nclaim anything contrary hereto, I will subject myself to \nthe severity of the canon law. So help me God and \nthese His Holy Gospels. \' \' With such a religious stand- \nard as this for the people, they cannot fail to retrograde. \nUntil loftier and more truthful ideals are set before them \nadvancement is out of the question. \n\nIt is a striking fact that try as hard as we may we can \nmake but little progress in gaining the sympathetic in- \nterest and trade of our fellow republics in Central and \nSouth America. There is plenty of friendly talk in- \ndulged in at our Pan-American Congresses. Many pro- \njects that would be of great material benefit to all parties \nare loudly extolled , but few bring forth any visible fruit. \nOur southern neighbors, although they copy our politi- \ncal ideas, still continue to view us with suspicion. Race \ndifferences do not account for it, nor do differences in \nlanguage. The plain truth is that their church afl&lia- \ntions and ideals dominate their conduct and draw them \nelsewhere. \n\nEvery historical student is well aware of the fact \nthat in the origin and development of international \nlaw, religion has always exerted a leading influence. \nSir R. Phillimore describes international law as based \nupon **the consent of nations to things which are \n\n\n\nReligion the Key to History 273 \n\nnaturally, that is by the law of God, binding upon \nthem." \n\nPeople were first impelled to come together because \nof sympathy or fellow-feeling for their kind, not be- \ncause they were seeking material aid or economic \nadvantage. Giddings, in the preface to a recent edition \nof his Principles of Sociology, insists upon it \'\'that \nfellow-feeling is a cause in social phenomena and that \nmutual aid is an effect." He extols Adam Smith\'s \nTheory of Moral Sentiments as giving the true histori- \ncal standpoint from which to view human progress \nrather than The Wealth of Nations, \n\nIn primitive times men traced their descent from \ntheir totemic gods. Those who had the same totem \nwere brothers. All strangers were treated by these \ngroups as enemies, but as soon as one of them found \nout that another group had the same religion as itself \nit would unite with it for common worship. Even the \nAmphictyonic Council among the Greeks had for its \nchief object the protection of the temple at Delphi. It \nwas for this reason that the deputies of the twelve tribes \nthat composed it bound themselves by oath that \' \' they \nwould not destroy any Amphictyonic city nor cut off \nits streams in war or peace." \n\nThe ideas of the Christian religion have immensely \ninfluenced the public law of the world. From their \nearliest introduction they have been the chief cause of \nits advancement. It was inevitable that the old doc- \ntrine of the natural antipathy of nations should begin \nto totter when the new idea that God "has made of \none blood all nations of men" once obtained a foot- \nhold. Cabinets and cani])S were alike affected by it. \nThe citizen of one state began to rcco^i;iiize in the citi- \nzen of another a Christian brother. Many of \\\\\\v b:ir- \n18 \n\n\n\n2 74 T^^^ Sphere of Religion \n\nbarities that from the earliest times had been practised \nupon strangers, even the victims of shipwreck being \nregarded as lawful plunder, soon fell away, and others, \nwhich were persisted in in spite of the opposition of the \nchurch, were greatly mitigated in severity and number. \n\nAs an arbitrator between states, the Pope often ex- \nerted a mighty influence for good when all other means \nhad failed. \'\'In an age of force," says Lawrence in \nhis Essays on Modern International Law (p. 149), \'\' he \nintroduced into the settlement of international disputes \nprinciples of humanity and justice, and had the Roman \nCuria always acted upon the principles which it invari- \nably proposed, its existence as a great court of inter- \nnational appeal would have been an unmixed benefit." \nWith all its defects, we must still agree with Professor \nDavis {Outlines of International Law, p. 11) when he \nsays that \' \' unquestionably the most powerful influence \nthat was exerted upon the science of international law \nduring its formative period was that of the Roman \nChurch." \n\nThe institution of chivalry greatly affected many \nphases of the laws of war. Its regulations at first ap- \nplied only to the conduct of knights towards each \nother, but soon the beneficial effects of the institution \nwere seen in the gentler and more humane treatment \nof slaves and captives and in the stricter keeping of \nfaith with enemies and strangers. But chivalry was \nan outgrowth of the crusades, and the crusades, as \neverybody admits, were among the most colossal relig- \nious movements of all history. They brought all \nChristendom far more intimately together than could \npossibly have been done in any other manner. They \nacquainted the people of Western Europe with two civil- \nizations superior to their own \xe2\x80\x94 the Greek and the \n\n\n\nReligion the Key to History \n\n\n\n/:) \n\n\n\nSaraceu \xe2\x80\x94 and thus laid the foundations for the won- \nderful development of international commerce and \nliterature and art that immediately followed. \n\nIn our day the distinction in international law be- \ntween Christian and Mohammedan is disappearing as \neffectually as the ancient one between Greek and bar- \nbarian. This is not because religion has come to have \nless influence in these matters than formerly, but be- \ncause the doctrine of the universal brotherhood of man \nis being so widely extended over the earth. Not that \nwhich is peculiar to any one religion, but that which \nis common to all religions is coming to be more and \nmore completely recognized. \n\nIn obedience to the religious impulse the representa- \ntives of the civilized nations of the earth came together \nat The Hague Peace Conference in 1899, and for the \nsame reason they reassembled in 1907. Indeed we \nhave the best of authority for the statement that the \nvery idea of a Peace Conference was suggested to the \nCzar as a means of improving the lamentable state of \nreligion in his empire. If there could be a reduction \nof armaments, a portion of the enormous expenditures \nof Russia upon war could be devoted to the advance- \nment of the church. The Conference itself from its \nfirst inception received the heartiest support from the \nministers of religion. It is based on the idea that uni- \nversal brotherhood is the criterion of international \nobligations ; that man is a citizen not only of his own \nlocality but of the world ; and that family and race are \nalways to be considered as secondary to humanity. \n\nA better theology and a truer view in reganl to the \nBible are affecting modern civilization to a far greater \nextent than is commonly supposed. The burden of the \ntheology of the Middle Ages was a future heaven and a \n\n\n\n276 The SpJiere of Religion \n\nfuture hell. The most intelligent preachers of our times \nare concentrating their attention upon the present. \n*\' One world at a time " is their motto. If we do our \ndut}^ here and now, the future will take care of itself. \nThe principles of a righteous Ufe are eternal : whatever \nis good for this world is good for the next. Everj^thing \nis put in the present tense. Ser\\\'e God now and keep \nhis commandments. This is the whole dut}^ of man. \n\nThe theolog3^ of to-day is no longer satisfied with a \ncreed that chiefl}\' attempts to set forth the genesis and \nattributes of the Supreme Being, although it asserts \nwith Paul that " the invisible things of him from the \ncreation of the world are clearly seen, being understood \nby the things that are made, even his eternal power \nand Godhead." It seeks to determine what every \ncreature ought to do in his present environment to hve \nin harmou}\' with the eternal source of his being a^d \nhappiness. One of the chief reasons why the Jew and \nthe Christian are now living together in greater peace \nand good will in most civilized lands than ever before \nis the fact that the}^ are both coming to see that the \nOld Testament and the New Testament do not teach \nantagonistic doctrines, but set forth essentially the \nsame unchanging faith. The Jew seeks his rewards \nand looks for his punishments mainly in this present\' \nlife. So now do most intelligent Christians. The \nCommandments refer to the world that now is, and so \ndo the Beatitudes and the Lord\'s Prayer. \n\nThe Bible under the influence of the newer methods \nof interpretation has become almost another book, but \nnever has it affected thought and conduct so much \nas at present. It is shown by statistics to be the best \nselling book in the world. The Japanese, the Russians, \nthe Chinese, and the Hindus are buying it and reading \n\n\n\nReligi07i the Key to History 277 \n\nit in whole or in part to the extent of over a million \ncopies every year. It has well been said \'\'that no \nsingle cause for the spread of religious liberty and, by \nconsequence, of civil liberty in modern times has been \nso powerful as the circulation of the Bible in all \nlanguages." \n\nThe demand for higher ethical standards in politics \nand business and social life that is now asserting itself \nin almost every land is chiefly due to its teachings. \nMen are coming to admit as never before that devotion \nto the true, the beautiful, and the good in this world is \nthe real basis of a w^orthy and happy life ; that, after \nall, character and conduct are the things that really \ncount, and that these are the children of faith in things \neternal and unseen. The spread of these ideas over \nthe earth does not lessen, but greatly enhances the mo- \ntives of love to God and regard for one\'s fellows. These \nare the forces that are directing as never before the \ncourse of history, and will more and more manifest \ntheir power as nations progress. The historian of to- \nday must not only write his history in the religious \nspirit, but he must see the dominating influences of \na Superhuman Power in the world\'s ongoings, if he \nwishes to be true to the facts. For ever^^ careful student \nof the course of human affairs upon this planet must \nagree with Weber in his recent History of Philosophy \n(p. 18), when he says, *\' Philosophy, being a late pro- \nduct of human development, plays but a subordinate \nand intermittent part in history. Religion, on the \nother hand, guides its destinies/* \n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. \n\nWHAT RKI^IGION HAS TO DO WITH EDUCATION. \n\nThe word \' \' education \' * comes from the Latin verb \neducare, meaning to nourish or bring up. By common \nagreement it is not applied to vegetables or animals, \nbut only to persons. Nor is it to be confounded with \nmere training. We have a perfect right to talk about \na well-trained horse or dog or pigeon, but no one of \nthem is or can be educated in the proper sense of that \nterm. Equally unfitting is it to speak of an educated \nsavage, although by dint of physical prowess and intel- \nlectual cunning he may easily gain the mastery over \nall the other savages with whom he comes in contact. \n\nEducation is possible only when a being has de- \nveloped far enough to possess a more or less conscious \nideal of what the improvement of his life requires, only \nwhen his imagination can picture more or less vaguely \na higher plane of existence than the one he now occu- \npies. As Prof S. S. Laurie rightly says in his excellent \nHistorical Survey of Pre-Christian Education (p. 3), " It \nis only when the ideas of bodily vigor, of bravery, of \nstrength, of bodily beauty, or personal morality become \ndesirable for themselves, or as the necessary conditions \nof political life and national conservation, that education \nbegins." \n\nSome sort of an ordered civilization must therefore \nprecede education ; and since different degrees of civil- \nization exist in different communities, a great variety \n\n278 \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Ediicatio7i 279 \n\nof conceptions of education have arisen in the course of \nhistory and still prevail over the earth. We can hardly \ndo better for our purpose than to take it for granted \nthat no person can be considered as well educated who \nhas not consciously developed the capacity to put him- \nself in harmony with his environment and to modify or \nchange that environment. The former places him in \nline with the course of history, and the latter opens up \nthe way to future progress. The environment of any \nman is made up of two things, his physical surround- \nings and the sum-total of knowledge and custom that \nwe call the civilization of his age. It is chiefly with \nthe latter that education has to do. \n\nNow it is admitted by all authorities that the begin- \nnings of civilization were originated by religion. \'* Re- \nligion," says Professor Jastrow in his Study of Religion \n(p. 310), **. . . is the stimulus which produces the \nearliest definite manifestations of culture. It gives \nbirth to the arts and sciences, and not only encourages \nall manner of intellectual pursuits, but presides over \nthem." \n\nMedicine, although the most materialistic of all the \nprofessions, had its origin with the priests. To them \nthe people came for relief from their ills, because they \nwere supj)Osed to know far better than others of their \nnumber how to control the evil spirits, who were \nuniversally regarded in early times as the cause of all \nbodily troubles. \n\nIt is also true that the sanctuary was the oldest \ntribunal of law. When a dispute arose, it was the \npriest who undertook to determine what was the will \nof the local deity in regard to it, and his decision was \ntaken as the ultiniate authority in the case. \n\nAstronomy came into being because of the belief \n\n\n\n2 8o The sphere of Religion \n\ncurrent in that age that the planets and stars were \nassociated with the actions of certain deities. It was \ntherefore considered of great importance carefully to \nwatch their movements, in order to ascertain what of \ngood or ill the gods had in store for mortals. \n\nlyong before the thought arose of making one\'s \ndwelling anything more than a shelter from the in- \nclemencies of the weather, architecture had reached \na high degree of development. For temples had to be \nerected for the abodes of the gods. Then came paint- \ning and sculpture to adorn and beautify these abodes. \nMusic was developed in order to entertain the deities, \nand odes and hymns were composed to sound forth \ntheir praises. Philosophy arose out of theology, and \nat the outset included all the natural sciences known \nin that day. In short, everything that pertained to \nthe civilization of the time had religion for its source. \n\nIt is no accident, therefore, that in the earliest ages \nthe entire matter of education and culture was in \nthe charge of priests. In Egypt, they constituted the \nhighest order in the state, and along with the monarch \ngoverned the country. All the learning of the Egyp- \ntians was in their hands. They instructed the mem- \nbers of the royal family, and, it is to be presumed, the \nchildren of court dignitaries. Great colleges for the \neducation of priests were situated in the principal cities, \nsuch as Memphis, Thebes, and Heliopolis, and in them \nthe highest learning of the land was to be found. \n\nAmong the Chaldseo-Babylonians, the priests not \nonly conserved and developed the religious system \nwhich they had inherited from the Accadians, but they \nalso handed down the traditions of the race and em- \nbodied in an oral and written literature its highest \npoetical conceptions and its philosophy of life. \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 281 \n\nThe Assyrians rivalled the Babylonians in the mag- \nnificence of their temples and palaces and the art with \nwhich they were adorned. Technical and military \nskill was undoubtedly developed among them to a \nhigh degree of excellence and was widely diffused. \nBut education of the highest kind, as with the Baby- \nlonians, was in the keeping of the priests. Whatever \neducation the youth of the land received was due to \nthem. \n\nBy far the most famous of the Semitic races were the \nHebrews. Moses was the central figure in their history \nand he was one of the greatest schoolmasters of all time. \nHe claimed to be the mouthpiece of Jahveh and his \none aim was to make him the centre of the spiritual and \npolitical life of the people. Civil law and social practice \nwere derived from the law of God. As another remarks : \n**The banal distinction between sacred and secular, \nfrom which modem Europe suffers, did not exist.\'* It \nwas this close connection between religion, morality, \nand civil polity that gave the Jewish priesthood an in- \nfluence unequalled in any other land. \n\nWith the Israelites, all education was religious both \nin its highest and lowest forms. The fear of the Lord \nwas not only the beginning, but the end of all wisdom. \nAll the literature of the countr}^ centred around Jahveh. \nPriests and prophets and scribes devoted their energies \nto the preservation and application of his commands and \nthe psalmists gave their strength to sounding forth his \npraises. \n\nThe Jewish conception of the relation of religion to \neducation is well summed up in the injunction : ** Thou \nshalt love the lyord thy God witli all thine heart, and \nwith all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these \nwords, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine \n\n\n\n282 The Sphere of Religion \n\nheart : and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy \nchildren, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in \nthine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and \nwhen thou liest down, and when thou risest up " \n(Deut. vi. 5-7). This requirement made some degree \nof education imperative and has enormously aiOFected \nnot only the history of the Jewish people, but of the \nworld. \n\nLearning among the Hindus was almost exclusively \nin the hands of the Brahmans. Under certain conditions \nthey explained portions of it to the two next lower castes. \nFor they alone were considered capable in any degree \nof comprehending its meaning. Manu\'s Book of Laws \nthus expresses the end of all education : "\' To learn and \nto understand the Vedas, to practise pious mortifica- \ntions, to acquire divine knowledge of the law and of \nphilosophy, to treat with veneration his natural and \nspiritual father, these are the chief duties by means of \nwhich endless felicity is attained." In the same Book \nof Laws, we also read : \'\'A female child, a young girl, \na wife, shall never do anything according to their own \nwill, not even in their own house. While a child she \nshall depend upon her father ; during her youth \non her husband; and, when a widow, on her sons\'* \n(v., 147). The religion of the countr}^ made it almost \nthe sole mission of women to bear children and serve \ntheir husbands. Hence women, among the Hindus, \nwere excluded from all education, except in the case of \ndancing girls who were taught to read and write and \nsing in order to serve in the temples as * \' maidens of \nthe god." \n\nThe Magi among the Persians possessed all the sci- \nence and philosophy of the nation ; but as the religion \nthey represented was a religion of light and truth, as \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 283 \n\nopposed to darkness and error, they taught the people \ncourage and truth-speaking and purity of life. Accord- \ning to Herodotus, they thought that the most dis- \ngraceful thing in the world was to tell a lie ; and that \nthe next worst thing was to owe a debt, because, \namong other reasons, the debtor is obliged to tell lies. \nThe Persians regarded themselves as colaborers with \nArmazd, the lord of life and light, and were to fight \nwith him for the establishment of his Kingdom of Light. \nHence they did what they could to educate their chil- \ndren in personal courage and justice and truth. They \nmade these virtues the sum and substance of education, \nbecause they had developed in their religious ideas far \nenough to regard them as the chief attributes of God. \n\nAmong the Chinese, the Greeks, and the Romans, \nthere was no separately organized priesthood, but its \nplace was taken by a political aristocracy. The state \nwas the church, and embodied in its scheme of civil \naffairs the moral and religious guidance of the people. \nNor do we find in these cases any real exception to the \nrule that in ancient times the educational leaders of a \nnation were identical with those of the church. \n\nConfucianism has for many centuries been the state \nreligion of the Chinese and their whole life is still for \nthe most part controlled by it. The idea of a great \nworld-order established and maintained by a Supreme \nPrinciple of Mind is the foundation of all their thought. \nAnd this world-order first found expression among them \nin their family life. This is the centre of the religious \nand political activity of the people. The mission of the \nemperor, who is the son of heaven and father of his \npeople, has always been to order and govern all human \ninstitutions by laws bearing upon every department of \nlife. Antiquity is, in the opinion of the Chinese, the \n\n\n\n284 The Sphere of Religion \n\ninfallible guide to truth. While they have often shown \ngreat intellectual ability and acuteness, a superstitious \nregard for the past has crushed out all originality from \ntheir systems of education. Only that which has been \napproved by their ancestors is regarded as worthy of \nreverence and thought. \n\nSome writers have asserted that the Greeks, whom \nall admit to have been the most intellectual and best \neducated people of their age, were not deeply religious, \nbut the fact is just the opposite. Every Greek child \nwas early taught to pay homage to the conical stone \nof Apollo that stood in front of his dwelling, and an \naltar to Zeus occupied the chief place in every court- \nyard. A libation to Hestia was poured out on the hearth \nnot only at the beginning of every feast, but of the or- \ndinary meal. \' \' Kitchen, storerooms, and bedchamber \nhad their respective divinities. From birth to death there \nwere few events in the life of a Greek when the gods \nwere not remembered . \' \' They believed that everything \nthat man possesses was the gift of the gods and they \nwere constantly approaching them with oflFerings and \nprayers to win their favor for the future or to express \ntheir thankfulness for the past. \n\nThis was especially true of them as a nation. They \ncommemorated their victory over the Persians by erect- \ning the colossal bronze statue of Athene on the Acrop- \nolis and a group of lesser deities at Delphi. Later as they \ncame into possession of more wealth they constructed \nthe Parthenon and Propylaea at Athens and numerous \ntemples in other cities, whose remains are to this day \nthe wonder and the joy of mankind. Throughout \nall their history their religious festivals were celebrated \nwith devout regularity and with becoming dignity and \npomp. \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 285 \n\nIt is true that they did not make much of priests, al- \nthough they had them at such religious centres as Eleusis \nand Delphi ; for they did not regard them as having any \npeculiar knowledge concerning the will of the gods or \nany special control over their conduct. Nor did they \nfeel the need of any mediators between themselves and \ntheir gods, or of the exact performance of a complicated \nsystem of rites. The absence among them of any belief \nin a revelation committed to the care of a chosen few also \nlargely accounts for this fact. They all thought of the \ngods as everywhere present and deeply concerned in \neverything that pertained to their private and public life. \nFear was not dominant in their natures and their rela- \ntion to their gods was a pleasant and friendly one. They \nwere too light-hearted and optimistic to dwell much upon \nthe mysterious and awful in the world. \n\nTheir gods were concrete individuaHties who em- \nbodied in themselves the highest ideals of human \nthought. They saw in the causes of all being and all \nchange, moving forces similar to those that operated \nin their own breasts. Their worship was in truth the \nworship of humanity. \'* To the Hellenic conception \neverything beautiful was holy : everything pleasant to \nman was acceptable to the gods.\'\' Hence it is that \ntheir religious sentiments naturally expressed them- \nselves in architecture and the plastic arts. Pericles \nknew, as Von Ranke points out, that when he was \npromoting the fine arts among the Athenians he was \nstrengthening their religion. \n\nThe Greek religion was the religion of the beautiful \nand they saw this beauty in everything around them. \nNothing in their eyes was common or unclean. They \ninvestigated everything in order to find out its ideal \nrelations ; for in that way only could they satisfy their \n\n\n\n286 The Sphere of Religion \n\npassion for knowing things as the gods knew them, \nwhich to them was the same thing as saying, as they \nreally are. For this reason we owe to them not only \nthe arts of architecture, sculpture, and painting, and \nthe finest forms of poetry, but the beginnings of science \nand history and the extraordinary elaboration of logic \nand philosophy. \n\nAll their education, both physical and mental, was \nprimarily undertaken for the purpose of raising man to \ntheir conception of the divine. The body was subjected \nto the most vigorous training in order that it might be \nmade the easy vehicle of a free and happy spirit. The \ngreat games on the plains of Olympia, to which all \nGreece annually flocked, were always accompanied \nby services in the temple and had the special favor \nof the gods. The greatest reward bestowed upon the \nvictor was to elevate him to the rank of the gods. \n\nWhile the prime object of human existence, as Aris- \ntotle expressed it, was to ^ * live happily and beauti- \nfully " like a god, the secondary object was to fit \noneself for his place in the state. For only thus could \none come to the full and free development of his powers. \nThe state to an Athenian was not something arbitrarily \nimposed upon him from without. It got its authority \nfrom himself. Its laws were a counterpart of his own \nlife. Hence his idea was that you must have the most \nhighly developed manhood in order to have the best \ncitizen. This was an ideal much higher than any \nthat had preceded it, as it aimed at the harmonious \ndevelopment of the whole man, both of mind and body. \n\nlyaurie is right in maintaining in his discussion of \neducation among the Greeks that \'* the civic idea was \ndominant, just as in China the family idea was and is \ndominant, and in India the caste idea, in Egypt the \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 287 \n\nclass idea, among the Jews the theological idea, and \namong the Persians the virile military idea." But, as \nhe himself elsewhere holds, each of these ideas is to be \ntraced back to a preconceived religious idea as to what \nkind of an education would be most acceptable to the \ngods. \n\nIt may be well here to note that although the Greeks \nhad very lofty ideas in regard to education, like all \nother ancient nations they made no attempt to apply \nthem to all classes. Women among the Athenians had \nno school education. The little they knew about the \nworld in which they lived they learned at home. Ex- \ncept on great festival occasions they and their children \nwere generally confined to the upper floor of their \ndwellings. So far from having any athletic develop- \nment they were for the most part slender and pale. \nPropriety of conduct, domestic thrift, and the harmon- \nious management of the household were considered \ntheir finest qualities. They took no part in social en- \ntertainments. When a husband had guests at dinner, \nthe wife was not allowed to be present, although it was \nher duty carefully to prepare the feast. \n\nAnd tlien, too, we must remember that slavery was \neverywhere dominant. In Attica, at its best period, \nfour out of five of its population belonged to that class. \n\nOne of the chief differences between the religion of a \nRoman and that of a Greek is seen in the fact that \nwhen the former made a sacrifice he covered his head \nwith a veil, while the latter raised his hands and eyes \ntoward the heavens. The very word ** religion,** which \nhas come down to us from the ancient Romans, shows \nus with what awe they approached the Unseen. To \nthem religion was not a matter of joyous friendliness, \nbut a great and serious reality. As Ihne puts it (///.v- \n\n\n\n2 88 The Sphere of Religion \n\ntory of Ro7ne, vol. iv., p. 3), \'^ religion with the Romans \nwas not a matter of feeUng or speculation, but of law.\' ^ \n\nTheir supreme deity was Jupiter Optimus Maximus, \nwhom they regarded not alone as the father of men and \nthe source of every blessing, but pre-eminently the di- \nvine personification of the Roman state. This deep \nreligious feeling was exhibited all through their history \nand they always made a complete identification of the \nchurch with the state. It is said of the great Scipio \nAfricanus that he went daily into the temple of Jupiter \nto pray, and that he ascribed all his triumphs to the \nprotecting care of that deity. \n\nThe unit of the Roman state was the family, and the \ncentre of the family life was the worship of the house- \nhold gods. The Penates watched over the hearth and \nthe Lares were the spirits of departed ancestors, who \nwere regarded as still concerned with all that related \nto the welfare of their descendants. In the atrium of \nthe house, beside the household hearth, usuall}^ stood \nbetween two Penates the chief Lar clad in a toga. Be- \nfore this shrine a prayer was offered every morning \nand libations were poured out at every meal-time. \nThree times a month and on all festal occasions \nsacrifices were made, the father acting as a priest. \n\nThe Roman clans were but enlarged families, each \nclan having a common altar and making common sac- \nrifices ; and the religion of the Roman state was simply \nthe religion of the clans, with a common hearth, where \nthe Vestal Virgins forever guarded the eternal fire. \n\n" So closely," sa^^s a high authority on the subject, \n\'\' was the Roman life bound up with religion that we \nhave found it impossible to speak of the one without \nthe other. The Roman state ultimately rests on Jupiter \nas law and order and object of supreme reverence, on \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 289 \n\nMars as the strong arm for defence and oflFence, and \non Vesta as symbolizing the sacredness and purity of \nthe home." \n\nIn regarding Jupiter as the head of the state, the \nRomans came instinctively to recognize law as the \nbasis of true liberty, and they did not seek it in \nthe arbitrary decisions of individuals. They thus \nmade themselves an extending and long-enduring \npower, and laid the foundations of a jurisprudence that \nbecame a mighty factor in the subsequent history of \nthe world. In the divine law they saw the elder sister \nof civil law, and the mould or pattern in which it was \nto be cast. The characteristics of the one became the \ncharacteristics of the other. In both we find the same \nvSeverity, the same precision, the same inflexible will, \nand the same aversion to modification or change. \n\nIn these elements of their religion and, what amounts \nto the same thing, their political life, we find the key \nto their conception of education. Their youth were \ninstructed in such things as would help them bear \nthe burdens of the state. They did not devote their \nenergies to music and gymnastics, as the Greeks did, \nin order that they might develop a beautiful mind in a \nbeautiful body. But, in the words of Cicero, *\'the \nchildren of the Romans, on the other hand, are brought \nup that they may one day be able to be of service to \nthe fatherland, and one must accordingly instruct them \nin the customs of the state and in the institutions of \ntheir ancestors.\'* Mere culture and harmonious de- \nvelopment was not the end they had in view. They \ngave little time and strength to poetry and science and \nart for tliat reason. \n\nWhat they sought was virtus, manly vigor. The \nstudies they pursued were mainly intended to make \n19 \n\n\n\n290 The Sphere of Religion \n\nthem strong for political service. For the most part \nthe education a boy received in the palmiest days of \nthe Roman people was obtained through the moral and \nreligious influences of his own home in constant and \nfree intercourse with his father and mother. And he \nwas considered to have reached the highest degree of \nwisdom of which he was capable if he had developed \nin himself a deep sense of duty to law, to paternal \nauthority, and to the state. \n\nWith the lawless indulgence of almost every passion \nand the utter disregard for the demands of ethics and \nreligion that attended the decline and fall of the Roman \nEmpire, this standard of education vanished from sight, \nand mere dilettanteism and glibness of tongue were \nmost cultivated and admired. The rhetoricians were \ndominant in this period, and they made it their chief \naim to develop in their pupils the ability to speak with \nequal effectiveness on either side of any proposition, \ncaring little or nothing for the quality of the thought. \n*\'This power of using words,\'\' says Professor Dill, \nwhen describing this era, * \' for mere pleasurable effect \non the most trivial or the most extravagantly absurd \nthemes was for many ages, in both west and east, \nesteemed the highest proof of talent and cultivation." \n\nThis state of things continued until the ideas of the \nChristian religion began to have some effect upon the \nthought of the time, and the rise and fall of education \never since have chiefly depended upon the way they \nhave been treated. The two leading ideas of this re- \nligion are that God is not only a god of law, but of \nlove, and that every man is a child of God, capable \nof being his companion and friend. The best the \npagan world had to offer for the improvement of so- \nciety was an appeal to the intellect. Education was \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 291 \n\ntherefore necessarily aristocratic and possible only for a \ncomparatively few favored spirits. Christianity aroused \nthe moral nature and placed its emphasis upon the \nwill, rendering the attainment of virtue possible for \nall. It thus laid the foundation for a new solution of \nthe educational problem. \n\nThe Stoic philosophy as represented by Seneca, Epic- \ntetus, and Marcus Aurelius approached ver}^ closely to \nthe ethical teachings of Christianity, for it fully recog- \nnized that a regard for moral conduct was the supreme \nneed of the time. Stoics, equally with the Christians, \nwere the first humanitarians. They both believed in \nthe inherent right of every citizen to an education. \nBut stoicism could appeal only to a limited few, whose \nminds were already highly developed. Hence it can- \nnot be compared with Chrisitanity in the extent of its \ninfluence or its bearing upon the matter of education. \n\nNone of the ancient religions or philosophies did \nmuch or were capable of doing much for the improve- \nment of the people at large. Slavery everywhere \nabounded, and sympathy with the unfortunate or re- \ngard for others was seldom mentioned by any of them, \nand rarely if ever highly commended. \n\nProfessor Munroe in \\\\\\s History of Ediccation (p. 229), \nin concluding a description of the condition of affairs in \nthe Roman Empire to which the Christian ideas of \neducation had to adapt themselves, says : *\' The most \nrefined women of the period were devoted to these pub- \nlic spectacles [gladiatorial combats] ; even women de- \nscended to fight in the circus ; there were connoiSvSeurs \nin the expressions of men dying in torture ; at private \nbanquets men were torn to pieces by wild beasts for \nthe entertainment of guests. It was said of one of the \nemperors that he \' never supped without human blood.\' \n\n\n\n2g2 The Sphere of Religi07i \n\nThese facts indicate how decadent beyond all modem \nstandards was this society ; how impossible it is for us \nnow to comprehend those times ; and also w^hat was \nthe task before the new Christian education." \n\nThe early church betook itself at once to the destruc- \ntion of this state of society. Consequently it gave its \nattention almost wholl}\' to the moral education of its \nmembers. Its only text-books were the Mosaic Law \nand the Sermon on the Mount ; and they inculcated \nstandards of personal moralit}^ never before heard of \nby the great mass of the population. The testimony \nof scholars is unanimous that the early Christian Church \nthus introduced into the world, and enforced, an en- \ntirely new S3\'stem of education, that for several cen- \nturies, at least, produced results among the most \nremarkable as well as the most beneficial in all histor}^ \n\nDivorce, which had reached such a state that men \nwere said to change their wives as easih\' as their gar- \nments, was made disreputable and largel}^ suppressed. \nInfanticide, before universally practised, was rooted \nout. The exposure of children was made a capital \ncrime. Gladiatorial shows were put down, and the \ngrossh\' lascivious rites of many pagan religious bodies \nabolished. \n\nThe schools that the earty Christians established \nwere at first as a matter of necessity catechumenical. \nThey were designed to give to those who wished to \njoin their number the requisite knowledge of their doc- \ntrines and mode of life, and also to cultivate an ac- \nquaintance with music, which they made almost as \nmuch use of as the ancient Greeks. Later, higher \nschools were instituted at Alexandria and other Eastern \ncentres, where the leaders and ministers of the church \nwere instructed in all the Grecian learning of the day. \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 293 \n\n\n\nAs time went on a decided diflference of opinion arose, \namong those most prominent in affairs, as to the value \nof this learning, the church Fathers of the East arguing \nin its favor and those of the West against it. \n\nJustin Martyr declared that Plato, Socrates, and \nHeracleitus were Christians before Christ, and that \nGrecian philosophy tended to the same end as Chris- \ntianity. Clement claimed that \'\' Plato was Moses \nAtticized," and that the philosophy of the ancients \nwas *\'a pedagogue to bring the world to Christ." \nOrigen, the most learned of the early Christian Fathers, \ncontended strongly for the helpfulness of the pagan \nsciences to the doctrines of Christianity, and was the \nchief instrument in disseminating the new religion \namong the Greeks. \n\nTertullian, the first of the Latin Fathers, on the \nother hand, vigorously maintained that heresies only \nare stimulated by the study of philosophy. **What \nindeed," he exclaims, "has Athens to do with Jeru- \nsalem ? What concord is there between the Academy \nand the Church ? What between heretics and Chris- \ntians? . . . Away with all attempts to produce a \nmottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic \ncomposition ! " \n\nEssentially the same point of view was taken by \nSt. Jerome, the author of the famous Vulgate version \nof the Scriptures. A dream which he records well \nexpresses his sentiments on this subject. On being \ndragged before the judgment-scat of heaven he was \nasked, \'\' Who art thou ? " He replied, *\' A Christian." \nBut immediately his stricken conscience heard the awful \njudgment, "It is false: thou art no Christian ; thou \nart a Ciceronian ; where the treasure is, there the heart \nis also." \n\n\n\n2 94 The Spliere of Religion \n\nThe influence of Augustine, the most active and \npowerful mind of the church Fathers of the West, was \nstrongly against the classical learning in the later period \nof his life, and he probably induced the Council of Car- \nthage to prohibit all clerics from reading any of it. In \nthis contest the Fathers of the West finally prevailed \nand their victor}\' resulted, as was to be expected, in a \ngeneral lack of interest in learning of even,\' kind. It \nbrought on the period commonly known as " the dark \nages, \' \' and for a thousand years it impeded the progress \nof education far more effectivel}^ than any other single \ncause, and many think than all other causes combined. \n\nOn account of it, the education of the early church \nreached its culmination in asceticism and monasticism. \nFor it insisted upon the false doctrine that religion re- \nquires a renunciation of the world that now is, the \nabandonment of all real interest in the affairs of ever^-- \nda}\' life, and concentrated its attention almost exclu- \nsivel}\' upon the world that is to come. It ruled out of \nthe sphere of thought the three most important phases \nof human life \xe2\x80\x94 the family, industrial society, and the \nstate, \xe2\x80\x94 phases which it is the glor}\' of the Christian \nreligion, as interpreted in our day, especially to extol. \n\nBut even the monks themselves were far from being \nsatisfied with this narrow and one-sided view. In spite \nof the disapproval of the church leaders for several \ncenturies, they kept alive a knowledge of the ancient \nliterature, and we owe it to their care that this know- \nledge has been presen\'ed to our time. For centuries the \nmonasteries possessed the onl}- libraries, produced the \nonly scholars, and were the only universities of research. \n\nIn spite of thelow state of education during this period, \nefforts were made here and there to broaden religious \nbeliefs and brino; about a srreater re2:ard for the welfare \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 295 \n\nof man in this life. It was under the influence of this \nmotive that the Emperor Charlemagne, toward the close \nof the eighth century, called Alcuin from one of the \ncathedral schools in England to assist him in reviving \nan interest in learning. He fully recognized the fact \nthat the chief instrument for uniting and elevating a \npeople is their religion, and that if you have ignorant \nand narrow-minded clergymen little or nothing can be \ndone to this end. Accordingly he commanded that \nletters be taught to them in order that, as he says in his \ncapitulary upon schools, there may be \'\' a regular man- \nner of life and one conformable to holy religion." \n\nStill the old ideas, for the most part, held sway until \nthe thirteenth century, when scholasticism gained a hold \nupon the church and, for two hundred years, had an al- \nmost unmolested reign. Education for this period \nchiefly consisted in the development of ability, under \nthe guidance of the Aristotelian logic, to elaborate the \ndogmas of the church, into the most perfect and compli- \ncated systems of thought. Little or no attention was \npaid to the validity of the material used, or to the ques- \ntion as to whether equally or more important facts had \nnot been left out. \n\nAbout this time, owing chiefly to the unrest within \ntheir own borders, monastic schools here and there began \nto be enlarged into universities. The one at Paris was \nthe most famous and became the mother of many others. \nOxford was brought into notice by a migration from \nParis in 1229, and Cambridge became prominent on \naccount of a similar migration from Oxford. By the \ntime of the Renaissance, seventy-five to eighty of these \ninstitutions had arisen in difierent parts of Europe. \nHere freedom of discussion first found its home. At \nthe outset only one or two subjects of a strictly tlieo- \n\n\n\n296 The Sphere of Religion \n\nlogical character were taken up, but later the curriculum \nwas enlarged to cover the entire range of the then \nexisting studies. \n\nAlthough these institutions often possessed but little \nreal power, still they always kept alive the spark at \nleast of independent investigation. Out of them came, \nin course of time, the forerunners of modern thought \nsuch as Roger Bacon, Dante, Petrarch, Wycliffe, Co- \npernicus, and Huss, all of whom did so much to broaden \nthe religious conceptions of their age, and open up the \nway for the development of the modern spirit. They \nwere the first to show the world how unsatisfactory and \nnarrow was the existing system of education, that found \nno worthy aims to be pursued in this life, except those \nthat bore immediately upon the life to come. \n\nTaking advantage of the discontent of the people with \nthe conditions that the crusades had largely brought \nabout, they did what tbe}^ could to open up to the world \nthree spheres of life that for centuries had been almost \nwholly unknown : \xe2\x80\x94 the civilization of the ancients, to \nwhich the leaders of the church up to that time had \nbeen almost wholly indifferent ; the world of literature, \nof which medieval thought was densely ignorant , and \nthe world of nature, which was universally supposed \nin that age to exert upon man an ignoble and debasing \ninfluence. \n\nBefore this time these realms of knowledge were re- \ngarded as antagonistic to a religious life and were not \ncultivated for that reason. These men and others like \nthem such as John Reuchlin, Roger Ascham, John \nSturm, and above all Erasmus opposed this view and \nbegan the agitation that eventually led to the develop- \nment of the manifold spheres of activity that characterize \nour modem times. \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 297 \n\nThe new humanistic learning was especially accept- \nable in Germany, The first permanent chair devoted \nto it was founded at the University of Erfurt in 1494 \nwhere Luther was educated, and Wittenberg from its \nvery beginning in 1502 was one of its principal centres. \nBy 1520 it was represented in all the German univer- \nsities of that day and became one of the chief instru- \nments in bringing about the Protestant Reformation. \n\nIt is to this latter movement that we owe the general \ncharacteristics of the education of our day, in spite of \nthe fact that during the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- \nturies the results logically involved in the fundamental \npositions of the reformers were not realized. The bitter \npartisan and religious wars that were waged during this \nperiod absorbed the energies of the people and pre- \nvented the spread of free learning that took place when \nthe country had more time to devote to the art of peace. \n\nThe reformers were the first to advocate the estab- \nlishment of systems of schools based upon the idea of \nuniversal education. *\'Such systems of state public \nschools," says Munroe {History of Educatio7i, p. 407), \n\'*are wholly due in their origin to the Reformation. \nTheir development and completion awaited the growth \nof the political idea that the welfare of the state depends \nupon the education of the individual citizen. The basis \nfor all these modern systems of schools is found in the \nReformation doctrine that the eternal warfare of ever>\' \nindividual depends upon the application of his own \nreason to the revelation contained in the Scriptures." \n\nThe reformers were so persistent in this matter that \nthey demanded not only the universal education of \nchildren of all classes and both sexes, but the compul- \nsory education as well. \n\nJohn Calvin did what he could for the establishment \n\n\n\n298 \n\n\n\nThe Sphere of Religion \n\n\n\nof schools at Geneva. Zwingle urged their general in- \ntroduction in an able treatise on \'\'The Manner of \nInstructing and Bringing up Boys in a Christian Way/* \nand John Knox was the chief agent in establishing the \nparish school system of Scotland. \n\nBut it was in Germany that the new ideas about \neducation were advocated with the most persistent \nzeal. lyUther, Melanchthon, and many others worked \nheart and soul for a wider dissemination of the oppor- \ntunities for education and a truer conception of its \nfunction. Luther insisted upon the enlargement of the \ncurriculum so as to include not only the classical lan- \nguages and mathematics, but histor}^, science, music, \nand gymnastics. It is chiefly due to Luther\'s efforts \nthat music and physical education are made so much \nof in Germany to-day. \n\nlyUther was also a strong advocate of manual train- \ning. " My opinion is," he declares, "that we must \nsend the boys to school one or two hours a day, and \nhave them learn a trade at home for the rest of the \ntime. It is desirable that these two occupations march \nside by side." \n\nHe argues in favor of a system of schools supported \nby general taxation that the general welfare of religion \nand of the state requires it. \' \' They [the magistrates], \' \' \nhe says, "do not deal justly with their trust before \nGod and the world unless they strive to their utmost, \nnight and day, to promote the cit3^\'s increase and \nprosperity. . . . But this is the best and the richest \nincrease, prosperity, and strength of the city, that it \nshall contain a great number of polished, learned, in- \ntelligent, honorable, and well-bred citizens, who, when \nthey become all this, may then get wealth and put it \nto good use." The school systems of the Protestant \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 299 \n\nstates of Europe are the result of his teachings and \ninfluence. \n\nMelanchthon, the famous professor of theology at \nWittenberg, is called the Precepter of Germany be- \ncause he did so much to formulate and carry out \nlyUther\'s reforms. He not only made Wittenberg a \nmodel for the other universities of Germany, but, says \nMunroe (p. 415), \'\'There was scarcely a city in all \nGermany but had modified its schools according to \nMelanchthon\' s direct advice or after his general direc- \ntion.\'\' His correspondence with fifty-six of these cities \nis still in existence. He wrote nearly all the text- \nbooks used in the lower schools of his day, as well as \nthe system of Protestant theology which formed the \nbasis of the instruction in the universities. \n\nSimilar educational improvements were made in \nEngland by the reformers under the leadership of \nsuch men as Tyndale and Latimer, although the sec- \nondary schools in that country, owing to the fact that \nthey soon passed under the control of the national \nchurch, have not to this day been organized into any \nwell-ordered system. \n\nWhen the Roman Catholic leaders began to realize \nthe effectiveness of the Protestant schools in advancing \nthe interests of their churches and in furthering the \nsocial and material well-being of the people, they at \nonce resorted to the same means. The teaching orders \nadopted the new ideas and devoted themselves to put- \nting them into execution. The strongest and most \nimportant of these orders was that of the Jesuits. They \ncontrolled education in the south of Europe and in \nFrance and were also lari;cly inilucntial in many ]Kirts \nof northern luiropc. For two hundred years accord in i; \nto some very competent judges theirs were the most \n\n\n\n300 The Sphere of Religion \n\nsuccessful educational institutions in existence, a great \nproportion of the leading men of Europe during that \nperiod being educated in them. \n\nSince the time of the reformers and the Jesuits, sys- \ntems of education have changed far more rapidly than \nat any other period in history, and methods have \ngreatly changed, but there has been no change in the \nfundamental motive of education. As in all previous \nhistory, the chief inspiring cause of education has been \nreligion in some form. Christianity from its very in- \ntroduction was the primary stimulus to education in \nall the lands where it gained a footing and it remains \nso to this day. \n\nThis is shown just as truly from the history of the \nnew world as from that of the old. The Dutch col- \nonists in America were required by the laws of Holland \nto plant a church in every one of their settlements. \nWhen the early settlers of New England came to these \nshores they brought the same devotion to education \nthat had characterized the reformers of the mother \ncountry. Six years after the first settlement of Boston, \nHarvard College was organized, and the avowed pur- \npose of its founders consisted ** in vindicating the truth \nof Christ and promoting his glorious kingdom.\'\' The \noriginal charter of Yale College declares the motive \nof the undertaking to be \'\'a sincere regard to and \nzeal for upholding and propagating of the Christian \nProtestant religion." \n\nThe first general law for the establishment of public \nschools upon this continent was passed in 1647 ^Y the \nMassachusetts Bay Colony. The preamble to the law \nshows at once its dominant motive: \'\'It being one \nchief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men \nfrom the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 301 \n\ntimes, keeping them in an unknown tongue . . . ; and \nto the end that learning may not be buried in the \ngraves of our forefathers in church and commonwealth, \nthe lyOrd assisting our endeavors, \xe2\x80\x94 It is therefore or- \ndered," etc. Every town of fifty householders was \nrequired to establish an elementary school, and every \ntown of one hundred householders a grammar school. \nThese institutions, and others like them, have been the \nchief means for carrying on the education of the people \nin this country ever since, however much counses of \nstudy have changed, and the way of supporting the \nteachers has varied. \n\nThe great leaders in education, practically without \nexception, have always been more desirous of helping \non the application of religious principles to every form \nof human activity than they have been of anything \nelse, and there is not the slightest probability that men \nand women who are publicly known to be antagonistic \nto such principles will ever be given the general con- \ntrol of the schools, either of this or of any other civilized \nland. \n\nComenius, whom a scholarly writer extols as \'*the \nman whose theories have been put into practice in ev- \nery school that is conducted on rational principles,*\' \navowedly makes the ideas of religion determine the \naim and scope of education. He gives as the primary \nprinciple of his Great Didactic, **the ultimate end of \nman is eternal happiness with God *\' ; and he main- \ntains that this ultimate end can only be secured \nby a knowledge of oneself and of one\'s environment, \na position which even in our lime is not yet fully \nrecognized and approved. \n\nIn his famous work, Ho7v Gertrude Teaches, Pesta- \nlozzi expressly declares that the prime object of educa- \n\n\n\n302 The Sphere of Religion \n\ntion is to ** build up humanity in the image of God.\'* \nWhat he rails at is the way taken to do it in his \nday. It is \'^ the mania for words and books," he \nsays, ** which has absorbed everything in our popular \neducation. We ought not to make ability to commit \nto memory theological texts the aim of education, but \nthe development of the child\'s entire nature \xe2\x80\x94 mental, \nmoral, and physical." He made no attempt to change \nthe ultimate end of education, but simply to improve \nthe method of obtaining it. \n\nHerbart, who built upon and supplemented the work \nof Pestalozzi, took the same position, and all of the \nwritings of Froebel, from which "have sprung the \nchief streams of present educational thought,\'* are per- \nvaded by the most intense religious feeling. Of no \nman could it be more truthfully said that religion was \nhis vital breath. *\'A11 things,\'* he declares in his \nEducation of Man, ^\' live and have their being in and \nthrough God. AH things are only through the divine \neffluence that lives in them. The divine effluence that \nlives in each thing is the essence of each thing." He \nis constantly reiterating the thought that the purpose \nof all existence is to reveal God, and the end of all \neducation to develop the divine germ that lies in each \none into full and complete accord with God. The \nreason he gives for making so much of nature study is \nthe fact that nature reveals God to the child. He is to \nbe developed, not as a preparation for a future world, \nnor for the sake of making an adult of him, but that \nhe may constantly participate, to the full extent of his \npowers, in the unity of the life around him, all of which \nis divine. The aim of the kindergarten, for which \nFroebel has become so famous, is to aid the child to \nexpress himself and thus help him, in the most eflfec- \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 303 \n\ntive way, to begin the process of growing up into the \ndivine likeness. \n\nFrom the beginning of history the educational prob- \nlem has remained essentially the same, but education \nis such a great subject that its aspects have constantly \nchanged, and as the world progresses they will con- \ntinue to change. Some writers in recent times have \nwith William James emphasized the psychological \naspect. Some with Herbert Spencer and Huxley make \nthe scientific aspect dominant. Others would give the \nfirst place to the sociological aspect. Professor Home, \nin his very able and interesting work on The Philosophy \nof Education, recently published, has at least a chapter \non each of the following aspects of education : the bio- \nlogical aspect, the physiological aspect, the sociological \naspect, the psychological aspect, and the philosophical \naspect. Each aspect is important, and all of them put \ntogether do not exhaust the theme. But each and \nevery one of them is simply a phase of the religious \naspect, when religion is properly defined. \n\nFor religion is not to be confounded, as has generallj\'\' \nbeen the case in the past, with some church or so-called \ndenomination. It has often in the course of liistory \nbeen most maltreated in the house of its alleged friends, \nand most royally entertained quite outside of any so- \ncalled sacred precincts. Nor is it to be confined to any \nsingle relationship of human life. \n\nIn point of fact, the meaning of religion has in recent \nyears undergone almost a revolution. As President \nHarris said in his baccalaureate address to the class of \n1907, at Amherst : " The Protestant Reformation itself \ndid not work a greater, though perhaps a more violent \nchange, than the last quarter of a century has marked \nin religious thought, belief, and life.*\' \n\n\n\n304 The Sphere of Religio7t \n\nThe world is now coming to realize as never before \nthat love to man and interest in all that concerns his \nwelfare in this world is just as essential to religion as \nlove to God ; that the attempt to separate the one from \nthe other is a gross per\\\'ersion of the truth. It is \nbeginning to get the sense of the apostle John\'s in- \nquiry, \'\'he that loveth not his brother whom he hath \nseen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen ? " \nand to appreciate the fact that if we take care to do the \nformer, the latter will take care of itself. \n\nReligion in our day can no longer be set off by itself. \nIt should be thought of as having to do with ever>^ \nphase of life. There is nothing that pertains to man \nthat does not pertain to religion. As Sir Oliver Lodge \nputs it, in a noteworth}\' article in the Conteiriporary \nRez\'iezv (vol. 86, p. 806), "the atmosphere of religion \nshould be recognized as enveloping and permeating \never^\'thing," and it permeates nothing so much as \neducation. It is to-da}\', as it has always been, its chief \ninspiring cause. It is now acknowledged as never be- \nfore to be the religious duty of ever^^ person to acquaint \nhimself with the world in which he lives, to develop \nhis powers in such a manner that he may get the most \nout of it he can for his rational development and use. \nIt is also seen as never before to be his religious dut3^ \nto help his neighbor attain the same worthy ends. No \nperson can do anything to elevate himself or others \nwithout ideals. But all the material out of which ideals \nare constructed comes to us from our contact with the \nworld about us, which is the product of God. In other \nwords, in order to see anything at all in this universe \nwe must have a light, and the master light of all our \nseeing is God. \n\nA great many different definitions have been given \n\n\n\nWhat Religion has to Do with Education 305 \n\nto the term education in the course of history, and they \nwere never so numerous as at present. James defines \neducation as \' \' the organization of acquired habits of \naction such as will fit the individual to his physical and \nsocial environment." Dewey defines it as \'\' the process \nof remaking experience, giving it a more socialized \nvalue through increased individual experience, by giv- \ning the individual better control over his own powers." \nMunroe, after pointing out that the meaning of educa- \ntion in our day is found in the attempt to combine and \nto balance the two elements of personal development \nand social service, gives, as his final definition, \'\'the \nprocess of conforming the individual to the given social \nstandard or type in such a manner that his inherent \ncapacities are developed, his greatest usefulness and \nhappiness obtained, and, at the same time, the highest \nwelfare of society is conserved " {^History of Educatioii, \nPP- 755> 756)- ^^t it is hard to see how a clearer, more \ncompact, or more satisfactory definition of education \ncan be devised than that of President Butler. He de- \nscribes it as the \'\' gradual adjustment of the individual \nto the spiritual possessions of the race." \n\nThis definition rightly emphasizes the fact that man \nis a spiritual being and is capable of education for that \nreason. All nature is the embodiment of the ideas of \na spirit and hence it is intelligible to man, at least in \nsome degree. He can put himself into harmonious re- \nlations with it and make use of it for his enjoyment \nand edification. Because a man\'s relations to his \nfellows are spiritual relations, he can acquaint him- \nself with them and take an interest in what they have \naccomplished in the past and are doing in the present. \n\nIn these modern times we are seeing as never before \nthat nothing in this universe is foreign to man. Every- \n\n\n\n3o6 The Sphere of Religion \n\nwhere he discovers his own spirit reflected in it. To \nput oneself in harmonious relationship with this uni- \nverse in which we live, in all the variety of its \nmanifestations, is at once the highest aim of education \nand the chief religious duty of every son of man. \n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. \n\nTHE CHURCH AND THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY/ \n\nAt the very outset of my paper, I wish to say that I \nhave written it on the assumption that there are in this \nworld three equally divine institutions, \xe2\x80\x94 the family, \nthe state, and the church. I also take it for granted \nthat whatever affects any member of the human race in \nhis relation to one of these institutions affects him in \nthem all. I shall, therefore, use most of the time \nallotted to me in trying to explain how the right to \nproperty originates, and what is involved in that right, \nleaving its various applications for the most part to \nyour own good judgment. \n\nThe moment we begin to reflect upon the matter, we \ncannot help seeing that the right to property is one of \nthe most sacred rights of man. We cannot imagine \na people so degraded as to be entirely devoid of the \nidea of property, and no community has ever enjoyed \nprosperity or attained a high degree of culture where \nthe idea was held in slight esteem. Indeed, we may \njustly measure the progress of a people in civilization \nand true worth by the clearness with which they appre- \nhend this idea and the completeness with which they \napply it to the ownership and use of every commodity \nthat ministers to human needs. \n\nBut, sacred as this right is, we greatly err, in my \n\n^ Address delivered before the N. Y. State Assoc, of Congre- \ngational Churches, May, 1907. \n\n307 \n\n\n\n3o8 The Sphere of Religion \n\nopinion, if we suppose that the ground of the right to \nproperty is first possession. No man gains a just title \nto a thing because he came upon it before some one else. \nIf a person to-day should discover a new island in the \nPacific he would not for that reason have a right to \nundisputed possession. Suppose a band of shipwrecked \nsailors should be cast upon its shores. He could not \njustly claim that the fruits and springs and other means \nof subsistence he found there were exclusively his. The \nnew world was not the property of Columbus because \nhe discovered it, nor did it belong exclusively to the \nscattered bands of savages that occasionally roamed \nover its surface. Possession and use of a thing can \nnever be an ultimate ground of ownership. Something \nelse must come in to determine whether or not that \npossession be just. \n\nWe should equally err in maintaining that the right \nto property is founded upon a decree of the govern- \nment. *^ Property and laws,\'* says Bentham, **were \nborn together, and will die together. Before law there \nwas no property ; take away the law and all property \nceases.** The natural consequence of this doctrine is \nthat what the statute could make it could at any time \nunmake. It necessitates the view that there is no right \nto property back of the decrees of government. If this \nwere true, justice would have no place in determining \nthe possession and use of property. All would be \nsettled by an arbitrary fiat. The governors might at \nany time decree that all property should belong to \nthemselves alone, and no voice could justly be raised \nto call the act in question. \n\nProperty may rightly be defined as the fruit of human \nlabor. If there were no men in the world, there would \nbe no property. Man alone is the creator of all prop- \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Right to Property 309 \n\nerty. By his labor he imparts an interchangeable value \nto things, and this is the beginning of his progress. \nMan is capable of civilization because he can produce \nproperty. Other animals are swifter in the chase, bet- \nter protected from the cold, and better armed for strife. \nBut they cannot produce property, and therefore cannot \nadvance beyond a certain fixed limit. They can be \nproperty, but not the owners and controllers of prop- \nerty. Man, however, because he is active, intelligent, \nand free, \xe2\x80\x94 because he is a person, \xe2\x80\x94 can so impress his \npersonality on the objects of nature about him by his \nlabor as to acquire a just title to property. In a highly \ncivilized community there is scarcely a clod of earth or \na leaf that does not bear that impress. \n\nThus we see that the maxim \' \' To the doer belongs \nhis deed " is as true of property as of morals. A man\'s \nnatural right to anything comes from the labor he has \nexpended upon it, and is determined by the extent of \nthat labor. Whatever laws the civil power may make \nconcerning the possession and use of property, it can \nnever justly ignore this right and treat it as though it \ndid not exist, any more than it can justl}^ ignore any \nother natural right. \n\nBut a matter of supreme importance, in my opinion, \nto the proper treatment of the subject of property is the \nfact that a natural right is not of necessity an ultimate \nright. The natural right to property, like the natural \nright to \'\'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,\'* \nis never an absolute right. These rights, one and all, \nmay justly be sacrificed in case the needs of the com- \nmunity require it. If a man\'s life and liberty are at \nthe disposal of the body-politic, how much more is his \nproperty ? \n\nTlie true state is an organism, and individuals are \n\n\n\n3 1 o The Sphere of Religion \n\nthe members of that organism. The well-being of the \norganism as a whole is the thing of greatest moment, \nand should be the point of view from which to treat the \nvarious parts. In the normal condition of affairs the \nlungs and heart are best developed by developing \nthe whole body. Every human being finds the true \nsphere for the exercise of his natural rights in his con- \nnection with his fellows in their corporate capacity as a \nstate. \n\nThe natural right to property, therefore, is ultimately \nresolvable into a state right. The people, as an organic \nbrotherhood, are to decide what disposition is to be \nmade of all property. While the good of the individual \nand the preservation of his right to the products of \nhis labors are of great importance, the welfare of the \nbrotherhood as a whole is of far more importance, and \nshould be the point of view from which the laws con- \ntrolling the possession and use of property are finally \ndetermined. \n\nThe laws of property that the state enacts will seldom \nneed to set aside the natural right to property, but what- \never they may be, they should never fail to be founded \nupon and to accord with the following : \n\nI . The supreme ownership of all the natural sources of \nproperty is with the body-politic. The land, the water, \nand the air and all that they contain are the common \npossession of the race. They are under the supreme \ncontrol of the whole people in their organic capacity as \na state. Inasmuch as the support of every man is de- \nrived from the soil, the very existence of the state would \nbe imperilled if the supreme ownership of the soil were \nnot vested in the state itself. That the community, and \nnot the individuals of the community, originally owned \nthe land is one of the best attested facts of history. \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Right to Property 3 1 1 \n\nIndeed, no state has ever given up that ownership. It \nhas only allowed individuals under certain conditions \nand limitations to possess and use its territory. If a \nstate should unconditionally give up its control, it would \nthereby cease to be a state. Its sovereignty would be \ngone. It would lose the very thing that makes it a state, \nand instead of one state, as many states as there were in- \ndividuals would suddenly spring into being. If a state \nat any time adopts the system of individual control of \nits territory, the titles to the land are derived from the \nstate, and each citizen holds his land ever subject to the \ncontrol of the state. Whenever the land of the commu- \nnity gets into the hands of the few to the exclusion and \ninjury of the many, or whenever the good of the state \nfor any reason requires it, these titles may justly be \nrevoked and individual control abolished. The state \nis constantly doing it in the exercise of the Right of \nEminent Domain, and never was doing it to such an \nextent as at present. We have every reason to ex- \npect that as the needs of intercommunication increase, \nand the people become better acquainted with the many \ninjurious effects of the present system, individual owner- \nship will be much further limited. It is vain to argue, \nit seems to me, that any system of land tenure is of \nnecessity the best system. The state should change \nits system with the needs of the people and keep it as \nnearly as possible in harmony with those needs. \n\n2. The state has the ultimate control of and responsi- \nbility for the methods of acquiring property. If the \nsources of property are under the supreme control of \nthe state, it is easy to see that all property derived from \nthose sources shotild be under its control also. No in- \ndividual can justly take any of the materials of wealth \nwithout the consent of the state and by his labor make \n\n\n\n312 The Sphere of Religion \n\nthem his property ; and the state can never rightly give \nthis consent except with the limitation that the ultimate \nownership and control of all property is with itself. \nWhile the state, therefore, fully recognizes the natural \nright to property that comes from labor, it cannot re- \ngard this right as absolute, but must itself determine \nin what way and by what means property is to be ac- \nquired. It must prescribe the legitimate spheres of \nlabor and check the wicked and useless expenditure of \nlabor. It should prevent by every means in its power \nthe acquisition of property by trickery, by chance, by \ncounterfeiting, by combinations to force up prices with- \nout increasing values, and by immoral practices of every \nsort. \n\nAny system of acquiring property that is not based \non labor cannot contribute to the well-being of man. \nFor the only thing that is worthy of reward is work. It \nis a sound principle of statecraft, as well as of morality, \nthat he who will not work shall not eat. As President \nHyde has well said in his excellent little work on \nPractical Ethics : ** An able-bodied man who does not \ncontribute to the world at least as much as he takes out \nof it is a beggar and a thief.\'\' \n\nThe fact that the government of a state has adopted \nin one set of circumstances certain regulations for the \nindividual accumulation of property and has found them \nto contribute to the general welfare, is no sufl&cient rea- \nson why they should be continued at another time, under \na diflFerent set of circumstances. When a country is new, \nwith much to be done and few to do it, laws concerning \nthe accumulation of property may with reason greatly \nvary from what they should be in a country where the \nconditions are just the opposite. \n\n3. But the body-politic is not merely the supreme \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Right to Property 313 \n\npower for determining the waj^s in which property can \nbe acquired. It is also the supreme authority for de- \ntermining how it should be used after it is acquired. \nNo individual member of the state has a right to use \nhis property as he pleases. If he pleases to use it for \nthe injury of the state, to degrade and demoralize his \nfellows, the state through its government should put a \nlimit upon his use and, if necessary, deprive him of it \naltogether. \n\nThe principle of confiscation is a clear recognition of \nthis right. All nations agree that if a citizen uses his \nproperty to abet the enem}^ in time of war he has vio- \nlated the first principles of government, and has by this \nact cut himself off" from his normal relation to the com- \nmunity and deprived himself of the advantage that \nbefore belonged to him as a member of that community. \nThe original condition on which the state allowed him \nthe control of his property has disappeared and his \nindividual right to the use of it has disappeared \nalso. \n\nAny crime of any character constitutes a sufficient \nreason for the state to limit the use of property, and the \nmore serious the crime, the greater may be that limita- \ntion. Incorrigible criminals of every description should \nnot be allowed in any degree the free use of property, \nfor they constantly show by their repeated acts of law- \nlessness their unworthiness of such a trust. \n\nProperty that is devoted to a good end and is accom- \nplishing a worthy purpose in one generation may not do \nso in another. The state, therefore, should never allow \nproperty to be devoted for an inilimited period to the \npromotion of any enteq)rise. At any time when the \nstate discovers that the welfare of the people is not fur- \nthered by such an enterprise, it should see to it that the \n\n\n\nI \n\n\n\n314 The Sphere of Religion \n\nproperty that supports it is devoted to some other end \nthat does promote that welfare. \n\nThe doctrine of the Inviolability of Vested Rights \nrests on a false conception of the right of property, and \nbefore the true conception has no foundation whatever. \nThe true state will never allow any individual or collec- \ntion of individuals to hold and use property any longer \nthan such holding contributes to the common good. \nThe moment it ceases to do so, that moment the vested \nright becomes violable. \n\nThe government of one generation can never unalter- \nably bind a future generation as to its use of property. \nIt can never grant a franchise for the use of property \nthat a future generation cannot annul, or make a con- \ntract that a future generation cannot break. The word \n*\' forever " in any document concerning the possession \nand use of property is therefore a pure fiction, and the \nsooner it is read out of court the better. \n\nBecause a government has once allowed corporations \nto be formed for the investment and use of property is \nno reason why they should be continued in existence \nwhen they cease to promote the public welfare. It is \nnot only the right but the duty of the state to legislate \nthem out of existence when it becomes clear that some \nother method of holding and using property will better \nfurther the well-being of the people. \n\n4. What we have said concerning the accumulation \nand use of property is equally true of the transfer and \ndescent of property . Here also the state has the ultimate \nand supreme control. For there is no way of making \nproperty contribute to the welfare of the community as \na whole, or of its individual members, unless the state \nhas the right to determine what power of transfer the \nholder shall have as between himself and his contem- \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Right to Property 315 \n\nporaries, and how far his acts shall control the use made \nof his property by the generations that follow him. All \ncontracts, bequests, deeds of sale, wills, and the like \nmust, therefore, be subject to the authority of the state, \nand if made without that authority must be regarded \nas having no binding force. \n\nTo what extent a dead hand should be allowed to hold \nproperty or a dead brain to control it is becoming in our \nday a very serious question. It is perfectly clear that \nno such bequests of property should stand if they plainly \ninterfere with the progress of humanity. But if the \nstate sees fit to grant the privilege on the ground that \nlabor will be most effectually stimulated thereby, it \nshould at best be a limited privilege. For no man can \npossibly foresee what will be the need of all coming \ngenerations, and thus he cannot in any sense possess \na right to say what disposition shall be made of what \nwas once his property to supply that need. \n\nThe superstitious reverence that many still have for \nthe dead hand and brain would disappear in the light of \na true conception of the sacredness of contracts. Living \nbeings alone can make contracts. A dead person can- \nnot make a contract with a live one, or a live person \nwith a dead one. A father, while living, cannot make \na binding contract for his own children even, after a \ncertain period. Honor and reverence are due to all the \nworthy who have preceded us, but these things can \nnever rightly be made a matter of contract. The wealth \nof the past would be of comparatively little value to us if \nwe did not constantly renew it. There can be no moral \nobligation, therefore, upon the state to have property \ndescend exactly as the fathers desire. The wealth of \nany generation is to be used pre-eminently for the good \nof that generation, to supply present needs, to establish \n\n\n\n3i6 The Sphere of Religion \n\nand maintain the ideas of the present, not to keep alive \nand extend the exploded notions of the past. \n\nMany of the conditions attached to bequests under \nour present system are frequently more honored in the \nbreach than in the observance. Clauses in wills are \noften justly declared null and void by the courts be- \ncause they require the legatee to do something that is \ncounter to ** public policy." The state has not only \nthe right but the duty to assume full control of the be- \nquests and legacies of any institution that has outgrown \nits usefulness, as well as one that is supporting prac- \ntices or promulgating doctrines that are injurious to \nthe public good. Beyond all question it should devote \nthem to purposes that meet the needs of the present, and \nadvance the civilization of man. \n\nWhen for any reason the wealth of the community \nhas become concentrated into the hands of the few, \ninjury to the public well-being of the most disastrous \ncharacter is almost sure to follow. So great is the \npower that possessors of vast fortunes have over the \ndaily lives and services of great multitudes, that when \nmore than one half of the property of the United States, \nwith its 85,000,000 of inhabitants, is owned by about \n100,000 men, it is certainly time to call the justice of \nour laws seriously in question. \n\nNo tyranny is so dangerous to public life and morals \nas the tyranny of money. For there will be little virtue \nleft in a people whose actions are determined for them \nby dollars and cents. \n\nIt may reasonably be doubted, it seems to me, whether \nany human being in the short space of three score years \nand ten, to say nothing of one score years, can justly \nacquire by his labor the control over the lives of his \nfellows represented by ten millions of dollars or even one \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Right to Property 317 \n\nhalf that amount. At all events, one of the imperative \nneeds of our time is an effectual check upon the amaz- \ningly skilful and elaborate devices, now so common, of \ngetting possession of the property of the country with- \nout rendering an equivalent. There is every reason to \nsuppose that a limit upon the power of inheritance will \nbe such a check. The government, being finite, may \noften be unable to discover to what extent an individual \nhas brought under his control the property of the coun- \ntry. At his death this is far less difiicult. If the \ncourts were empowered to assess and collect an in- \nheritance tax, graduated in amount according to the \nneeds and conditions of the legatees, the evil effects of \nvast fortunes continuing in the hands of single in- \ndividuals would be largely mitigated. The time ought \nnot to be far distant when our state and national taxes \nshould be chiefly collected from this source. \n\nThose who have been allowed to get possession of the \nproperty of the country should at least pay the taxes of \nthe country. Unjust taxation is one of the chief evils \nof our time. The rich can and generally do escape their \nshare of the burden. Under our present system it is \nsuch an easy thing for rich men to evade the payment \nof taxes that even the best of them can hardly resist \nthe temptation. The poor man without money enough \nto own his home can conceal nothing, and has no \npalace in the country where for the purposes of taxation \nhe can take up his legal residence. The present sys- \ntem is so manifestly vicious and leads to such a marked \nopprCvSsion of the poor that every voice in favor of the \nrighteous use of property should be raised against it. \nLord Asquith\'s plan of mitigating the social evils of \nKngland at the expense of inherited wealth should \nhave the hearty support of every right-minded man in \n\n\n\n3i8 The Sphere of Religion \n\nthe kingdom, and be copied in every other land. For, \nas another so truthfully expresses it, ^* every workman \nmust be constantly reminded of the fact that, while \nnumbers are unable to obtain a sufl&ciency of the neces- \nsaries of life, others have so much superfluous wealth \nthat they are able to squander it in useless and mis- \nchievous luxuries, and never devote themselves to one \nhour\'s useful employment.*\' \n\nAfter all I have said on this subject of property, I \nhave to admit that there is nothing new about these \ndoctrines. For they are as old as history itself, and \nwere, in my opinion, as clear to the mind of the writer \nof Genesis as they could be to any mind to-day. The \nfirst people to discover and to proclaim to the world, so \nfar as I am aware, the true conception of the origin \nand the nature of the right to property were the ancient \nHebrews. From the first of Genesis to Revelation the \nground of the ownership of property is always labor, \nand the order of ownership is always first God, then \nthe race, then the individual. Neither Moses nor Jesus \never put the individual before the race, or in any way \ncalled this order in question. That ** The earth is the \nLord\'s and the fulness thereof," for the reason that \n*\' In the beginning God created the heaven and the \nearth," was the starting point of all Hebrew thought. \n\nAnd their next great central idea was that the first \npair, who were the first representatives of the race and \nhistorically the first state, being children of God and \nendowed with divine powers, got their right to the \npossession of the earth and its contents by obedience \nto the divine command to ** subdue it : and have do- \nminion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the \nair, and over every living thing that moveth upon the \nface of the earth." Individual ownership they always \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Right to Property 319 \n\nregarded as secondary to race ownership, and to be al- \nlowed only as it contributed to the good of the com- \nmunity as a whole. \n\nEvery man should be taught to have a reverence for \nproperty, but it should not be a superstitious or irra- \ntional reverence. If his notion of the right to the \npossession and use of property harmonizes with the \nbiblical conception, it harmonizes, in my opinion, with \nthe best economic philosophy and the highest interests \nof man. The only fitting watchword for the treatment \nof property in our day is, \xe2\x80\x94 Back to Moses, Back to \nChrist. \n\nThe circumstances of our age have brought the sub- \nject vitally to the firont, and the great mass of the \npeople will not long give their allegiance to any church \nthat puts it in the background. We do not have in \nthis country a state church, but what we can and ought \nto have is a church state, \xe2\x80\x94 a state in which the mem- \nbers of our churches actually show by their conduct \nthat they love their neighbors as themselves. For the \nchurches are ultimately responsible for the character of \nour laws, and what they will unite in demanding, they \ncan have. \n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. \n\nTHK CHURCH AND THK MODKRN STATK.* \n\nIn a book written nearly two thousand years ago by \na heathen of Boeotia, in ancient Greece, we read these \nwords : \'* Go over the world and you may find cities \nwithout walls, without theatres, without money, with- \nout art ; but a city without a temple, or an altar, or \nsome order of worship, no man ever saw/* \n\nThis statement is as true in the first quarter of the \ntwentieth century of the Christian era as when it was \nfirst uttered, and no one at all familiar with the results of \nmodern investigation and research can reasonably call it \nin question. Even the cannibals of Southern Africa, the \nmost degraded, perhaps, of all the races of men, carry \ntheir fetishes with them in all their undertakings, and \nhide them in their waist-cloth whenever they are about \nto do anything of which they feel ashamed. ** There \nis no need,\'* writes Dr. Livingstone in his Journals, \n** for beginning to tell the most degraded of these people \nof the existence of God or of a future state \xe2\x80\x94 the facts \nbeing universally admitted.*\' \n\nAll observation and experience justify the assertion \nthat every man is born a worshipper. He is so made \nthat in the very act of coming to a knowledge of \nhis own existence he intuitively knows himself as \nrelated to a higher Power. He instinctively believes \nthat he is indebted for his existence to this Power, \n\n^ Reprinted from the author\'s The Sphere of the State. \n\n320 \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Modern State 321 \n\nand that he owes to him the worship and service of his \nlife. It is difficult to overestimate the influence of this \nreligious element in human nature upon the course of \nhistory. It is hardly too much to sa}^ that it is now, and \nalways has been, the most important single factor in \ndetermining the progress of mankind. \' \' As an histori- \ncal fact," says another, *^ nations and governments and \nreligions have everywhere a connection, not only most \nintimate, but which has thus far shown itself indis- \nsoluble. If we look more closely into this historical \nfact, w^e find that the controlling element in their con- \nnection has ever been the religious one. Nations and \ngovernments have not formed their religion, but their \nreligion has formed them." In other words, the more \nfully men realize their relation to God as their common \nFather, the more clearly will they recognize their rights \nand duties to one another as brethren and thus discover \nthe only secure foundation upon which to ground the \nstate. \n\nIn one sense of the term every human being is as \ntruly a member of the church as of the family or state. \nFor every person is by nature related to God, as well \nas to his parents and his fellows. In this sense the \nchurch is one and indivisible and includes every human \nbeing. Like the family and the state it cannot be \ncreated to-day and destroyed to-morrow, and like them \nit is of divine origin. For man is so made by his \nCreator that whether he will or no he must be a subject \nof the divine government as well as of the human. \n\nIn another sense of the term the church is manifold. \nThere may rightly exist in the w^orld as many indi- \nvidual churches as the good of the universal church \nrequires. A true church is foinid in human history \nwhenever a community of human beings join together \n\n\n\n32 2 The Sphere of Religion \n\nto worship and serve their Maker. Each church \napproaches perfection as a church just in proportion \nas the idea of a common divine sonship is realized in \nits members both in themselves and in all their mutual \nrelations. In this sense of the term no church is per- \nmanent. Old churches should be dissolved and new- \nones formed whenever the religious needs of man re- \nquire it. \n\nNo civil government can justly ignore the church, \nany more than it can justly fail to acknowledge its \nrelation to the family. To attempt to treat the church \nand the state as utterly distinct is as unreasonable as \nto succeed in such an undertaking is impossible. For \n** no civil government can stand in the neglect of all \nreligion, and no community can maintain its freedom \nwithout a government in some way acknowledging a \nreligion." The chief question before every state is not \nwhether it has any relation to the church within its \nborders, but how to determine what that relation ought \nto be. \n\nFour different answers have been given to this ques- \ntion in the cotuse of history and still have their respec- \ntive advocates : \n\nI. Some hold that the state should be subordinate \nto the church and should act simply as the agent of \nthe church, getting all the authority and power it pos- \nsesses from the church and not from itself. ** All na- \ntions without exception have commenced with this re- \ngime. There are none which have not been governed \nat first by a religious power.\'* As an historical fact, \nreligion has been the only power that could check the \nwanderings of nomadic tribes and so fix them to the \nsoil as to make them accessible to the demands of a \ncivilized life. That all primitive governments were \n\n\n\nThe ChMTch and the Modern State 323 \n\ntheocratic is now established be3^ond all reasonable \ndispute. The seventh book of the Code of Manu is \ndevoted entirely to the enumeration of the duties of \nkings. In India and the Orient from the earliest times \nreligion has been dominant. In the greater part of \nEurope during the Middle Ages the church was supreme \nover all classes and conditions and kept a strong hand \nupon civil government. \n\nIn the infancy of a nation the dominance of the \nchurch over civil government is undoubtedly a great \nblessing. Barbarous and undisciplined tribes cannot \notherwise be taught a reverence for law and thus \nmade capable of being brought under the yoke of a \ncivilized life. \n\nIn the chaos that followed the wreck of the Roman \nempire, the Catholic Church was almost the sole re- \nmaining bond of social unity. The bishops were the \nonly persons that commanded the respect of the \nbarbaric hordes that overran the south of Europe. \n\nBut what the church did in the degenerate times of \nthe Middle Ages, and did wisely and well, it should \nnot of necessity do or desire to do in other times and \nunder other conditions. No one has more clearl}^ or \naccurately expressed the true position on this point \nthan the great Catholic writer Dr. Von Schulte. In \ntreating of the legitimate objects of the church in our \nday, he says: *\' During the Middle Ages, we see an \ninfinity of objects drawn into its domain, with which, \nat first glance, it would seem to have nothing to do. \n. . . But it cannot be ignored that its direct action, \nso far as its end and mission are concerned, has not so \nbroad an aim now, and that consequently no place in \nthings non-essential belongs to it, that none such is \nnecessary or can appear necessary to it, and that it has \n\n\n\n324 The Sphere of Religion \n\nno right to such a place. Rather can the immediate \nand ever-legitimate aim of the church be this and this \nonly : man in his moral and religious relations. If \nthe church here attains its object, harmony will of \nitself follow.\'\' \n\n2. Another view of the relation of the state to the \nchurch is that the state is absolute master over the \nreligious beliefs and modes of worship of its subjects \nas truly as over their secular aflfairs. When the Re- \nligious Peace was concluded at the Diet of Augsburg, in \n1555, the assembled princes adopted the direful maxim : \n*\' aijus est regio^ ejus religio^\'^ the religion of the ruler \nis the religion of the land. \n\nNeither Melanchthon nor lyUther were blind to the \nevil consequences of this system. \' \' If the courts wish, \' \' \nwrote I^uther to his friend Cresser, **to govern the \nchurches in their own interests, God will withdraw his \nbenediction from them, and things will become worse \nthan before. Satan still is Satan. Under the popes \nhe made the church meddle in politics ; in our time \nhe wishes to make politics meddle with the church.\'\' \n\nThe prerogative of the prince to impose his own re- \nligion upon his subjects makes him by right the head \nof the church and puts the administration of ecclesi- \nastical affairs under the general administration of the \ncountry. This continues even to our day to be the \nlaw of Protestant Germany. But it is rarely heeded. \nThe German princes have always been, as a nile, far \nmore tolerant than their laws and have allowed public \nopinion, *\' which is nowhere so independent in relig- \nious matters as in Germany," to guide their conduct. \nRussia is the only country in which this theory has \nbeen put into actual practice. When the patriarchs at \nMoscow, urged on by the Russian bishops, broke with \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Modern State 325 \n\nthe patriarch of Constantinople, they sought for many \ngenerations to make themselves supreme in the church; \nbut Peter the Great frustrated their designs in 1791 by \ndeclaring that he himself was the head of the church \nas well as the state, and he thoroughly reorganized \nthe entire religious system of Russia on that basis. \nThe result is Russia herself. It is a debatable ques- \ntion whether she has a just claim to a place among \ncivilized nations. So long as a man remains a man, \nhis morality and piety must stand quite outside the \nsphere of government, divine or human. True relig- \nious belief and worship must ever be the act of a free \nbeing, and it is not only absurd, but impossible, for a \ngovernment to coerce its subjects to the adoption of \nany religious system whatever as a matter of thought \nand life. \n\n3. A third theory concerning the connection of the \nchurch with the state is that they are both sovereign \npowers, and that the relation between them is to be \ndetermined by a series of concordats. Concordats have \nrepeatedly been made in China and Japan between the \nspiritual powers and the emperors or tycoons. In our \nday in Christian lands they are almost always com- \npacts made between temporal sovereigns and the popes. \nThey have been aptly described as treaties of peace \nbetween the civil and religious powers. Their main \nobject is to put an end to disputes that are equally \ndangerous to both parties, and with very rare exceptions \nthey are the results of a long struggle. \n\nThe most famous of the earlier of these compacts \nwas the concordat of Worms in 11 22. Henry V. had \nbeen to Rome with an army and compelled the Pope to \ncrown him Kmperor and concede to him the right of \ninvestiture. When he returned to Germany the Pope \n\n\n\n? ^6 The Sphere of Religioji \n\n\n\no \n\n\n\nrevoked the concession and excommunicated him. \nThe long controversy\' that followed was for the time \nsettled by this concordat, in which it was agreed that \nthe Emperor should first invest with the sceptre, and \nthen consecration should take place by the church \nwith the ring and the staff. \n\nAnother good illustration of the compromise charac- \nter of concordats is the famous compact that Xapoleon \nforced upon the representative of Pius VII. in 1801. \nBy this agreement the clergy became subject to the \ncivil power, hke laymen, in all temporal matters ; and, \nthough the Pope had ven\' large powers secured to him \nin matters of discipline, the appointment to all the \nbishoprics was retained by the government and all \nthe appointees were obliged to swear allegiance to the \nrepublic. \n\nConcordats by their ver^\' nature can never be final, \nfor thej- are based on concessions that are never en- \ntirely satisfactory\' to either of the contracting parties. \nIn all countries where they exist it has been necessary\' \nto modify them unceasingly, or replace them by en- \ntirely new ones. France, during the 19th century, \nhad three different concordats, and many times that \nnumber in recent years have been made and abolished \nin Germany and Austria. The struggle goes on under \nthe regime of concordats in nearly the same form as \nbefore their establishment. \n\nXo state, if it can possibly avoid it, should ever \nmake contracts of this sort with any outside power. \nIf compelled to do so it should submit to the imposi- \ntion only under protest, and as a temporary device for \nwarding off far greater ills that would be sure to come \nto the body-politic if it persisted in the endeavor to \nmaintain its right of sovereign power. France, for ex- \n\n\n\nI \n\n\n\nThe Church a7id the Modern State 327 \n\nample, was obliged, in the condition of affairs that long \nprevailed in that country, scrupulously to observ^e the \nexisting concordat in order to continue her present \nform of government. But the time finally came when \nshe was able to throw off all allegiance to any outside \nsovereign power, and provide in a more eflScient and \nconsistent manner for the nation\'s religious needs. \n\n4. The fourth proposed theory is that the church and \nthe state are so utterly distinct, their spheres of action \nare so entirely different, that their absolute separation \nis the only solution of the problem before us that can \nbe permanent, and can carry us back to the ultimate \nground. The simplicity of this solution must be evi- \ndent to the most thoughtless observer. But its sim- \nplicity is its only redeeming feature. All histor}- is \nagainst it, and reason is against it. No nation has \never yet been able to get along without religion, and \nreligion has never yet flourished without houses of \nworship and a properly supported religious service. \n\nThe state can no more cut itself off from the church \nthan it can from the family. It stands in the same \nrelation to the one as to the other. A recent writer \nin the North American Rcvieiv advocates the absolute \nseparation of the state from the family. He claims \nthat the government should not in any way attempt \nto regulate marriage and divorce, but should leave the \nmatter of the formation and continuance of the family \nwholly to the pleasure of the parties. Few seriously \nminded thinkers will, however, agree with him in this \nopinion. But it is no more absurd a doctrine than the \nabsolute separation of church and state. Fortunately \nthere is no danger of the doctrine ever being put into \nactual practice. For its realization is an impossibility. \nSo long as man remains upon the earth these three \n\n\n\n328 The Sphere of Religion \n\ndivinely established institutions will remain in such \nintimate and vital relations to one another that any \ninjury to one will be an injury to all, and any good to \none will be a benefit to all. It is only in a state of in- \nsanity, as at the time of the French Revolution, that \nany people have ever taken up arms against religion \nand sought as a body-politic to cut themselves oflF from \nits benign and civilizing influence. \n\n5. The true relation of the state to the church is \nthat of mutual helpfulness. They should not act as \ntwo antagonistic powers, or two mutually exclusive \npowers, but as two divinely commissioned institutions, \nboth having to do with man, but the one with man in \nhis relation to his fellows, and the other with man in \nhis relation to his Maker. So far as its earthly form \nof organization is concerned, the church should be \nsubject to the state, as the only sovereign temporal \npower ; but so far as its religious belief and worship \nare concerned, it should be its own sovereign master. \n\nNo state can justly ignore or belittle the religious \nconvictions of its members. On the contrary, it should \ndo what it can to bring those convictions into harmony \nwith its own ideas as to what the public good requires. \nIt should foster and encourage the practice of that re- \nligion whose teachings concerning the nature of man \nand his relations to his fellows most fully accord with \nits own conception of those relations. Neither the \nMohammedan nor the Buddhistic religions are founded \non ideas that harmonize with the true conception of \nthe state, and therefore the state should not encourage \nthe existence of their sway over its subjects. The only \nreligion whose teachings accord with the conception \nof the state as an organic brotherhood is the Christian \nreligion. Wholly on that ground is the state justified \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Modern State 329 \n\nin furnishing, in some way, the necessary means for \nobtaining instruction in the principles of this religion, \nand full opportunity for worshipping in accordance \nwith its dictates to all who may desire. \n\nEvery modern state ought to be a Christian state. \nBy this we do not mean that every state ought to be \nruled by a hierarchy according to the teachings of the \nBible, or according to religious tradition. For this \nwould be wholly antagonistic to the idea of Christian- \nity, and at war with the historical development both \nof the church and the state. What we mean by the \nstatement is simply that every state should be con- \nscious that the Christian religion is the religion of its \npeople, and it should live up to, and act upon, this \nconsciousness. It should recognize the fact that Chris- \ntianity is a fundamental condition of its own develop- \nment, and \'\' is not only the basis, but the living element \nof our civilization.^\' We cannot too strongly insist \nupon the importance to the welfare of the state, and \nthe efl&cient administration of government, of keeping \nalive among the people a strong faith in a personal \nGod, and his righteous government of the universe. \nFor without this faith the spiritual bond that binds all \nmen together as brethren would be broken, the very \nfoundation of government would crumble into pieces, \nall unity in the order of the world would be lost, and \nthe inevitable result would be anarchy and chaos. \n\nNo writer has more accurately or more truthfully \ndescribed the relation of Christianity to the develop- \nment of the modern state than Bluntschli, who sum- \nmarizes its beneficent effects in substance as follows: \nI. **It has awakened among the people a high sense \nof human dignity and honor. Since the time it first \ntaught men to regard themselves as children of a \n\n\n\n33 o The Sphere of Religion \n\ncommon Father, the value of human life has been held \nin far higher esteem than ever before in human his- \ntory. 2. By the doctrine of the fatherhood of God it \nhas brought men to a consciousness of their equality \nand fraternity in relation to one another. Acting as a \nliberating force upon all, even on the lowest class, the \nslaves, it gave a new foundation to the liberty of all, \nand has transformed the face of Europe. 3. It has put \na legitimate restraint upon the power of monarchs by \nreminding them of their accountability to the Supreme \nRuler, and by demanding of them that they should re- \nspect their subjects as their brethren in Christ. 4. It \nhas revealed the affinity of all the races of the earth, \nand by opposing the narrow spirit of sectionalism with \nits doctrine of the unity of the human species, it be- \ncame the source of a higher and nobler conception of \nthe moral principles that should regulate the inter- \ncourse of nations, and thus laid the foundations for the \neventual civilization of the world. \'* \n\n** In proportion as nations come to understand human \nnature,\'\' Bluntschli continues, *\' they will respect the \nreligion which has guided them in their intellectual \nadvance, and infinitely promoted their civilization. On \nthis account the state, although now conscious of itself \nand grown independent, will, in the future, take into \nconsideration the moral demands Christianity may \nmake, and, so far as its laws and power permit, try to \ngrant them. The religion of mankind and the politics \nof mankind \xe2\x80\x94 each adhering to its own principles \xe2\x80\x94 will \ncontinue in close and friendly reciprocal relations, and \nthus united they will best promote the welfare of the \nhuman race." \n\nIn the light of these considerations it is not difficult \nto see that the question of an ** established religion \'* \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Modern State 331 \n\nis merely a question of expediency to be settled by \neach generation as the need of the people may require. \nThe position taken by one state on this matter in one \nset of circumstances is not, of necessity, a standard for \nanother state in a different set of circumstances. For \nwhether the religious wants of a community can be \nbetter satisfied by the direct action of the government, \nor by the system of private management and voluntary \nsupport, is not a question that alone by itself admits \nof a positive answer. Sometimes the former method \nshould be followed, sometimes the latter. The cus- \ntoms of the people in similar matters, their past his- \ntory, and all the present attendant circumstances, \nshould be taken into consideration before coming to \na final decision. If, for example, the property of the \ncountry has become concentrated in the hands of a \nfew, and the mass of the people have not the means to \nbuild churches and support pastors, the govemment \nshould raise the revenue needed by a direct tax. Means \nfor the maintenance of religious instruction and places \nfor worship should in some way be provided by the \npeople. If it cannot be done, or will not be done, by \nvoluntary contributions, the government should not \nhesitate to act in the matter, any more than in provid- \ning instruction and discipline in anything else that is of \nimportance to the welfare of the state. Nor is there \nany reason, in the nature of the case, why religious in- \nstruction and opportunity to worship should not con- \ntinuously be furnished by the government, if it is the \ngeneral desire of the people to have the matter attended \nto in that manner. \n\nThe possible disadvantages of such a system are \nobvious : it might tend to minimize the importance of \nreligion as an individual matter, and to check the \n\n\n\n332 The Sphere of Religion \n\nindependent growth and development of religious sen- \ntiment. It might result in putting a premium on \ndeception as to one\'s religious convictions for fear of \nincurring the displeasure of the government. It might \nlead some to array themselves against the government \nfor compelling them to help support an institution in \nwhich they had no personal interest. \n\nBut it also has its possible advantages. Being \nobliged, from the nature of the case, to recognize and \nfoster religion, it might, by selecting a particular form, \ngive greater definiteness to its support of religion than \nwould otherwise be possible. It might often use the \nclergy directly, if necessary, for the furtherance of its \nown purposes. It might secure by this method a far \nhigher degree of general religious culture. \n\nEvery state in deciding on its course of action in \nthis matter, as in every other, should take into consid- \neration all the data of the case, and do whatever in its \nown judgment, in the given conditions, best conserves \nthe good of all. \n\nOf course, no state is justified in taking the position \nthat any one way of fostering religion is absolutely the \nbest way, or that any one form of church government \nis absolutely the best form, even though it should \nclaim that the Christian religion is actually the only \nreligion in history that teaches ideas that are consonant \nwith the true conception of the state. For evidently \nthere may be in a Christian state many different ways \nof looking at the Christian religion, and as many \nforms of church government as there are forms of civil \ngovernment. Because a given form was beneficial to \nthe religious progress of mankind in one age and \ncountry under one set of circumstances, is no sufficient \nreason that it will continue to be so when the condi- \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Modern State \'t^i^i^ \n\ntions are wholly diflFerent. Nor should a form that \nfailed to work well in an early period of history be \nwholly discarded for that reason in a later. The people \nof each generation have the same right to change the \nform of their church government as the form of their \ncivil government. And the state ought to allow and \nsanction the change whenever the ends for which the \nchurch exists among men will be best promoted by so \ndoing. \n\nThe framers of our national Constitution undoubtedly \nvoiced the will of the people of the United States when \nthey inserted in the first amendment to that document \nthe clause : *\' Congress shall make no laws respecting \nan establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free \nexercise thereof." The ground of the opposition to \nthis amendment at the time of its adoption was tiot at \nall the policy of the government regarding an estab- \nlishment of religion, but the need of any such amend- \nment, as no one thought of advocating any other \npolicy. Livermore of New Hampshire unhesitatingly \ndeclared, concerning all the amendments, that they \nwere "of no more value than a pinch of snuff, since \nthey were to secure rights never in danger.\'\' This \nclause in our national Constitution, however, does not \nprevent any of the separate States from passing any \nlaws they please *\' respecting an establishment of relig- \nion," or treating the religious beliefs of their subjects \nin any way they may desire. The framers of this \namendment were not indifferent to religion themselves, \nnor did they wish the United States to be so in the \nfuture. " Probably at the time of the adoption of the \nConstitution, and of the amendment to it, now under \nconsideration," says Judge Story in \\\\\\s Exposition of \nthe ConstitutioJi, "the general, if not the universal. \n\n\n\n334 ^^^ Sphere of Religion \n\nsentiment in America was that Christianity ought to \nreceive encouragement from the state, so far as was \nnot incompatible with the private right of conscience \nand the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to \nlevel all religions, and to make it a matter of state \npolicy to hold all in utter indifference, would have \ncreated universal disapprobation, if not universal \nindignation." \n\nIt was clearly not the purpose of the makers of the \nConstitution to countenance the introduction of Mo- \nhammedanism, or Buddhism, or even infidelity, "but \nto exclude all rivalr}^ among Christian sects, and pre- \nvent any national ecclesiastical establishment which \nshould give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of \nthe national government." Every American colony, \nwith the possible exception of Rhode Island, from its \nfoundation down to the time of the forming of the \nConstitution, had openly supported some form of the \nChristian religion. And this amendment was adopted \nfor the purpose of leaving the subject of religion ex- \nclusively to the separate commonwealths. At the first \ntest case before the Supreme Court \' \' the decision was \nthat the Constitution contained no clause guaranteeing \nreligious liberty against the several States, which might \nmake such regulations on the subject as they saw fit." \nNor does the Constitution contain any clause prohibit- \ning the national government from deciding what forms \nof religious belief it will tolerate, and what forms it \nwill not. \'\' In deciding the Mormon cases," says Jus- \ntice Miller, \'\' the Supreme Court held that the pretence \nof a religious belief in polygamy could not deprive \nCongress of the power to prohibit it, as well as all \nother offences against the enlightened sentiment of \nmankind, \' \' \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Modern State 335 \n\nMany of the separate States have adopted constitu- \ntions limiting the action of their respective govern- \nments even more stringently than Congress is limited \nby the clause already quoted. Art. I., Sec. 3, of the \nConstitution of New York begins as follows : *\'The \nfree exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and \nworship without discrimination or preference shall for- \never be allowed in this State to all mankind, and no \nperson shall be incompetent to be a witness on account \nof his opinions on matters of religious belief." The \nConstitution of Wisconsin is probably more stringent \non this point than that of any other State in the Union. \nBesides the clause against *^ sectarian instruction " in \nthe public school, the Constitution provides : " (i) The \nright of every man to worship Almighty God according \nto the dictates of his own conscience shall not be \nabridged. (2) Nor shall any man be compelled to \nattend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to \nmaintain any ministry against his consent. (3) Nor \nshall any control or interference with the right of con- \nscience be permitted, or any preference given by law \nto any religious establishments or modes of worship. \n(4) Nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury \nfor the benefit of religious societies, or religious or \ntheological seminaries.\'* \n\nThese provisions are undoubtedly in the main wise \nand beneficial in a country made up of so many differ- \nent races and sects as ours. But, notwithstanding the \nfact that the word *\' forever\'\' occurs so frequently in \nthem, they are all subject to amendment or repeal \nwhenever the people, in their organic capacity as a \nstate, desire to make it. None of them, whether state \nor national, imply an absolute separation of the state \nfrom religion, or prohibit the giving of religious \n\n\n\n336 The Sphere of Religio7i \n\ninstruction in our public schools, or elsewhere, if the \ngood of the people requires it. Nor do they in any \ndegree militate against the fact that the United States \nis a Christian nation ; and, while tolerating all relig- \nions that do not tend to subvert the public good, \nespecially encourages and fosters the religion of Christ. \n\nNo one, it seems to me, has ever expressed more \nclearly the position that should be taken by ever^^ \nmodem state on this subject than Judge Story in the \nwork already referred to, in which he says : *\'The \nright of a society or government to interfere in matters \nof religion will hardly be contested by any persons who \nbelieve that piet}^ religion, and morality are intimately \nconnected with the well-being of the state, and indis- \npensable to the administration of civil justice. The \npromulgation of the great doctrines of religion: the \nbeing, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty \nGod ; the responsibility to him for all our actions, \nfounded upon moral freedom and accoimtability ; a \nfuture state of rewards and punishments ; the cultiva- \ntion of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues ; \n\xe2\x80\x94 these never can be a matter of indifference in any- \nwell-ordered community. It is, indeed, diflScult to \nconceive how any civilized society can well exist with- \nout them. And, at all events, it is impossible for those \nwho believe in the truth of Christianity as a divine \nrevelation to doubt that it is the especial duty of gov- \nernment to foster and encourage it among all the citi- \nzens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct \nfrom that of the right of private judgment in matters \nof religion, and of the freedom of public worship ac- \ncording to the dictates of one\'s conscience.\'\' \n\nIf at any time in the history of a state voluntary- \nassociations do not furnish the people with proper re- \n\n\n\nThe Church and the Modern State 337 \n\nligious instruction and proper opportunities for wor- \nship, the state should not be left to suflFer. The \ngovernment, if necessary, should establish and maintain \na system that does adequately provide for the public \nneed. The state should always regard religion as a \nmeans, not as an end. It should never try to compel \nits subjects to adopt any system of religious belief, or \nconform to any mode of worship. But it should furnish \nto every citizen full opportunity to acquaint himself \nwith the essentials of religion, and grant him, also, \nevery reasonable facility for giving expression to his \nreligious belief in the forms of worship he may most \ndesire. \n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. \n\nTHK SCIKNTIFIC MKTHOD IN THKOI.OGY.* \n\nThe; correspondence between Professor St. George \nMivart and Cardinal Vaughan concerning the Profes- \nsor\'s recent articles on the relation of educated Roman \nCatholics to the Bible marks a most significant epoch \nin the history of religious thought. It brings most \nstrikingly to view the fact that the time is past when \nany one can serve the cause of true religion by ignoring \nthe methods of modern science. It also makes clear \nand vivid the necessity of establishing our theological \nbeliefs on just the same scientific basis as our beliefs in \nany other sphere of inquiry, if they are going to influ- \nence in any effective way the thought of the future. \n\nThe aim of the present paper is to set forth with clear- \nness the principles that underlie all our beliefs, and then \nto show how these principles are to be applied to the \nparticular field of investigation we now have in view. \n\nIt is customary in discussing the method of science \nto go back to Aristotle and treat of the subject under \nthe two distinct heads of induction and deduction. But \nwe now see that the two methods are not wholly inde- \npendent of each other. In reality, they are frequently \nblended or employed alternately in the pursuit of science. \nIt is no exaggeration to say that all the more important \nand extensive investigations of science rely as much \nupon the one as upon the other. In both, the syllogism, \n\n^ First published in the North American Review^ April, 1900. \n\n338 \n\n\n\nThe Scientific Method in Theology 339 \n\nwith its major and minor premises and conclusion, holds \nthe foremost place. For the syllogism is not only the \nform of deductive reasoning, but it is the true type of \nall reasoning properly so called. It may not be always \nnecessary to express an argument in the form of a syl- \nlogism, but it must always be thrown into this form \nwhen scientific accuracy is required. \n\nWhile there is little or no disagreement among think- \ners about the nature and place of deduction in science, \nthere is often a great deal of controversy over the sphere \nand proper function of induction. This arises from the \nfact that the term induction may be employed in at least \nthree different senses. \n\nIn the first place, induction may be used to designate \nthe old Socratic method of attaining definitions. This \nconsists simply in enumerating all the particulars of a \nclass. It is what is sometimes called a perfect induc- \ntion; and, although it is in the form of reasoning, it \nis not reasoning at all. All we do in such a case is \nto solve a simple problem in addition and state the \nresult. \n\nInduction, according to the second meaning given to \nthe term, is any process of adding to our knowledge. It \nwas Bacon\'s chief objection to the Aristotelian logic that \nits premises were all taken for granted. It could never, \nin his opinion, in any way increase our knowledge. He \ntherefore asked the question, How do we obtain our \nknowledge, and how do we progress in it ? His answer \nto the question was, By induction ; and, as contrasted \nwith the old method, the term took on the meaning of \nany process that adds anything to what we already \nknow at any given time. But this view of induction is \ntoo broad, just as the first view is too narrow. It in- \ncludes every other mode of acquiring knowledge as well \n\n\n\n340 The Sphere of Religion \n\nas reasoning, while the first view excludes reasoning \naltogether. \n\nThe third and most rational definition of induction \nrepresents it as the process of thought b}\' which w^e pass \nfrom particulars to generals, or from eSects to their \ncauses. It is only in this sense that it can in any way \nbe brought into contrast with deduction, as one of the \nessential methods employed in the pursuit of science. \n\nOf course, the chief preliminary^ step in any induction \nis the acquisition of the particulars, and this can only \nbe done by the two processes of obser\\\'ation and experi- \nment. But they do not form any part of induction \nproperl}^ so called. The mere ascertainment of facts \ndoes not make a scientist. There are a thousand work- \ners in science to one scientist. The most exact observ- \ners and the most skilful experimenters are not, by any \nmeans, the best scientists. Quite the opposite is prob- \nably the rule. Many of the world\'s greatest scientists \nhave been notoriously defective in this respect. Never- \ntheless, a highly developed science, in any department \nof knowledge, is possible only upon the basis of a large \nsuppl}\' of carefuU}\' ascertained facts. \n\nThe great and distinctive element in all induction is \nthe formation of the hypothesis ; and there can be no \ninductive science formed of an}^ sort where this is not \nthe chief feature. \n\nWhat, then, is to be understood by an hypothesis, \nand what is the process the mind goes through in bring- \ning it to ^dew ? i^n h^\'pothesis is a supposition, a guess, \nor conjecture as to what the general fact is which in- \ncludes the given particular facts, or what the cause is \nwhich has brought about the given eff"ects. The term \nis sometimes contrasted with the term \'\'theory," as \nthough the two were necessarily distinct ; an hj^pothesis \n\n\n\nThe Scientific Method in Theology 341 \n\nbeing regarded as a mere possibility, while a theory is \ncalled a verified hypothesis. But this view is largely an \narbitrary one, as the terms are often used interchange- \nably, as when we speak indiflferently of the Darwinian \nhypothesis or the Darwinian theory. \n\nMuch might be said about the conditions most favor- \nable for making a good hypothesis, but the chief thing \nthat concerns us for our present purpose is the fact that \nevery hypothesis, however formed, is always a product \nof the constructive imagination. All previous acts are \nsimply by way of gathering material for the imagination \nto rearrange and recombine into a new creation. \n\nIn a certain sense, the mind takes a leap into the \ndark. It literally passes, per saltiun^ from the realm \nof the known to the realm of the unknown. From all \nthe material that the memory places at its disposal it \nmakes a guess or conjecture as to what will best meet \nall the exigencies of the situation. \n\nIt is for this reason that men of science, in all realms \nand in all ages, have always been men of powerful im- \naginations. The Greeks were the first great scientists \nof the race, because they were far more highly endowed \nthan any other people with great imaginative powers. \nWhat they saw excited those powers and urged them \nto conjecture, to reason about things, and try to ex- \nplain their nature and cause. It was well said by Dr. \nCarpenter that *Mt cannot be questioned, by any one \nwho carefully considers the subject under the light of \nadequate knowledge, that the creative imagination is \nexercised in at least as high a degree in science as it is \nin art or poetry. Even in the strictest of scienc-es \xe2\x80\x94 \nmathematics \xe2\x80\x94 it can easily be shown that no really \ngreat advance, such as the invention of fluxions by \nNewton and of the differential calculus by Leibnitz, \n\n\n\n342 The Sphere of Religion \n\ncan be made without the exercise of the imagination.\'\' \n\nGiven the hypothesis, the next step in the scientific \nprocess is to verify it ; and this is done by making the \nhypothesis the major premise of a deductive syllogism \nand noting the results. If the conclusions obtained \ncoincide with the observed facts with which we started, \nthe hypothesis is probably a correct one, and other \nthings being equal, may be accepted as an established \ntruth. \n\nFrom this outline of the scientific method we see \nthat no induction can be established beyond a high \ndegree of probability. That is, no one can ever be \nabsolutely certain that the hypothesis he assumes \nis a veritable truth. All generalizations in every \nscience thus have their logical basis in the theory of \nprobabilities. \n\nWhen Bishop Butler asserted that \'* probability is \nthe very guide of life,\'\' he might have added, **and \nwe have no other." For all our judgments of what \nthe past has been, or the present is, or the future will \nbe, are necessarily formed on that basis ; and as we \nare finite creatures and can never have infinite know- \nledge on any of these subjects, the knowledge we do \nhave can never be more than probable. \n\nThe truth is that every man is so constituted by \nnature that he can never be absolutely certain of any- \nthing outside of the facts of his own consciousness and \nthe simple intuitions necessarily involved therein ; and \nwhen he makes an assertion transcending this realm, \nhe passes at once into the sphere of the probable. \n\nWhat we know with absolute certainty is never a \nmatter of inference. It is never the result of a process \nof reasoning. It is always known directly, at once, by \nan immediate beholding. It is easy to see, therefore. \n\n\n\nThe Scientific Method in Theology 343 \n\nthat the realm of absolute certainty is a clearly limited \none, and that the realm of probability includes within \nitself the great body of our knowledge. I am abso- \nlutely certain that I experience sensations, that I who \nexperience them exist, and that the sensations have a \ncause ; but I can be only probably certain that this \nparticular concrete object was the cause. It is exceed- \ningly easy for the most cautious person living to be \nmistaken in his judgments, and to draw wrong infer- \nences from the data furnished by any one or all of his \nsenses ; and he can never be absolutely certain that he \ndraws the right one. All the wisest man in the world \ncan do is carefully to estimate the probabilities in the \ncase and act accordingly. To say of a thing, *\' I have \nseen it with my own eyes," is only to make its exist- \nence probable; and to obey the injunction, \'\'Handle \nme and see," can give only probable knowledge. \n\nIn every discussion of this sort a clear distinction \nshould always be made between intuitively knowing \nand believing. I intuitively know a thing to be true \nwhen I am absolutely certain of it ; I believe a thing \nto be true when I fall short, however little, of such cer- \ntainty. That is to say, belief is simply imperfect \nknowledge. It is any kind of knowledge, in any \nsphere, which fails, in an}^ respect, of being absolute. \nNo proposition, perhaps, is more familiar to a beginner \nin logic than the statement, ** All men are mortal," \nbut even that assertion can be to him nothing more \nthan a matter of a high degree of probability. For he \nhas known only a very few men in the past, and as to \nthose who may come to exist in the future he cannot \npositively assert that they will possess that property. \nHe simply believes the proposition to be true, in just \nthe same way, and no other, as he might believe in a \n\n\n\n344 ^^^ Sphere of Religion \n\nmaterial heaven, or a mountain of gold, or the real \nexistence of a centaur. \n\nEvery natural scientist, I suppose, accepts and \nteaches the doctrine that every particle of matter at- \ntracts every other particle directly as the mass and \ninversely as the square of the distance. But he has ex- \namined only a few of the particles ; and, from the very \nnature of the case, he can never be certain that those \nhe has not examined are exactly like those he has. \nThe doctrine furnishes him with a good working hy- \npothesis. The probabilities are very high in its favor. \nBut all he has any right to say about it is that he \nbelieves in the law of gravitation, not that he is \nabsolutely certain of its truthfulness. \n\nAnd so it is when we come to the realm of theology. \nWe employ the same finite powers of mind in con- \nstructing a theology as in forming a science of botany \nor of physics. There is no difference in the kind of \nknowledge we have of each, but only in the class of \nobjects taken into consideration. And my faith in the \ntruth or falsity of their respective doctrines, and the \ndegree of m}^ faith in them, should always vary with \nthe degree of their probability. \n\nTheology, properly understood, is the science which \nseeks to account for the universe from the standpoint \nof God. It attempts to put all the known facts together \ninto a system around this idea. It does not draw its \nmaterial from any alleged revelation alone, although \nthe revelation, if true, will furnish some of its most \nimportant data. But it gathers its material from every \nrealm of knowledge. Every new fact discovered in \nany quarter of the universe increases its material, and \nevery old supposed fact exploded diminishes it. \n\nNow, all the facts that any man can possibly know \n\n\n\nThe Scientific Method in Theology 345 \n\nmay best be divided, for our present purpose, into two \nclasses, internal facts and external facts. By internal \nfacts we mean the facts of one\'s own consciousness, and \nby external facts, all else that can be mentioned. The \nformer are certain to one, the latter merely probable. \nEvery man who constructs a botany, or a geology, or \nany other science, makes it out of probable facts only. \nEvery man who writes a history states and explains \nnothing of which he can be more than probably certain. \nHow evident it is, then, that he w^ho seeks to give \nunity to all the sciences, to explain the universe in \nwhich the great mass of the facts are onl}^ probable, \ncan never attain to more than a probable solution of \nthe problem, and can never justly ask another to ac- \ncept his conclusions on any other ground than the high \ndegree of their probability. \n\nGreat thinkers, from Thales, Plato, and Moses, have \nhad their theologies \xe2\x80\x94 their explanations of the origin \nand nature of the universe, as they understood it, and \nmany of these explanations have been of extraordinary \nmerit; but even St. Paul himself could never have been \ncertain that his explanation was more than a probably \ntrue one. \n\nThree great systems of theology are presented in the \nNew TcvStament. Some prefer that of St. Paul ; some \nfind the Petrine theology more to their mind ; while \nothers adhere to that of St. John. The Apostles\' Creed \ncontains, perhaps, the sum and substance of all three ; \nbut no assertion in it transcends the rcahn of the prob- \nable. A brief examination of the creed itself will make \nthis apparent. It begins with the statement, \'\' I be- \nlieve in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven \nand earth." Now, the existence of a Power back of \nnature and all finite being, like one\'s own existence, \n\n\n\n346 The Sphere of Religion \n\nis a matter of positive certainty ; but any assertion \nconcerning the nature of that Power, since it is an \ninduction from probable facts, can never be more than \nprobable. When we say, therefore, with the creed, \nthat God is the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven \nand earth, we are asserting something about the nature \nof the Supreme Being of which no man can be more \nthan probably certain. The degree of confidence we are \njustified in having in this statement depends on the \ndegree of its probable truthfulness. \n\nTake, again, the statement of the creed concerning \nthe nature and mission of Jesus : \' \' And in Jesus Christ, \nHis only Son, our Lord ; who was conceived by the \nHoly Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary ; suffered under \nPontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried ; He \ndescended into hell ; the third day He rose from the \ndead ; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on \nthe right hand of God, the Father Almight^^ ; from \nthence He shall come to judge the quick and the \ndead." \n\nWhether there ever existed on the earth such a per- \nson as Jesus, and what he experienced, are purely \nmatters of historical evidence. And as everything that \nis a matter of evidence is a matter of probability, this \nmust be also. We can never be absolutely certain that \nthose who wrote his history were really acquainted \nwith the facts of his life, or have honestly represented \nthem, or that their testimony, after being once recorded, \nhas not been so frequently and radically altered as to \ngive us to-day, in some respects, an erroneous concep- \ntion of the truth. Even if we regard the record as it \nstands as veritable history, the doctrine of the actual \ndivinity of Jesus, that he is in reality son of God as \nwell as son of man, is an induction from certain alleged \n\n\n\nThe Scientific Method in Theology 347 \n\nfacts, and can, therefore, never be established bej\'ond \nall possible doubt. \n\nThe creed closes with the ajB&rmation : \'* I believe in \nthe Holy Ghost ; the Holy Catholic Church ; the com- \nmunion of saints ; the forgiveness of sins ; the resur- \nrection of the body ; and the life everlasting." \n\nThe writer of this passage, from the data that he had \nbefore him, simply drew the conclusion that the argu- \nments in favor of these propositions were far stronger \nthan those against them ; and, accordingly, he was \nready to say concerning them, as he does say in the \nstatement itself, \'\'I believe" \xe2\x80\x94 not ** I am absolutely \ncertain of their truthfulness." \n\nBut it makes no diflference to the matter in hand \nfrom what source he obtained his information. Even \nif we allow that every word in Scripture came directly \nfrom the lips of the Almighty, no man could ever be \nmore than probably certain that he correctly heard the \nwords when they were uttered, or correctly wrote them \ndown, or correctly understood them after they were \nwritten, either by themselves or in their mutual rela- \ntions. There is always room for possible doubt con- \ncerning any of these assertions ; and all that the \nprofoundest thinker can do for them is to establish \ntheir probable truthfulness. \n\nWhat we have said concerning the so-called Apostles* \nCreed applies with equal force and validity to every \ncreed in Christendom and to every system of theology, \nhowever elaborately constructed or however dogmati- \ncally expressed. The most certain of their generaliza- \ntions are probable, and probable only, and those who \nteach them are never justified in urging their acceptance \nupon others on any other ground. The only theology \nthat has any basis for its existence is an inductive \n\n\n\n,1 \n\n\n\n348 The Sphere of Religion \n\ntheology; and just as \'\'all inductions in physical \nscience are only probable," so they are in theological \nscience also. \n\nIt is never necessary, in fact it is never possible, to \ndo more for any doctrine in any department of inquiry \nthan to show that the balance of probabilities is in its \nfavor. When we have shown that, we have made the \ndoctrine worthy of credence, we are entirely justified \nin accepting it as a truth and adopting it as a rule of \nconduct. \n\nHe who says of any generalization in any sphere of \nthought that he will not accept it as true until he is \nabsolutely certain of it, literally does not know enough \nto eat when he is hungry, or to drink when he is \nthirsty. The conduct of an ordinary idiot would put \nhim to the blush. As John I^ocke so tersely puts it, \n*\' He that will not stir until he infallibly knows that the \nbusiness he goes about will succeed, will have but \nlittle else to do but to sit still and perish.\'* \n\nEvery man, because he is a man, is endowed with \npowers for forming judgments, and he is placed in this \nworld to develop and apply those powers to all the ob- \njects with which he comes in contact. In every sphere \nof investigation he should begin with doubt, and the \nstudent will make the most rapid progress who has \nacquired the art of doubting well. But doubt is sim- \nply a means to an end, not an end in itself. We begin \nwith doubt in order that we may not end with it. To \ncontinue to doubt after the material for forming a \njudgment is before the mind, is a sign of weakness. \nThe man who does so commits intellectual suicide. \nAll you can do for him is to give him a decent burial \nand pass on. \n\nWe ask that every student of theology take up the \n\n\n\nThe Scientific Method in Theology 349 \n\nsubject precisely as he would any other science ; that \nhe begin with doubt, and carefully weigh the argu- \nments for every doctrine, accepting or rejecting each \nassertion according as the balance of probabilities is \nfor or against it. We demand that he thoroughly \n*\'test all things," and thus learn how to "hold fast \nthat which is good." \n\nWe believe that even the teachings of Jesus should \nbe viewed from this standpoint, and should be accepted \nor rejected on the ground of their inherent reasonable- \nness. But we also firmly believe that the probabilities \nthat he spoke the truth are so high that they can \nnever be made any higher ; that, when his doctrines \nconcerning God and man and nature are correctly ap- \nprehended, it will clearly be seen that they fully satisfy \nthe demands of the intellect and the cravings of the \nheart. And we do not regard it as at all likely that \nany theology of the future will have much influ- \nence over the minds of the thoughtful that does \nnot draw its chief and most important data from that \nsource. \n\nSuperficial critics call the age in which we live an \nage of novel-reading and devotion to trifles ; but the \nmore thoughtful observer does not hesitate to affirm \nthat it is unsurpassed in earnestness. \n\nTrue, it is disinclined to acknowledge the super- \nnatural. True, it is more inquiring than asserting, \nmore doubting than believing. Yet there probably \nnever has been a time in our history when purely spir- \nitual questions have been so widely and seriously dis- \ncussed as at present. The creeds of the world, both \nChristian and un-Christian, have never before been \nstudied with such universal interest, or criticised with \nsuch unsparing vigor. \n\n\n\n350 The Sphere of Religion \n\nIn fact, the one pre-eminent demand of the present \nhour is a truly scientific theology\xe2\x80\x94 not a Chinese nor a \nRoman nor an Anglican theology, not a Baptist nor \na Methodist nor a Presbyterian theology, not a Mosaic \nnor exclusively a Pauline theology, but a theology so \ncautiously constructed as to exclude all fiction, and so \nprofound and comprehensive in its teachings as to \ninclude all the facts. \n\nBut this imperative need of the age will never be \nsatisfied until every student of the subject clearly \nrecognizes the fact, and constantly applies it, that in \ntheology, as in every other department of knowledge, \nall generalizations are matters of a high or a low de- \ngree of probability , to be accepted or rejected according \nas the balance of probabilities is for or against them ; \nand that the degree of confidence we should have in \nsuch generalizations is to be determined by the degree \nof their probable truthfulness. \n\nThis position, it may be said, requires that all our \ntheological opinions should be very largely regarded as \nproducts of faith. We admit it at once, and we reply \nthat this is true of all opinions. Faith lies at the basis \nof every science. So far from faith commencing \nwhere science ends, * \' there could no more be science \nwithout faith than there could be extension without \nspace.\'* \n\nWhat Professor Rice has so fittingly said in his \nTwenty-five Years of Scie7itific Progress about the phy- \nsical sciences applies with equal relevancy here : \n\' \' From the clear recognition of the extremely narrow \nlimits within which certitude is attainable, we may \nlearn the rationality and wisdom of acting upon beliefs \nwhich are probable, and acting with an earnestness \nproportionate to the importance of the interest in- \n\n\n\nThe Scieyitijic Method in Theology 351 \n\nvolved. We may learn to walk by faith more steadily \nby perceiving that, in this universe in which we live, \nonly he who is willing to walk by faith can walk \nat all.\'* \n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. \n\nHUMAN IMMORTAI.ITY AND ITS RKI.ATION TO \nRKlylGION. \n\nDr. F. C. S. Schili^kr, formerly of Cornell Univer- \nsity, but now of Oxford, in the Fortnightly Review for \nSeptember, 1901, discusses at length the question, ** Do \nMen Desire Immortality? " and he does not hesitate to \naffirm that *^to find it a dominating, or even an im- \nportant, influence in human psychology, one would \nhave to seek it, not in the churches or the universities, \nand still less amid the bustle of active life, but in the \nasylums in which are secluded the unhappy victims \nof religious mania or melancholy, in whom an insane \nlogic has overpowered the healthy indifference to death \nand its consequences, characteristic of the make-up of \nthe normal mind." \n\n*\' Where,\'* said Dr. William Osier of Johns Hopkins, \nin his lecture at Harvard last year on "Science and \nImmortality," *^ where among the educated and re- \nfined, much less among the masses, do we find any \nardent desire for a future life ? . . . Immortality, and \nall that it may mean, is a dead issue in the great \nmovements of the world." \n\nProfessor I^euba of Bryn Mawr College, in the Inter- \nnational Journal of Ethics for October, 1903, concludes \na searching criticism of Professor Hyslop\'s recent *\' Re- \nport on Seventeen Sittings with Mrs. Piper" with \nthese words : *\' Professor Hyslop\'s careful investiga- \n\n352 \n\n\n\nHuman Immortality 353 \n\ntion may have at least one good result \xe2\x80\x94 the modera- \ntion of the disturbing wish of a certain class of people \nfor a future life. They may learn to face the actual \npresent more resolutely and wisely. . . . And as to \nthe Christian religion, forswearing its stupendous mis- \ntake regarding the future life, it would, let us hope, \nhave grace enough to turn around and, instead of lead- \ning men to immortality, endeavor to deliver them from \nit, even as Buddhism does." \n\nThese and similar utterances from many quarters \nclearly indicate that the doctrine of a future life for \nman is held in serious question, and they fully justify \nthe attempt to give the matter a fresh examination. \nWe therefore definitely raise the inquiry. Is the doc- \ntrine, in the light of modem knowledge, any longer to \nbe regarded as a probable truth ? \n\nBut before betaking ourselves directly to our task, \nwe would remark that if the doctrine of human immor- \ntality should turn out to be fallacious, religion would \nnot be annihilated thereby. We do not agree with a \nrecent writer on the subject that *\' we can as little con- \nceive of religion without immortality as without God." \nFor religion is not founded primarily upon the fact of \ndeath or any other similar phenomenon. It is the \nnatural creation of the mind of man as a knowing, \nfeeling, and willing being. If human life should be \nindefinitely prolonged, such a change in tlie ordinary \nongoings of nature would not destroy it. \n\nStudents of anthropology are now generally agreed \nthat belief in existence after death is co-extensive with \nthe human race. It springs up spontaneously in every \nman, and he sets out on his career as a man with the \nassumption of its truthfulness. Dr. Brinton, in his \na 3 \n\n\n\n354 "^^^ Sphere of Religion \n\nwork on Religions of Primitive Peoples^ clearly ex- \npresses this fact concerning primeval man when he \nsays, " To him all things live and live forever.\'\' His \ngods being the source of life, he could no more die than \nthey could. Doubt regarding a future life never arises \nin the infancy of any race or individual. It comes only \nwhen the facts of human experience seem to call it in \nquestion. Many religions, it is true, have a vague \nnotion of immortality, and some deny it altogether, but \nthey are not primitive. The word \'^ religion" comes \nfrom the Romans, and was originally applied to the \nobservance of a set of rites and ceremonies. Con- \nsiderations bearing upon a future life, or even a regard \nfor morals, had little to do with it. ** Belief in immor- \ntality," says Professor Granger in his work on The \nReligion of the Romans, \' \' was not a part of the Roman \nreligion any more than was a moral temper of mind." \nCaesar\'s Epicureanism was no bar to his serving as \nchief pontiff, nor was his wild and dissolute youth. \nMany people in all ages of the world have come to dis- \nbelief in individual immortality, and many reject it to- \nday. But no one can deprive himself of religion by \nholding to such an opinion, although the character of \nhis religion will be immensely affected thereby. \n\nAt the ver);^ outset of our investigation we wish to \nemphasize the fact that all we are in search of is a \nprobable truth ; for from the very nature of the case no \nposition that can be taken upon this subject can give us \ncertainty. All of the accepted doctrines concerning the \norigin and destiny of the world in which we live are \noutside the realm of certain proof. It is no objection, \ntherefore, to the doctrine of human immortality that it \ndoes not admit of demonstration. It is a future event, \nand for that reason cannot be more than probable. \n\n\n\nHuman Immortality 355 \n\nSupposing it could be shown that some men have sur- \nvived death (and we have no right to hold that all \neflForts to do so must be futile), that would not prove \nthat many men will, much less that all men will. \n\nThe problem that we now have before us is, there- \nfore, simply this : What are the probabilities that \nman is so made that he survives death and is the pos- \nsessor of an endless life ? Do the probabilities in favor \nof the doctrine overbalance the probabilities against it, \nand give us a reasonable ground for ordering our lives \nin accordance with it as a valid truth ? We propose to \nestimate these probabilities from three standpoints : \nthe origin and nature of man, the rationality of the \nuniverse, and the moral character of God. \n\nEvery human being, as we all know, begins life as \na single organic cell. As this cell develops, a more or \nless specialized form is assumed. The vertebrate em- \nbryo comes into being, and after that the human \nembryo. In due time the embryo is ready to be \nborn as a fully developed infant. The striking thing \nabout all these changes from cell to embryo, and \nfrom embryo to infant, is the fact that the life is con- \ntinuous. Whatever form the organism takes on in \npassing through these prenatal stages of its develop- \nment, it never loses its vital energy. The spark of \nlife, with which it started, is retained to the end. But \nan equally striking thing is that this individual life \ncontinues after birth as truly as before. As the infant \ngrows, he develops into consciousness, and soon shows \nvsigns of self-consciousness. He recognizes the exis- \ntence of other beings like himself, and enters into their \nthoughts and feelings and ]nir])oses. \n\nAs youth comes on, all of his experiences increase \n\n\n\n356 The Sphere of Religioyi \n\nand widen. He puts himself back into the time of pre- \nceding generations, back to the first appearance of the \nhuman race upon this planet, back to the first ghm- \nmerings of a visible universe. But in it all he remains \none and the same self. His knowledge has changed. \nHis conception of his own powers has changed ; but he \nhas not lost his identity in any of his experiences, either \nwith his own past or with the past of his race. \n\nAnd so it is when the 3\'outh becomes a man and his \npowers unfold themselves in a wider sphere. His life \nis continuous in every stage of his development, and \nalways remains identical with itself. These facts con- \ncerning the life of man from a single organic cell to the \ncomplete unfolding of his powers create at least a pre- \nsumption in favor of his sur\\\'ival after death, for they \nsimply afiirm that the principle of self-identity amid \ndiversity, so evident in all his previous histor}\', will \nnot be annihilated by even this eventful change. \n\nBut the greatest of all facts concerning man is that in \nthe process of his development he comes to be a person, \nthe highest of all known existences ; and this fact in \nparticular seems to mark him for a continuous future \nlife. Having attained to self-consciousness, he is able \nto objectify his ideas and examine into their ground or \nsource\' He can investigate the universe and form \nsome conception of its origin and significance. He can \ndiscuss^ the question as to what his own place now is in \nit, as Huxley and Wallace have done, and have his \nown opinions as to how he attained this place and \nwhat will be his future destin}\', as John Fiske has en- \ndeavored to point out. The chief aim of nature evi- \ndently is to produce such a creature as he turns out to \nbe, an individual possessing the powers of reason and \nwill to such a desfree that he can search for the ulti- \n\n\n\nHuTnan Immortality 357 \n\nmate grounds of things, and apply his knowledge to \nhis own self-development. \n\nNothing is more apparent as we rise in the scale of \norganic life than the increase of individuality. In the \nlowest organisms both animal and vegetable character- \nistics are so confused that biologists are unable to tell \nus to which of the two great kingdoms they belong. \nBut this confusion does not long exist. As we ascend \nin the scale of being we soon find that the life of the \norganism becomes constantly more separate and distinct. \nIn its higher forms no doubt any longer exists as to its \nproper classification. This individuality reaches its \nclimax among all the objects of nature in man, and \nthat is the reason why man is such an enigma to \nscience. \xc2\xab^^ \n\nFor individuality, as Caillard has so clearly pointed \nout, always has a double aspect, an outer and an inner. \nThe outer is open to scientific investigation. Its \nphenomena are capable of being classified under their \nappropriate heads. But the inner does not yield itself \nto this treatment. It stands by itself. It is known \nonly to the man himself. It is the bane of science, be- \ncause it cannot be generalized. When 7nan is treated \nsolely from the external point of view, he is merely a \nbundle of impressions, a stream of conscious experi- \nences, as Hume and Huxley regard him. But this course \nignores the principal thing about man, which is the in- \nternal aspect of his individuality, his self-knowledge, \nwhich is intuitive, incommunicable to another, stands \nout alone by itself, and separates him from all other \nknown existences. It is this aspect of man that takes \nthe problem of his future destiny out of the sphere of \nscience, and takes man out of the category of all other \norganisms open to our knowledge. \n\n\n\n358 The Sphere of Religion \n\nThe ground for the existence of all lower organisms \nseems to terminate with death. They find in the \nvisible order of things all the opportunity for develop- \nment that their powers require, and they die from the \nnatural exhaustion of those powers. The function of \nman is different. He never is contented with his at- \ntainments. He always knows that he could do more \nand better under more favorable conditions. The \nmore highly educated and cultured he becomes, the \nmore vividl}- does he realize how limited he is, and \nhow far he falls short of his possibilities. He is always \nlooking to the future, always forming ideals of what he \nought to do and become. \n\nThis ability to idealize himself and everything about \nhim creates a presumption that he will survive death, \nthat his developed but unused powers will not be for- \never annihilated by the sudden cessation of the beat- \ning of the heart. Of course this presumption, derived \nfrom the origin and nature of man, that he is destined \nto a continuation of life beyond the present, is bas\xc2\xaed \nsimply on the ground that he is fitted to survive the \npresent. It does not establish the fact of such survi- \nval. It only furnishes a reasonable expectation, which \nshould be taken into consideration in making our esti- \nmate of what probably is to be from what now is and \nwhat has been. \n\nIt is to be noted, however, that this presumption of \na future life for man is far different and far stronger \nthan the one often derived from the history of insect \nlife. When the butterfly emerges from the chrysalis, \nit leaves its encasement behind it to be resolved into \nits elements, but it does not take on powers that cannot \nfind their opportunity for a full development in its new \nsphere. Man, from the very fact of being a man, \n\n\n\nHuman Immortality 359 \n\npossesses such powers, and the more developed he is \nthe more he realizes how much he is hampered and \ncurtailed in their use. \n\nOne of the chief objections to this presumption comes \nfrom physiological psychology, and arises from the \nwell-established relation of the mind to the brain. \nEverybody knows that a blow on the head will destro}\' \nmemory and produce a state of semi-consciousness, \nthat imbecility is due to an arrest of brain develop- \nment, and that drugs can very quickly change the \ncharacter of one\'s ideas by producing an overstimula- \ntion of the cells of the brain. Anatomists, physiolo- \ngists, and pathologists agree not only that thought \nis a fiinction of the brain, but that special forms of \nthought are connected with special portions of the \nbrain. Our thoughts about things seen are connected \nwith the occipital lobe, about things heard with the \ntemporal lobe, and when we speak we use a portion of \nthe frontal lobe. All intelligent students of the subject \nrecognize the fact that our minds are absolutel}\' de- \npendent, so far as we know them, upon the brain. \nHence the question inevitably arises, how can there be \nany rational ground for belief in a life hereafter when \nscience has taught almost every schoolboy the fact \nthat the gray matter of the brain is the seat of all our \nmental powers? \n\nAdmitting in every detail the intimate connection of \nour minds with our bodies, there are at least three dif- \nferent theories that may be taken to account for this \nrelation. One of these theories is well stated and ably \nmaintained by E. Duhring, when he says: *\'The \nphenomena of consciousness correspond, element for \nelement, to the operations of special parts of the brain. \n... So far as life extends, we have before us only an \n\n\n\n360 The Sphere of Religion \n\norganic function, not a Ding-an-sich, or an expression \nof that imaginary entity, the Soul. This fundamental \nproposition . . . carries with it the denial of the im- \nmortality of the soul, since where no soul exists, its \nmortality or immortality cannot be raised as a ques- \ntion." This maj^ well be called the production theory \nof the relation of mind and body. \n\nProfessor Clifford ably champions the combination \ntheory and considers the theory incompatible with in- \ndividual immortality. \'\' Consciousness," he says, \'\'is \nnot a simple thing, but a complex ; it is the combina- \ntion of feelings into a stream. . . . Inexorable facts \nconnect our consciousness with this body that we \nknow ; and that not merely as a whole, but the parts \nof it are connected severally with parts of our brain- \naction. If there is any similar connection with a spir- \nitual body, it only follows that the spiritual body must \ndie with the natural one." \n\nBut there is a third theory of this relation open to \nour choice, namely the transmission theory, which \nProfessor James has recently elaborated. \'\'When we \nthink of the law that thought is a function of the \nbrain," he says, " we are not required to think of pro- \nductive function only ; we are entitled also to consider \npermissive or transmissive function. And this the or- \ndinary psycho-physiologist leaves out of his account. \' \' \nAccording to this latter view, he goes on to say, " our \nsoul\'s life, as we here know it, would none the less in \nliteral strictness be the function of the brain. The \nbrain would be the independent variable, the mind \nwould vary dependently on it." As this permissive \ntheory fully accounts for all the facts as well as either \nof the other theories, we are justified in adopting it \nas the true theory, and in holding that the inherent \n\n\n\nHuman Immortality 361 \n\nprobability of man\'s continuous existence after death \nis not set aside by any known interdependence of mind \nand body. \n\nBut the probability in favor of the continuance of \nhuman personality after death is greatly increased \nwhen we come to consider the constitution of the uni- \nverse and the evidences that exist there of a rational \nplan or purpose. \n\nAstronomy, geology, biology, psychology, and all \nthe other sciences, as well as philosophy itself, would \nperish if the rationality of the universe should be denied \nor seriously doubted. If man did not take it for granted \nthat his mind was rationally constructed, and could, \nunder the guidance of the laws of thought, detect fal- \nlacies in his own mental processes and the processes of \nothers, he would never undertake the formation of a \nscience. Nor would he undertake it if he did not as- \nsume that the universe is capable of being understood \nby the application of those laws. Otherwise all motive \nfor scientific study would be wanting. The very idea \nof making the attempt to comprehend things scientifi- \ncally would never enter the mind. Every human being \nwould be as listless and indifferent to the nobler aspects \nof the universe around him as a brute. \n\nThe moment the mind begins to see the order tliat \nreigns in nature, it must assert that this order exists \nfor an intelligible end. Now the assumption of human \nimmortality fits in with this teleological view of the \nuniverse. It fills out that view and helps to give it a \nsolid basis. Otherwise, the highest known products \nof the universe \xe2\x80\x94 rational beings and their ideals \xe2\x80\x94 have \nno permanent place in the system of things. \n\nIn assuming a future life we merely maintain that \nthe same rational end whicli holds good in this present \n\n\n\n362 The Sphere of Religion \n\nworld will hold good in another ; that what we see \nto be rational before death will be rational after. The \nsurvival of personality is based upon the implication \nthat the opportunity for realizing perfection offered in \nthe present order of things will not be annihilated \nalmost at the very moment when it begins to be attained. \nAll sound ethics in our present life requires that we \nshould regard a self-conscious being as of far higher \nvalue than any form of matter. It demands with no \nuncertain voice that we reverence personality above \nimpersonal force. Is it, then, too much to say that no \nethics can show itself rational without ascribing at \nleast the same degree of reality and permanence to per- \nsonality as science everywhere ascribes to mere matter ? \nIn the light of our present knowledge the three great \npostulates of a rational theory of the universe are the \nconservation of physical energy, the indestructibility \nof matter, and the conservation of personality. Each \nof these postulates requires the other two to give us a \nharmonious survey of the entire field of investigation \nthat is open to oiur view. \n\nBut the presumption of a future life for man is after \nall chiefly dependent upon our conception of the nature \nand character of God. The existence of a Supreme Be- \ning is here assumed, and so is also the view that this \nSupreme Being is a Person. It would, of course, be \ntoo great a diversion from our present purpose to at- \ntempt any statement of the grounds for these assump- \ntions. But granting their truthfulness, it is not \ndiflicult to see that the probability of human immor- \ntality is greatly affected by the character of this Being, \nand will rise or fall according as we believe or disbelieve \nin his moral trustworthiness. \n\n\n\nHuman Immortality 363 \n\nThe perfect goodness of the Supreme Being is evi- \ndently not capable of demonstration, but it is the only- \nground upon which we can account for all the good in \nthe world and hope for a good issue from all the evil. \nHuman life cannot be understood without it. If God \nis the Father of mankind, as well as the Creator, the \ntotal of human history has some rational significance. \nAnd just as we base our belief in the hypotheses of \nscience upon the completeness of their working, so we \nshould assume the moral perfection or infinite goodness \nof the Supreme Being from the order and hope that \nflow from it. \n\nIf we grant this goodness, then the endless life of \nman follows as a necessary corollary. For if God is \ninfinitely wise and good, he will not annihilate man \nat death, cutting him off in the infancy of his powers. \nThe reason and conscience in God will find their \npermanent expression in the reason and conscience of \nman. God will seek in man, possessed to some extent \nof like powers with himself, perpetual fellowship. For \nman is continually finding himself able, with ever-in- \ncreasing approximation to the truth, to \'* think the \nthoughts of God after him.\'* \n\nThis implies that the human and divine have, to \nvSome extent, a common nature ; just as man*s power, \npartially at least, to transcend in thought the temporal \nimplies some relation to the eternal. It is hard to see \nhow any being thus capable of entering into ethical re- \nlationship with God could drop out of existence without \noccasioning a definite loss to God, leaving a void in \nhis experience that no other being could fill. \n\nEach finite human person is a unique ethical being \nof far more worth to God than he is to himself. No \nother creature can take j ust the place he takes in his \n\n\n\n364 The Sphere of Religion \n\nrelationship to God. The value of man is, therefore, \nbeyond all human calculation. For he is not only de- \nrived from God and sustained by him, but he is the \nreflex of his own infinite powers. How can we pos- \nsibly regard death as the termination of this relation- \nship ? Must it rather not be a mere incident in the \nearthly system of things, of no significance outside the \nphysical order with which alone it is concerned ? \n\nThis doctrine of the natural immortality of man is, \nof course, no new thing in history. On the contrary, \nit has been strongly maintained by many of the greatest \nthinkers of our race. Plato held that birth and death \nare but phases of the same life flowing out from and \nreturning to the fountain of Being, that our powers for \ndiscovering the order of the world declare our divine \norigin. Origen, one of the greatest intellects of his \nage, stoutly upholds the endless life of man. Death, \nhe declares, has no power over the soul, for it existed \nbefore time in the invisible world of spirits and is kin- \ndred in essence to God himself. Berkeley cannot find \nanywhere in this universe a hint that death is the decay \nof spirit, for spirit is self-active, unchanging in its na- \nture, and absolutely permanent. Variation and decay \nare foreign to its very essence. \n\nIt is doubtful if a more solid piece of reasoning in \nfavor of a future life for man has ever been constructed \nthan that set forth by Bishop Butler. He does not at- \ntempt to demonstrate human immortality, but to point \nout its inherent probability, and to show why a wise \nman will shape his life in accordance with it. His ar- \ngument is based upon the fundamental maxim that \nwhatever exists now will presumably exist forever un- \nless it can be made evident that something fatal to that \n\n\n\nHuman Im^nortality 365 \n\nexistence stands in the way. If it cannot be shown \nthat death is the destruction of the soul, the fact that \nthe soul exists now constitutes a strong probability \nthat nothing will destroy it, and that it is endowed \nwith an endless life. \n\nTo Kant the sublimest fact in the consciousness of \nman is duty. In it he finds the explanation of human \nlife and the pledge of immortality. Duty requires per- \nfect conformity to the moral law, but perfect conformity \nin this life is an impossibility. All that can be done \nis to start toward the goal which will require an endless \nfuture for its complete realization. But the Highest \nwho gave the law and commands man to attain it will \nsee that the means are provided, and will confer upon \nhim an everlasting life. \n\nSuch are a few of the utterances upon this subject by \nthe leading minds of the past, and the matter has by \nno means been neglected by the thinkers of the pres- \nent. Indeed, within the past few years in our own \ncountry, to say nothing\' of other lands, many of our \nablest intellectual leaders \xe2\x80\x94 Royce, Gordon, Fiske, \nand others \xe2\x80\x94 have given the matter their profoundest \nthought, and there is a substantial agreement among \nthem that man is destined to an immortal life. The \nmore we know of this present life the more vivid and \ndefinite does this conviction come to be. It has always \nbeen true that life has brought immortality to light \njust in proportion as it has come to realize its own \ndignity and put a just estimate upon its own worth. \n\nThe doctrine of human immortality in the past has \noften been associated with grossly sensual conceptions \nand radically false ideals. Some, in their extreme ad- \nvocacy of \'\' other worldliness," have fallen little short \n\n\n\n366 The Sphere of Religion \n\nof making earth a hell, in order to merit heaven. The \nnotion of a future life commonly entertained in our day \nis derived from the dark ages, and partakes of the nar- \nrowness and ignorance of man and nature characteristic \nof that period. Enlightened people of the present gen- \neration, with their ever-broadening field of knowledge, \nhave little use for such a view. Moreover, it is unques- \ntionably true that our actual duties lie in our present \nenvironment, and anything is a blessing that will keep \nman sufficiently in the dark regarding his future des- \ntiny to force him to attend properly to his daily terres- \ntrial tasks. What can be more unwise and futile than \nto spend our time in preaching to the immortal souls \nof men, while we do nothing to relieve the distress and \nanguish of their mortal bodies ? In a certain sense it \nis true that if we live up to the demands of the Golden \nRule in the life that now is, the future will take care \nof itself. \n\nBut, after all, how can we properly conform to this \nrule without some knowledge of the true range and \nbearing of the present life ? If the existence of our- \nselves and of all other persons, past, present, and to \ncome, is limited to the world that now is, that fact \nmust vastly affect our conception of our present duties. \nA thousand and one enterprises for the advancement \nof mankind in knowledge and virtue will not be en- \ntered upon at all if this is taken as our standpoint. \nWe could not tolerate the slow progress and bitter dis- \nappointments that we know would inevitably be our lot. \n\nThe unrest and overeagerness for results which now \noften impede individual development and retard the \ncause of social regeneration, would be immensely \nlessened if more emphasis were put upon the larger \nhope, the wider outlook. The gloom of our personal \n\n\n\nHuman Immortality 367 \n\nbereavements, and the shock that comes with the first \nconsciousness of the decay of our natural powers, the \nsufferings of the incurably diseased, the horrors en- \ndured by the victims of war and pestilence, and the \nlong catalogue of ills due to the ignorance and the \nneglect, the oppression and the despair, of mankind \nwould not cut the nerve of manly endeavor half so fre- \nquently as they now do, if eternity, instead of time, \nwere taken as our point of view. \n\nThe apathy often apparent in the Christian church \nconcerning \'*the life everlasting \'\' is not due so much \nto historical criticism of the ground of its belief, or the \nlack of scientific proof of its position, as to the low \nideal that is generally taken of what that life is. When \nwe think of it as we have a right to think of it, not \nsimply as a condition of freedom from the cares and \nsorrows and turmoils of the world, a state of merely \npassive contemplation, but one where all healthful and \nnormal capacities will be utilized, where whatever of \nintellectual and emotional and moral power we pos- \nsess will be completely and joyfully employed, we will \nimpart a dignity and significance to the present life \nthat cannot Jfail to be the source of untold inspiration \nto manly effort, and a perpetual foundation of mental \nserenity and peace. \n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. \n\nTHK PRKSEXT-DAY CONCEPTION OF GOD. \n\nJohn Fiske, in his little book on The Idea of God, \nwriting of the different conceptions of the Deity that \nhave prevailed at various times in the course of histor}\', \ngives us in some detail his own first conception of him. \n" I imagined," he says, " a narrow ofl&ce just over the \nzenith, with a tall standing desk running lengthwise, \nupon which lay several open ledgers bound in coarse \nleather. There was no roof over this office, and the \nwalls rose scarcely five feet from the floor, so that a \nperson standing at the desk could look out over the \nwhole world. There were two persons at the desk, \nand one of them, a tall slender man, of aquiline features, \nwearing spectacles, with a pen in his hand and one \nbehind his ear \xe2\x80\x94 was God. The other, whose appear- \nance I do not distinctly recall, was an attendant angel. \nBoth were diligentl}\' watching the deeds of men and \nrecording them in the ledgers." \n\nSomething like this childish conception of God \ndominates the thinking of all undeveloped people, and \neven the early Christians were much affected by it. \nFor they could not help being immensel}- influenced \nby the form of government with which the\\\' came in \ndaily contact. Almost without exception they came \nto regard God as a great celestial monarch. In the \nRoman system, with which alone they were familiar, \nthe Emperor was the mysterious source of all authorit>^ \n\n36S \n\n\n\nThe Present-Day Conception of God 369 \n\nand power. He ruled by arbitrary fiats. These he \nfirst made known to his immediate subordinates, and \nthey in turn proclaimed them to their lieutenants, \nwhose mission it was to communicate them to the \npeople at large and see to it that they were implicitly \nobeyed. \n\nWhen the Roman empire went to pieces its place \nwas taken in almost every particular by the Roman \nChurch, the ofiicials of the former being supplanted by \nthe officials of the latter ; at the same time the leaders \nof the church took upon themselves even more ex- \ntended powers. Long before the beginning of the \nMiddle Ages the ecclesiastical system had reached \nsuch a degree of development and had secured such \na strong hold upon the people that practically no one \nthought of approaching God except through a long \nline of church officials reaching from the curate up to \nthe Pope. \n\nIn the early part of the fifth centur>^ Augustine \ncame into prominence in the church, and his superior \nabilities almost at once placed him in the foremost \nrank as the mouthpiece of the system. Hence it is to \nhim that we are to look for the medieval conception of \nGod and the ideas of man and the world that are con- \nnected with it. Augustine\'s two great books, The Coji- \nfessions and The City of God^ are the chief sources of \nour knowledge of his views. The former was written \nabout 400 and the second completed in 426. From the \nstudy of these books we find that Augustine thought \nof God as a great Imperial Czar, who after an infinitely \nlong period of inaction determined to create a world. \nThis he did some four thousand years before the \nChristian era, and made it out of nothing in six natu- \nral days. \n\n24 \n\n\n\n370 The Sphere of Religion \n\nHe first created the angels. They are the \'\' light \'\' \nreferred to in the Scriptures as God\'s first act. Some \nof them immediately rebelled against him and set up \na rival kingdom under their leader Satan. Then he \ncreated the material universe, and when it was finished \neverything in it was essentially just as it is at present. \nAdam, the first man, he made out of the dust of the \nearth, and endowed him with every conceivable per- \nfection both of mind and body. But Adam sinned and \nGod cast him out of the garden in which he had placed \nhim, and left him to care for himself. \n\nBefore doing it, however, God cursed the ground, \nand caused it to bring forth thorns and thistles, so that \nAdam should be compelled to earn his bread by hard \nlabor until the time came for him to return to the \ndust out of which he had been formed. Voluntarily \ndepraved and justly condemned for disobeying the \ncommands of his Maker, Adam begot depraved and \ncondemned children. For, as Augustine argues, we \nwere all in him, when *\' all of us \'\' consisted of him \nalone ; and as his nature was stained by sin, God gave \nhim and all his posterity over to corruption and death, \njust as any earthly potentate would do in case a sub- \nject rebelled against him and refused to conform his \nconduct to the behests of his lord. \n\nBut God was not to have his purpose in creating \na world thus summarily brought to naught. He deter- \nmined to institute a system of grace by which he could \nwithdraw a portion of the human race from the general \nruin ; and to do this he sent his Son into the world to \npay the needed ransom. As man had had nothing to do \nwith effecting this reconciliation, the selection of those \nwho were to be benefited by it rested solely with God. \nThere thus arose alongside of the earthly state of man \n\n\n\nThe Present-Day Conception of God 371 \n\nthe state or city of God. Those in the latter were \nto reign eternally with God, w^hile those in the former \nwere to suflfer eternal punishment with the Devil. \n\nAugustine combats with vigor those who hold that \nGod would be acting unjustly to punish all men forever \nregardless of their efforts to love and serve him. On \nthe contrary he maintains that God is perfectly justified \nin conferring his ^^irresistible grace" upon those he \nchooses without reference to their present conduct, as \nmonuments of his mercy, while he leaves the majority \nto eternal damnation as the monuments of his justice. \n\nThe church, says Augustine, prays for all men, but \nif she knew with certainty who the persons are that \nare predestined by God \'\'to go into the eternal fire \nwith the Devil \' \' she would no more pray for them than \nfor the Devil. \n\nAlthough this conception of God as a Celestial Czar \nadvocated by Augustine was generally accepted by the \nrecognized leaders of the church during the Middle \nAges, yet Anselm, the famous Archbishop of Canter- \nbury, some six centuries after the time of Augustine, \ndid much to strengthen it by his book entitled, Cur \nDens Homo ? or Why did God Become Man f \n\nIn this book he assumes practically all of Augus- \ntine\'s positions, but objects to the view held before his \ntime by such leaders as Origen, Ambrosius, Leo the \nGreat, and many others, that God sent his Son into the \nworld as a ransom to the Devil. His own view was \nthat incarnation follows of necessity, if God adopts a \nmethod of salvation at all. For sin against God is \nan offence of infinite degree and demands an infinite \nsatisfaction. \n\nIn spite of his goodness God cannot pardon sin \nwithout compounding his honor. He must, tlierefore, \n\n\n\n372 The Sphere of Religion \n\neither destroy humanit}^ entirely or innict upon it the \neternal punishment of hell. There is only one way for \nGod to escape from this dilemma, and that is by taking \nupon himself this punishment. For man is a finite \nbeing and incapable of rendering to God an infinite \nsatisfection. However long he might be punished it \nwould all be of no avaiL If, therefore, God is to save \nat all, he must become man in Christ, and Christ must \nsuffer and die as our substitute. Christ having thus \nlaid up a storehotise of infinite merit and acquired the \nright to a corresponding recompense, God assign this \nrecompense to tli^: par: of the human race that was to \nbe forgiven and restored to divine favor. \n\nThe first noticeable signs of any discontent with \nthese medieval views of God appeared a few genera- \ntions after the time oi Anselm in a work published by \nPeter Linibard. Bishop ::" Paris, entitled. Four Books \nof 5d-7z:- v. The work -rras chiefly a collection of \nquotations from the chtnrch Fathers, but in some of his \ncommentaries on the doctrines la: a a:wn in these quo- \ntations, ihe author naively prcpotinaed such questions \nas the following : If God made heaven and earth at \nthe same time out of nothing, where was he before \nthere was any heaven ? Cotdd God have made things \nbetter than they are ? WTiat kind of bodies do angels \nhave, and in what form do they appear to men ? Why- \nwas Eve taken fi-om the siae zi A a am and not fix)m \nsome other part of his bo ay? Why was she made \nwhile Adam was asleep ? Would all men hve forever \non this earth if Aaam had not sinned? Would chil- \ndren have come into the v; :rld fuU-grown as Adam and \nEve did ? Why did not God incarnate himself in a \nwoman instead of a man ? \n\nXo real attemDt was made bv Lombard to answer \n\n\n\nThe Present-Day Conception of God 373 \n\nthese questions, and the raising of them does not appear \nto have shaken his faith or that of his readers, so far as \nwe know, in the conception of God as a Celestial Czar, \nnor did all the upheavals of the Reformation have any \neffect in that direction. For the Protestants did not \ndiffer from the Catholics on this matter. The only \nquestion between them was : What is the source of our \nauthority for the view ? The one said the church and \nthe Bible, and the other looked to the Bible alone. \n\nIt was not till the last century that any real opposi- \ntion to the medieval conception of God appeared in \nhistory, and then not in the ranks of the church, but \nfrom a source quite outside of its sphere of influence. \n\nThe first attack upon this conception came from the \nstudents of geology. They began to investigate the \nquestion whether God actually made the earth in six \nnatural days about four thousand years before the \nChristian era. There is little or no doubt in our time \nbut that the earth very gradually came into its present \nform and has been in existence many times six thousand \nyears. The arguments for this view are derived chiefly \nfrom two sources, the facts now known concerning the \ncooling of the earth to reach its present status, and \nthose concerning the changes that have occurred in \nthe heat of the sun. For the sun and all its planets \nwere once one common mass of gaseous matter, and the \nprocess of vSeparation and of becoming what they now \nare must be accounted for. \n\nG. K. Gilbert, of the United States Geological Survey, \nhas well expressed the probable facts in the matter. \n*\'Kstiniatcs of the earth\'s age," he says, "based on \ngeological data have ranged from ten or twenty million \nyears to as many billion years. Limits derived from \nthe refrigeration of the earth range from twenty million \n\n\n\n374 The Sphere of Religion \n\nto four hundred million years. The limiting period \ndetermined by the sun is estimated at from ten to \ntwenty million years." \n\nThe next attack upon the medieval conception of \nGod came from anthropology. Down to a very recent \nperiod it was universally believed that God made man \nin the full perfection of all his powers, that he first ap- \npeared in Central Asia, and that the entire human race \nhas descended from one pair. Now many think that \nthe human race has arisen from many centres, and \nsome careful students would claim Southern Europe or \nNorthern Africa as the oldest of them all. President \nWarren of Boston University has written an able book \nentitled, The North Pole \xe2\x80\x94 The Cradle of the Human \nRace. \n\nThe exact place of man\'s first appearance is still \nunsettled, but few if any investigators of to-day take \nexception to the statement of J. W. Powell, late Director \nof the United States Bureau of Ethnology, when he says: \n** Investigations in archaeology have now made it clear \nthat man was distributed throughout the habitable \nworld at some very remote time or times in the lowest \nstage of human culture, when men employed stone \ntools and other agencies of industry of a like lowly \ncharacter, and that from this rude condition men have \nprogressed in culture everywhere, but some to a much \ngreater degree than others. The linguistic evidence \ncomes in to sustain the conclusions reached by archaeol- \nogy ; for a study of the languages of the world leads \nto the conclusion that they were developed in a multi- \nplicity of centres. \' \' \n\nThe biology of to-day is strongly opposed to the medi- \neval view. It teaches us that all organisms are made of \na combination of cells and have grown up from a single \n\n\n\nThe Present-Day Conception of God 375 \n\nmicroscopic cell. It cannot admit that God made man \nde novo out of the dust of the earth, but it holds that man \nhas ascended from the lower animals and has come into \nexistence after untold ages of the existence of other \nforms of life upon this planet. \n\nThe recent study of history has also contributed to \nshow the defects of this view. God has not confined \nhimself to the Jewish people alone. Other nations great \nand mighty have existed on this earth, such as the \nEgyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans, and have per- \nformed a useful mission. Plato and Aristotle have con- \ntributed to the civilization of the world as truly as Moses \nand Isaiah. God has manifested himself in some degree \namong all peoples, and has not left any of them utterly \nwithout a witness of his existence and care. \n\nModern astronomy in particular requires a different \nconception of God to account for its extraordinary reve- \nlations. Our planet is now known to be \'\' but a speck \nin the order of creation, and every other science besides \nastronomy is concerned with what is going on upon this \nlittle speck of matter." The discoveries made possible \nby the telescope are extending the universe step by step \ninto the domains of infinity. It is now established that \nalthough the orbit the earth makes in its annual jour- \nney around the sun is one hundred and eighty-six mil- \nlion miles in diameter, it would hardly be noticed when \nseen from the nearest fixed star. Then, too, each of the \ninnumerable hosts of fixed stars is not merely a point \nof light in the heavens, but a sun with its possible \nretinue of inhabited planets. \n\nThe famous astronomer Prof Simon Newcomb sums \nup a description of the stellar universe by saying : *\' It \nis composed of an unknown host of stars, certainly \nmore than fifty million, mostly scattered in irregular \n\n\n\n376 The Sphere of Religion \n\naggregations forming the Milky Way, while many are \naggregated in yet closer clusters, some of which are \nsituated within the Milky Way and some without it, \nand of a number of enormous masses of incandescent \ngases situated at unknown distances. Our sun is \nsimply one of these fifty million stars, without, so far \nas we know, any mark to distinguish him among his \nfellows. He is rather smaller than the average ; re- \nmoved to one million times his present distance, which \nis probably the average distance of the stars of the first \nmagnitude, he would shine only as a star of the third \nor fourth magnitude.** \n\nBut not only so. Spectrum analysis teaches us that \nall this vast collection of worlds is composed of essen- \ntially the same elements as exist upon the earth, and \nthat essentially the same combinations of these elements \nare taking place in other parts of this universe as take \nplace here. Consequently we have every right to claim \nthat the same forces are at work to-day as have been at \nwork in all the countless ages of the past ; that creation \nis going on to-day just as truly and just as extensively \nas at any time in the past. All that we know abo\'ut the \nuniverse leads us to assert that it is one, and that the \nsame force pervades it all. We have no data for hold- \ning that there ever was a time when a Celestial Czar, \nenthroned in the heavens, created matter and force out \nof nothing. God has not set up a system of laws to \ngovern the universe, leaving them to operate themselves \nwith here and there an occasional interference. \n\nAs John Fiske well states it : *\' Paley\'s simile of the \nwatch is no longer applicable to such a world as this. \nIt must be replaced by the simile of the flower. The \nuniverse is not a machine, but an organism, with an in- \ndwelling principle of life. It was not made, but it has \n\n\n\nThe Present-Day Conception of God 377 \n\ngrown." It is not too much to say that this change in \nour conception of the universe marks the greatest revo- \nlution that has ever occurred in the history of human \nthought, and demands a corresponding change in our \nconception of God if we are going to make it fit in with \npresent knowledge. \n\nOne of the chief dijBFerences between the medieval \nconception of God and that of to-day concerns the \nsources of the data out of which it is to be formed. In \nmedieval times it was held that all our knowledge of \nGod came through a supernatural revelation. It was \nassumed that man had no way of finding out anything \nabout him ; and that unless God himself should choose \nto come in and make himself known to him, he would \nperish in utter ignorance of the existence and powers of \nsuch a Being. But God did choose, it was claimed, to \nreveal himself exclusively to the fathers of the Jewish \npeople, and through them this knowledge has been \ntransmitted to us. \n\nThe view of to-day is that we get our ideas of God \nfrom what we know of the universe about us, and from \nwhat we know about ourselves. And the data that have \nbeen accumulated during the last few generations on \nthese matters have been so vast that we can well say \nwith Dr. Edward Caird i^The Evolution of RcliQ;ion, \nvol. i., p. 138) that *\' human knowledge will belie all \nits past history, if the new light upon man\'s relation to \nthe world and to his fellow-men, which science is every \nday bringing to us, does not give occasion to a new \nsolution or interpretation of the idea of God." \n\nFrom the study of the universe we learn that the \nvarious forms of nature have come into existence one \nafter another through the workings of an all-per\\\'ading \nand persistent Force. The harmony of nature is not \n\n\n\n378 The sphere of Religion \n\nsomething imposed upon it by some power outside of \nitself, but is inherent in its very being. The concep- \ntion of matter as inert or dead is entirely outgrown. \nEverything is quivering with energy, and all the mo- \ntions of matter are manifestations of Force to which the \nnotion of beginning and end can in no way be appUed. \nThe modern doctrines of the indestructibility of matter \nand the continuity of motion are simply two aspects \nof the fundamental truth of the persistency of Force. \n\nThe most common, but at the same time most im- \npressive illustration that can be given of this unity of \nnature, as every one admits who stops to reflect upon \nthe matter, is the luminiferous ether. For one can no \nlonger talk of empty space. Every portion of space is \nfilled with a " cosmic jelly " of almost infinite elasticity \nand hardness. Yet it does not interfere in any percep- \ntible way with the motions of even the most insignifi- \ncant of the heavenly bodies. Undulations that we call \nheat, light, magnetism, electricity, and the like, radi- \nating from millions of centre points, run along this \nsubstance, crossing each other in every conceivable \ndirection ; and although this has been going on for- \never, so far as we know, we have no evidence that the \nharmony of the motions in the universe has ever been \nin the least disturbed thereby. \n\nNow all these considerations should have a funda- \nmental influence upon our conception of God. We \nshould see that this Infinite Eternal Energy from . \nwhich all things proceed, and which forever sustains \neverything that is, and keeps each part of the universe \nin perfect accord with every other part, is a primary \nfactor in this conception. We should freely admit with \nOrigen and Cousin that we have no other way of think- \ning about the relation of God to the world than by \n\n\n\nThe Present-Day Cojiception of God 379 \n\naflfirming, as they did, that \'* God is no more without \na world than a world is without God.\'* \n\nProbably no writer more clearly and concisely ex- \npresses this truth as seen in the light of present \nknowledge than Herbert Spencer when he says : " Amid \nthe mysteries which become the more mysterious the \nmore they are thought about, there will remain this \none absolute certainty, that we are ever in the presence \nof an Infinite Eternal Energy from which all things \nproceed/\' This conception of God prevents us from \nregarding him as the great First Cause ; for he is the \none without whom nothing is and with whom everj^- \nthing is. He is the only Cause, and there are in nature \nno secondary causes. \n\nThe ancient Hebrews were literally correct in say- \ning : \'\' He gathereth the waters of the sea together as a \nheap. He layeth up the depth in storehouses. He \ncauseth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for \nthe service of man. He looketh on the earth and it \ntrembleth. He toucheth the hills and they smoke." \nThey went to the very bottom of the subject, though \nperhaps they were far wiser than they knew, when \nthey spoke of God as the one **who coverest thyself \nwith light as with a garment ; who stretchest out the \nheavens like a curtain ; who layeth the beams of his \nchambers in the waters ; who maketli the clouds his \nchariot ; who walketh upon the wings of the wind." \n\nEvery act of nature is the direct act of God. God is \nin nature and in all of it. Its laws are simply his ways \nof working. God is, therefore, never to be thought of \nas afar off. He is present in every stone and leaf and \nflower at every moment. As Tennyson says in his \npoem on "The Higher Pantheism" : \'\'The sun, the \nmoon, the stars, the seas, the hills, and the plains, Are \n\n\n\nI \n\n\n\n380 The Sphere of Religion \n\nnot these, O soul, the vision of Him who reigns? . . . \nCloser is He than breathing, and nearer than hands or \nfeet/\' \n\nThere is, therefore, no room for a distinction in this \nuniverse between the natural and the supernatural. \nWe can apply either word to all that takes place, but \nnot both words. The truth requires us to assert that \nall the phenomena of nature are of the same sort. God \nis in all phenomena, and if there were no God we \nshould have no phenomena. God is all the time \nchanging the forms of his manifestation. The phe- \nnomena of yesterday are not the phenomena of to-day. \nIn other words, God never stops creating. As layman \nAbbott keeps reiterating, every day is a creating day, \nand every new leaf or sprig or flower is a new creation. \n\nFrom the history of the development of life upon \nthis planet, "and especially from the life of man, we \nlearn that there is another element that should also \nenter into our conception of God, namely, that the \nInfinite Eternal Energy in the universe is a Power that \nmakes for righteousness. There is a progress in the \nevents that are constantly going on, and this progress \nshows a righteous plan or purpose about us. This is \nclearly discernible in the arrangements nature has made \nfor the production of higher forms of life out of lower. \nAll the chief stages of this progress are now depicted \nwith such detail that he who runs may read, and the \ngrand consummation towards which all organic evolu- \ntion is tending is the production of the highest form of \npsychical life. This has gone on, it is true, through \ncountless ages of toil and trouble, but it has now pro- \ngressed so far that the glory of the end or purpose \nadmits of no reasonable doubt. \n\nUnder the sway of natural law those organisms have \n\n\n\nThe Present-Day Conception of God 381 \n\nsurvived that were fitted to bring about what we now \nknow to be a fact, namely, that higher and higher in- \ndividuals appeared upon the scene of action, endowed \nwith capacities for an increasingl}^ varied and richer \nlife. All the dramas of life and death that took place \nduring the ages of geologic history^ led up to the \nappearance of such organisms, so that, as another \nexpresses it, \'* the whole scheme was teleological, and \neach single act of natural selection had a teleological \nmeaning. \' \' The existence of an end or plan or pur- \npose in the universe was never so evident as in the \nlight of present knowledge. It is, however, only the \nform of the argument for a design in the universe that \nhas changed in recent times, not the argument itself. \nThe old natural tneology represented by Paley insisted, \nas we have seen, upon the simile of the watch. Mod- \nern thought supplants that with the simile of the \nflower, which makes the argument for design a thou- \nsand-fold more wonderful and impressive. For it \ndepends chiefly for its cogency upon the phenomena \nof life. \n\nNever before in history has the reasonableness in the \nworld been so evident as it is now. For never before \nhas there been such a flood of light thrown upon the \norigin and nature of man as now. His existence is \nnow seen to be due to a change in the working of \nnatural selection, as John Fiske has so clearly pointed \nout. Before his time physical variations were selected \nand psychical variations ignored. Then came a time \nwhen the situation changed. Psychical variations \nwere selected and physical variations ii^^nored. The \nlong infancy of man made the family possible, and the \nfamily led to human society with the beginnings of \npolitical, moral, and religious ideas and sentiments. \n\n\n\n382 The Sphere of Religion \n\nMan with these ideas and sentiments became a dif- \nferent being from all lower creatures, not only in degree \nbut kind, and capable of a progress to which we can \nset no conceivable limits. All the forms of life below \nman use their energy to develop their physical powers. \nThey always carry out the motto : Eat and drink for \nthe glory of the body. With man began the process of \nusing the body for the life of the soul. He is capable \nof following the injunction, Whether ye eat or drink, \ndo all for the glory of the spirit. He can, therefore, \ndevelop to ever-increasing degrees of perfection. Thus \nman is seen to be the crown and glory of the universe, \nand his moral discipline its ultimate ground or end. \nIn other words, the universe is so constructed that a \nrational plan dominates in it. The power that it re- \nveals makes for righteousness. And we have no other \nway of properly accounting for this power than by \nlooking upon it as one of the essential elements in our \nconception of God. \n\nNo people ever had such an appreciation of this \npower in the universe that makes for righteousness, as \nthe ancient Hebrews. \'\' The word righteousness," as \nMatthew Arnold has well pointed out, ^ \' is the master- \nword of the Old Testament." And he might have \nadded it is the master- word of the New Testament also. \nThe Old Testament writers are constantly exhorting \ntheir readers to adopt \'\'the way of the righteous.\'\' \nSinners shall not stand \'\'in the congregation of the \nrighteous." Instead of observing meaningless cere- \nmonials as others did around them, they were ex- \nhorted to "offer sacrifices of righteousness." "The \nway of righteousness is life, and in the pathway thereof \nthere is no death." And from the outset of their his- \ntory they keep asserting of God, " Shall not the judge \n\n\n\nThe Present-Day Conception of God 383 \n\nof all the earth do right ? " * * A God of truth, just and \nright is he." *\' Righteousness," they declare, *\' is the \nhabitation of his throne. " \'\' The righteous Lord loveth \nrighteousness ; his countenance doth behold the up- \nright.\' \' The primary injunction of the New Testament \nis of a similar import : \'* Seek ye iSrst the kingdom of \nheaven and its righteousness." The gospel itself is \ndeclared to be **the word of righteousness," and in \nthe world to come we are told it is the righteous who \n** shall shine forth as the sun." \n\nIf we think of God as in our day we have a right to \nthink of him, we shall say that he is the Infinite Eter- \nnal Energy from which all things proceed, and that he \nis the Power in the universe from which all righteous- \nness proceeds. \n\nBut these two aspects of God, important as they are, \nonly lead us on to a third aspect, namely, the aspect of \nhim as a knowing, feeling, and willing being ; our \nstudy of the phenomena of nature discloses to us in \npart what God is. The study of the phenomena of \nhuman history adds still further data about him. And \nproceeding in exactly the same way, we have to look \nto the mental operations going on in the universe for \nstill more light on the subject. \n\nBeings that know, and feel, and will, have come \nforth from God. He must, therefore, be adequate to \ntheir production ; whatever else that is higher he may \nbe capable of doing, he must be capable of knowing, \nfeeling, and willing. We have certainly just as good \nground for holding that God produces man with all \nhis powers as that he produces the tree or the flower. \nWe are scientifically justified in maintaining that God \nknows what is going on in the universe and feels an \ninterest in it. We may, therefore, truly say that God \n\n\n\n384 The Sphere of Religion \n\nis \'\'the Beginning and End of all knowledge," and \nthat he is the \' \' master-light of all our seeing " ; for \nevery truth is one of his thoughts. If there were no \nGod there would be no truth, nothing for us to know, \nand consequently no opportunity to feel or to do. We \ncannot know anything that God does not know, and \nwe have no powers for willing what he cannot will. \n\nThere is a sense in which man is in the image of \nGod and God is in the image of man, although the two \npropositions are not identical. The Greek and Roman \nmythology grossly exaggerated the latter view and the \nHebrews often misinterpreted the former. All we as- \nsert here is that God is capable of doing all that man \ncan do. Whether he has any other mental powers, it \nis beyond us to say. At all events, we certainly have \nno right to put upon him the limitations to the exercise \nof his powers that we everywhere find imposed upon \nourselves. We have no reason for believing, however, \nthat he ever contradicts himself and acts in one capa- \ncity in such a way as to nullify what he does in another, \nas we sometimes do. \n\nWhile every new manifestation that God may make \nof himself in the future will shed new light on what he \nis, the highest form under which he has already mani- \nfested himself of which we have any knowledge is \nthat of a Father. For human fatherhood, rightly un- \nderstood, is the highest of all his products. For this \nreason our highest conception of God is that of a \nFather, and we ought to fashion all of our notions of \nhim in accordance with this point of view. \n\nThat Jesus did this and exhorted his disciples to do \nit, places him above all other teachers of any time or \ncountry. Not only does the model prayer he taught \nhis disciples show this, but from the beginning to the \n\n\n\nThe Present-Day Conception of God 385 \n\nend of his ministry he was constantly asserting to his \nfollowers that God was his Father and their Father. \nAll anybody had to do, he says, to lead a righteous \nlife, is to do the will of the Father. Even his famous \nparable of the Prodigal Son is chiefly intended to show \nthe love of the Father. It is entirely safe to say that if \nwe could once adequately comprehend what is meant \nby the statement, God is our Father, we should have \nall the theology w^e need, all we are capable of \napprehending with our present powers. \n\nIn the light of this conception of God we see how \nradically the old medieval view of things must be \nchanged. We have already disposed of its notion of \ncreation out of nothing, and have shown how its as- \nsumption of a strict line of division between the super- \nnatural and the natural, between a special and a general \nProvidence, must disappear with God as the one only \ncause of all that is, and the one who always pro- \nceeds in a regular and orderly way to accomplish his \npurpose. \n\nNow this conception of God as our Father reveals \nthe fact that he always loves his children. There \nnever was a time when he did not love them and was \nnot ready to forgive them when they went astray. He \nhas alwa^^s been saying to those who disobey him, \n\'* Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways , for why will \nye die ? \' \' We have every reason for believing that it \nhas always been literally true that like as a father \npitieth his children so the Lord pities us when we hurt \nourselves by sinning. Hence we must hold that he \ndid not send his Son into the world to make it possible \nfor him to forgive. Forgiveness is a natural act and is \nconstantly going on in the material world as well as the \nhuman. The forces of nature are always striving to \n\n\n\n386 The Sphere of Religion \n\nheal wounds and make up for injuries. Man is ever \nintently searching for nature\'s remedies, and his great \nambition is to find a way by which he can apply them, \nand give nature a chance to do her normal work. \n\nIt did not require any ransom to be paid for sin to \ninduce God to look with favor upon his erring children \nand allow them to come back. The mission of Jesus, \ntherefore, was not to reconcile God to man, to change \nGod\'s attitude toward his children, but to inspire in \nman greater love and devotion to God. Nor was it his \nwork to take away the penalty of wrong-doing, but to \nhelp on the abandonment of sinful living. He never \nclaimed to do the former, but constantly spoke of \nhimself as giving his life for the remission of sins. \n\nJesus is the great inspirer of man to holiness of life, \nbecause he showed sinful man that God always loved \nhim, and how he ought to conduct himself in order to \nenjoy his love and favor. He is the representative to \nus, under human conditions and limitations, of God our \nFather. He is not the same as God, but a manifesta- \ntion of God. God is more than the sum-total of his \nmanifestations just as a man is more than the sum-total \nof his thoughts. Therefore, we should think of God \nas more than Jesus, who was the highest form of his \nmanifestation of which we have any knowledge. \n\nFurthermore, when we think of Jesus as manifesting \nto us the Father, we should not attribute to him a \ndivinity different from that of our divinity. To do so \ndishonors God. We are as truly sons of God as he \nwas. There are not several different kinds of divinity^ \nbut one kind only. Jesus differed from us in the de- \ngree to which he manifested the Father and in the \npurity and holiness of his life. He lived the kind of a \nlife he did because of the conditions of his time. He \n\n\n\nThe Present- Day Conception of God 387 \n\nsuflfered because a father always suffers if the one he \nloves goes astray. I^ve always sacrifices itself for the \nobject loved if any need arises for so doing. Jesus \nsuffered not to vindicate God\'s laws, but to reveal God \nto man and to make known God\'s love for him even in \nhis sins. God being our Father, we have every reason \nto suppose that he will do all in his power to disclose \nhis interest in his children, that he will show them by \nconcrete example, and not merely by precepts and \ncommands, how to live the highest life possible un- \nder human conditions and limitations. This Jesus did \nand he had the right to say of himself, ** I am the way, \nthe truth, and the life." \n\nWe ought not, however, to think of God as having \nincarnated himself once for all two thousand years ago. \nHe is all the time incarnating himself in human his- \ntory. We cannot set any limit to the possible forms of \nhis incarnation in the future. We have gone as far as \nwe have any right to go when we say that Jesus was \nsent into the world \'\'that he might be the first bom \namong many brethren." Because he has showm us the \nmind and heart of God beyond any other being that \nhas appeared in history we have the right to regard \nhim as embodying our highest conception of God, and \nto praise and reverence him for what he has done in \nour behalf. \n\n\n\nINDEX \n\n\n\nAbraham, 111-113, 124 \nActs of the Apostles, 137 \nAhriman, 98 \nAhura-Mazda, 98 \nAncestor worship, 21-23 \nAngell, President, on ances- \ntor worship in China, 271 \nAngell, Professor, on Chris- \ntian Science, 207 \nAnselm\'s conception of God, \n\n369-371 \n\nAnthropomorphism in re- \nligion, 36 \n\nAphrodite, 90 \n\nApollo, 85, 86 \n\nApostles\' Creed described, \n\n345-347 \n\nArchitecture and its relation \nto religion, 234, 242-244 \n\nAres, 87 \n\nAristotle, 286, 338 \n\nArt and its relation to re- \nligion, 231-235, 242-255 \n\nArtemis, 90 \n\nAssyria, its relation to Baby- \nlonia, 51 \n\nAthene, 89 \n\nAugustine\'s conception of \nGod, 371, 372 \n\nB \n\nBabylonians, their sacred \n\ntablets, 37-51 \nBacon, Professor, 120 \nBaldwin, S. E., on relation of \n\nreligion to history, 265, 267 \nBerkeley on human immor- \n\ntaHty, 364 \nBlavatsky, Madame II. P., \n\n210-216, 225-227 \n\n\n\nBleek, 1 19 \n\nBluntschli on the modern \nstate, 329, 330 \n\nBook of the Dead, 52-60 \n\nBrahma, meaning of, 64 \n\nBriggs, Professor, 120 \n\nBrinton, D. G., on the uni- \nversality of religion, 14; on \njoyousness in primitive re- \nligions, 17; on primitive \narchitecture, 243; on belief \nin immortality, 354 \n\nBrooks, Phillips, on the mis- \nsion of art, 255 \n\nBuddha, Gautaina, 100-102 \n\nButler, Bishop, on the sphere \nof probability, 342; on \nimmortality, 364 \n\nButler, President, on the \ndefinition of education, \n\n305 \n\nC \n\nCaird, Edward, definition of \nreligion, 10; evolution of \nreligion, 14; idea of God, \n\n. 377 \n\nCalvin, John, on education, \n297, 298 \n\nCeres, 91, 92 \n\nCheyne, 119, 125 \n\nChinese classics, 71-77 \n\nChristian scriptures, 131- \n142; how they originated, \n142-150 \n\nChristianity and eilucation, \n290-306 \n\nChurch, the, ami jM-oporty, \n307-319; sec Property; re- \nlation to state, 320-337; \nsee State. \n\n\n\n389 \n\n\n\n390 \n\n\n\nIndex \n\n\n\nCicero on Roman education, \n289 \n\nClarke, James Freeman, on \nthe religion of the Greeks, \n78; on Zoroaster, 100; on \nBuddhism, 105 \n\nClifford, Professor, on im- \nmortality, 360 \n\nCode of Hammurabi, 47-51 \n\nCode of Manu, 65-67 \n\nComenius and education, 301 \n\nComte quoted, 244 \n\nConfucius, 71-77 \n\nCreation, Babylonish account \nof, 42 \n\nD \n\nDaniel, book of, 128, 129 \nDemeter, 91, 92 \nDewey, John, on the defini- \ntion of education, 305 \nDiana, 90 \n\nDreams and religion, 12 \nDriver, 119 \n\nE \n\nEddy, Mrs. Mary Baker G., \n199-206 \n\nEducation and religion, 278\xe2\x80\x94 \n306; among the Egyptians, \n280; the Babylonians, 280, \n281; the Hebrews, 281, \n282; the Hindus, 282; the \nPersians, 282, 283; the \nChinese, 283, 284; the \nGreeks, 284-287; the Ro- \nmans, 287-290; the Chris- \ntians, 290-306 \n\nEgyptian Book of the Dead, \n52-60 \n\nEichhorn, 119 \n\nErasmus, 296 \n\nExodus, 1 1 3-1 1 5 ; and how it \noriginated, 121 \n\n\n\nFerguson on tree and ser- \npent worship, 19, 20 \n\n\n\nFetishism, 18-21 \nFine arts, their nature and \nrelation to religion, 232- \n\n255 \n\nFiske, John, on the basis of \nreligion, 5; immortality, \n365; idea of God, 368; \nargument from design, 376, \n377; human selection, 381 \n\nFlood, the, Babylonish ac- \ncount of, 43-46 \n\nFroebel and education, 302, \n\nG \n\nGautama Buddha, 100-102 \n\nGenesis, described, 108-113; \nhow it originated, 120, 121 \n\nGiddings, Professor, on an- \ncestor worship, 22; on \nfellow-feeling as a cause in \nsocial phenomena, 273 \n\nGilbert, G. K., on the age of \nthe earth, 373, 374 \n\nGod, the present-day con- \nception of, 368-387; the \nchild\'s conception, 368; the \nmedieval conception as \nrepresented by Augustine, \n369, 371; by Anselm, 371, \n372; the modern concep- \ntion as affected by geology, \n3 73 \xc2\xbb 374; by anthropology, \n374; by biology, 374, 375; \nby astronomy, 375, 376; \nthe conception as Infinite \nEternal Energy, 378-380; \nas a Power that makes for \nrighteousness, 380, 383; as \na Father, 383-387 \n\nGraf, 119 \n\nGranger, Frank, on joyous- \nness in early religion, 17 \n\nGuizot on religion and civili- \nzation, 256; on origin of \ndemocracy in Europe, 264 \n\nH \n\nHague Peace Conference, ori- \ngin of, 275 \n\n\n\nIndex \n\n\n\n391 \n\n\n\nHammurabi, code of, 47-51 \n\nHarnack, Professor, on the \n\nplace of church history, \n\n257 \n\nHarris, President, on changes \nin rehgious thought, 303 \n\nHebrew bible, described, 107- \n119; its origin, 1 19-130 \n\nHephaestos, 86, 87 \n\nHeraclitus, 92 \n\nHermes, 87, 88 \n\nHesiod, 77, 81-84 \n\nHestia, 91 \n\nHexateuch, 122 \n\nHistory and religion, 256-277 \n\nHolzinger, 119 \n\nHomer, 77-79 \n\nHome, H. H., on^the defini- \ntion of education, 303 \n\nHuxley, on the basis of re- \nligion, 5; on education, 303 \n\nHyslop, Professor, referred \nto, 352 \n\nIliad, described, 77-80; its \norigin, 81 \n\nImagination in religion, 36 \n\nImmortality, human, 352- \n367; recent doubts on the \nsubject, 352; primitive be- \nliefs concerning it, 353, \n354; a question of proba- \nbility, 354, 355; argument \nfrom the nature and origin \nof man, 355-361 ; from the \nrationality of the universe, \n361, 362; from the charac- \nter of God, 362-364 \n\nIsaiah, described, 118, ik;; \nits origin, 126, 127 \n\nIsis Unveiled, 217-224 \n\n\n\nJackson, A. V. Williams, re- \nferred to, 94, ()6 \nJames, ejnstle of, 141, 143 \nJames, William, definition of \neducation, 303; on im- \nmortality, 360, 361 \n\n\n\nJastrow, Professor, on ances- \ntor worship, 23; on origin \nof civilization, 279 \n\nJesuits, 299, 300 \n\nJesus, mission of, 386, 387 \n\nJohn, epistles of, 141, 144 \n\nJohn\'s gospel, 135, 137, 146- \n148 \n\nJoyousness in primitive re- \nligion, 17 \n\nJuno, 88, 89 \n\nJupiter, 84, 85 \n\nK \n\nKant on human immortality, \n\n365 \nKent, Professor, quoted, 120 \nKnox, John, on education, \n\n298 \nKoran, described, 150-160; \n\nits origin, 162-164 \nKuenen, Professor, 119 \n\n\n\nLanman, Professor, quoted, \n\n63 \nLares, 288 \nLast Judgment according to \n\nthe Egyptians, 56, 57 \nLatter Day Saints, 179 \nLaurie, S. S., quoted, 278, \n\n286,287 \nLayard, Sir Austin Henry, \n\nexploration at Nineveh, 39 \nLeuba, Professor, on im- \nmortality. 352 \nLiberty, religious, the }>arent \n\nof i>olitical, 263, 2t)4 \nLinn, W. A., on the Mormons, \n\n180, 181 \nLocke, John, on probability \n\nin life, -^48 \nLodge, S^r Oliver, on the \n\nreii^n of law. 257; on the \n\ns]>here of religion, 304 \nLubbock. Sir John, on the \n\nuiiiversiility of rt^ligion. 13 ; \n\non serpent worshij). 20 \n\n\n\n392 \n\n\n\nIndex \n\n\n\nLucretius on dreams and re- \nligion, 1 6 \n\nLuke\'s gospel, 134, 135, 144- \n146 \n\nLuther, on the divine author- \nity of rulers, 259, 260; on \neducation, 297-299 \n\nLyon, D. G., quoted, 40 \n\nM \n\nMark\'s gospel, 133, 134, 144- \n146 \n\nMars, 87 \n\nMatthew\'s gospel, 1 31-133; \nits origin, 144, 145 \n\nMelanchthon and education, \n298, 299 \n\nMencius, 76 \n\nMercury, 87, 88 \n\nMinerva, 89 \n\nMitchell, Professor, 120 \n\nMivart, St. George, 336 \n\nMohammed, 160-165 \n\nMonotheism, 30-34 \n\nMormxon, Book of, 165-177; \nits origin, 180, 181 \n\nMoses, 113-115, 123, 124; as \na schoolmaster, 281 \n\nMother Ann, 202, 203 \n\nMiiller, Max, on sky worship, \n25, 26; on Buddhism, 105, \n106; on Madame B la vat- \nsky, 227-229 \n\nMunroe, Professor, quoted, \n291, 292, 297, 305 \n\nN \n\nNature worship, 23-28 \nNegative Confession of the \n\nEgyptians, 57 \nNeptune, 85 \nNewcomb, Simon, on the \n\nstellar universe, 375, 376 \nNew Testament, described, \n\n132-142; its origin, 142- \n\n.150 \nNineveh, explorations at, 39 \nNirvana, 106, 107 \n\n\n\nOlcott, H. S., and Madame \nBlavatsky, 213-217 \n\nOrigen on immortality, 364 \n\nOrmazd, 98 \n\nOsiris, 55-57 \n\nOstler, William, on immor- \ntality, 352 \n\n\n\nPainting and its relation to \nreligion, 234, 235, 247-250 \n\nPaley, 376 \n\nPaul\'s epistles, 137-141, 142- \n144 \n\nPenates, 288 \n\nPentateuch, 122 \n\nPericles, 285 \n\nPestalozzi and education, \n301,302 \n\nPeter, epistles of, 141, 144 \n\nPeters, John C, explorations \nin Babylonia, 39 \n\nPetronius on fear in religion, \n16 \n\nPfleiderer on the basis of \nreligion, 9 \n\nPhillimore, Sir R., on the \nbasis of international law, \n272, 273 \n\nPlato on immortality, 364 \n\nPoetry and its relation to re- \nligion, 235, 252-255 \n\nPolytheism, 28-30 \n\nPoseidon, 85 \n\nProperty and the church, \n307-319; what is not and \nwhat is the ultimate \nground of the right to \nproperty, 307-309; the \nstate as the ultimate con- \ntroller of the sources of \nproperty, 310, 311; of the \nmode of its acquisition, \n311, 312; of its uses, 313; \nof its transfer and descent, \n314-316; the church in the \nUnited States can control \nits regulation, 318, 319 \n\n\n\nIndex \n\n\n\n393 \n\n\n\nProverbs, book of, 117; its \n\norigin, 125 \nPsalms, book of, 116, 117; its \n\norigin, 125, 126 \n\nR \n\nRawlinson, Sir Henry, ex- \nplorations in Babylonia, \n\n39 \n\nReligion , what it is , i - 1 2 ; not \nidentical with belief in \nsuperhuman spirits, 3-5 ; \nor in human immortality, \n5, 6; or in one personal \nGod, 6, 7; or with certain \nfeelings, 7, 8; or with cer- \ntain acts of the will, 8, 9; \nit concerns the whole of \nman as a knowing, feeling, \nand willing being, 9-12; \nthe steps in its evolution \nare: spiritism, 15-18; fe- \ntishism, 18-21; ancestor \nworship, 21-23 ; nature wor- \nship, 23-28; polytheism, \n28-30; monotheism, 30- \n34; its relation to the fine \narts, 241-255; to history, \n256-277; to education, \n278-306 \n\nRevelation, book of, 142; its \norigin, 1 48-1 50 \n\nRice, Professor, on faith in \nscience, 350, 351 \n\nRig-Veda described, 62-64 \n\nRiley, I. W., on Mormonism, \n180, 184, 185; on Christian \nScience, 204, 205 \n\nRoyce on immortality, 365 \n\n\n\nSabbath, Babylonish account \nof its origin, 42, 43 \n\nSacred books and their ori- \ngin, 37-232 \n\nSchiller, F. C. S., on iin- \nmortrdity, 352, 353 \n\nSchlciermacher on the basis \nof religion, 8 \n\n\n\nScience and Health, de- \nscribed, 188-198; its origin, \n199-206 \n\nSculpture and religion, 234, \n244-247 \n\nShamanism, 40 \n\nSmith, George Adam, 119, \n125 \n\nSmith, Joseph, 181-188 \n\nSmith, Robertson, 17, 119 \n\nSpencer, Herbert, on uni- \nversality of religion, 13; \non ancestor worship, 22^\', \non education, 303; on idea \nof God, 379 \n\nSpinoza on the basis of \nreligion, 6 \n\nSpiritism, 15-18 \n\nState, the modem, and the \nchurch, 320-337; necessity \nof recognizing a relation \nbetween them, 322; the \nfour great theories of this \nrelation stated and criti- \ncised, 322-328; the true \ntheory, 328, 329; the re- \nlation in the United States \nexplained, 2,12,-111 \n\n\n\nTennyson\'s idea of God, 379, \n380 \n\nTheology, the scientific \nmethodin,338-35i ;the sci- \nentific method described, \n338-342; all generaliza- \ntions are probable only, \n342-345; hence must be \\\\\\ \ntheology, 345-351 \n\nThcosoj^hv, its present status \nin the United States, 230, \n231. See Isis Unveiled. \n\nToy, Professor, iiq \n\nTriad of the KgyjUians, 55 \n\nTribtutc, New York, on the \nCasablanca uprising, 269, \n270 \n\nTrinity of the Hintius, 64 \n\nTripitaka described. 100-104 \n\n\n\n394 \n\n\n\nIndex \n\n\n\nTylor, E. B., \nreligion, 4 \n\n\n\non the basis of \n\n\n\nVedantis, 67 \n\nVedas of the Hindus, 60-71 \n\nVenus, 90 \n\nVesta, 91 \n\nVestal virgins, 288 \n\nVon Ranke, 285 \n\nVulcan, 86, 87 \n\nW \n\nWard, Lester H., on the basis \nof religion, 8, 9 \n\nWeber on the relation of re- \nligion to history, 277 \n\n\n\nWellhausen, 119 \n\nWhite, Andrew D., on Ger- \nmany\'s religious inheri- \ntance, 264 \n\n\n\nYoga system described, 67- \n\n69 \nYoung, Brigham, on the Book \n\nof Mormon, 179 \n\n\n\nZeus, 84, 85 \nZoroaster, 95-100 \nZwingli, 298 \n\n\n\nJi Selection from the \nCatalogue of \n\nG. P. PUTNAM\'S SONS \n\n\n\nComplete Catalogues sent \non application \n\n\n\nBy Frank Sargent Hoffman, Ph.D. \n\nProfessor in Union College \n\n\n\nTHE SPHERE OF THE STATE \n\nOr, The People as a Body Politic \nCr. 8vo. $1.50 \n** Professor Hoffman has done an excellent piece of work. \nHe has furnished the student with a capital text-book, and \nthe general reader, who is interested in political science, with \nmuch that is suggestive, much that is worthy of his careful \nattention." \n\nTHE SPHERE OF SCIENCE \n\nA Study of the Nature and Method of Scientific \n\nInvestigation \n\nCr. 8vo. $1.50 \n\n" The treatment of the book is sound, and based on ample \nreading. The book is strongly recommended for those who like \nto think and are desirous of getting an idea of the present status \nof scientific- philosophical speculation." \xe2\x80\x94 Hartford Courant, \n\nPSYCHOLOGY AND COMMON LIFE \n\nA Survey of the Present Results of Psychical \nResearch with Special Reference to their \nBearings upon the Interests of Every-day Life. \nCr. 8vo. Net, $1.30 \nThe object of this book is to select the most important \nfacts from the great mass of material now accumulated by- \nstudents of ps^^chical research, describe them in language \neasily apprehended by the general reader, and point out their \nbearing upon the interest of every-day life. \n\nTHE SPHERE OF RELIGION \n\nA Consideration of its Nature and of its Influence \n\nupon the Progress of Civilization \n\nCr. 8vo. \n\n\n\nG. P. PUTNAM\'S SONS \n\nNEW YORR LONDON \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDeacidified using the Bookkeeper process. \nNeutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide \nTreatment Date: Dec. 2004 \n\nPreservationTechnologies \n\nA WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION \n\n1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive \nCranberry Township. PA 16066 \n(724)779-2111 \n\n\n\nBl-S"?" \n\n\n\n^/ \n\n\n\nLIBRARY OF CONGRESS \n\n\n\n013 502 225 1 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n^^-i\'\' \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n. \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x96\xa0 ^:.\'*.\'\'\' %\'.."j\'> ft*yw \n\n"1 \xc2\xab \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n'