MUST LECTUEE.
DELIVERED AT tfHE ROYAL^ INSTITUTION, .FEBRUARY 19, 1870.
HEN I undertook for the first time to deliver a course of lectures in this Institution, I chose for my subject the Science of Language. What I then had at heart was to show to you, and to the world at large, that the comparative study of the principal languages of mankind was based on sound and truly scientific principle^, and that it had brought to light results whidh deserved a larger share of public interest than »they had as yet received. I tried to convince not only scholars by profession, but historians, theologians, and philosophers, nay everybody who had once felt the charm of gazing inwardly upon the secret workings of his own mind, veiled and revealed as they are in the flowing folds of language, that the discoveries made by comparative philologists could no longer be ignored with impunity; and I submitted that after the progress achieved in a scientific study of the principal branches of the vast realm of human speech, our new science, the Science of Language, might claim by right its seat at the Round-table of the intellectual chivalry of our ftge.
Such was the goodness ox the cause I haft then to defend that, however imperfect my own pleading, the verdict of the public has been immediate and almost unanimous. During the years that have elapsed since
B
w
2           LECTURES ON THE  SCIENCE »OF BELIGION*
the deliver of my first course of lectures, the Science of Language has had its Ml share of public recognition. Whether we» look at the number »of books that have been published for thft advancement and elucidation of our seience3 or#at the excellent articles in the daily, weekly, forfeiightly, monťhly, and quarterly reviews, or at the fr^qu^nt notices of its results» scattered about in works on philosophy, theology, and ancient history, we *may well rest satisfied. The example set by France and Germany in founding chairs of Sanskrit and Comparative Phi* lology, has been followed of late in nearly all the universities of England, Ireland, and Scotland. We need not fear for the future of the Science of Language* A career so auspiciously begun, Jxl spite of strong prejudices that had to be encountered, "Will lead on from year to year to greater triumphs. Out best public schools, if they have not done so already, will soon have to follow the example set by the universities* It is but fair that schoolboys who are made to devote so many hours every day to the laborious acquisition of» languages, should now and then he taken by a safe guide to enjoy from a higher point of view that living panorama of human speech which has been surveyed and carefully mapped out by patient explorers and bold discoverers: nor is there any longer an excuse why, even in the most elementary lessons, nay I should say, why more particularly in these elementary lessons, the *dark and dreary passages of Greek Jand Latin, of French and German grammar, should not Jbe brightened by the electric light of Comparative Philology. When last year I travelled in Germany I found
LECTÜKE I.
SL
that lectures on Comparative Philology w^ü attended in the universities by nearly all who study» ôreek and Latin. At Leipzig there were hundreds of ntu/lents who croVded tile Tectusre room of the ProfiiMso* of Coneparajiive Philolog/, and tfcc classes of the Professor of Sanskrit conn&ted of more than fifty undergraduates, most^of them wishing to acquire *ihat amount of knowledge *of Sanskrit which is absolutely necessary before entering upon a study of Comparative Grammar.
The introduction of Greek into the tinivernitieH of Europo in the fifteenth century could hardly have caused a greater revolution than tho discovery of Sanskrit and the study of Comparative. Philology in tho nineteenth* Vory &w indeed now take? their degree of Master of Arts in Germany or would bo allowed to teach at a public school, without having been examined in tho principles of Comparative Philology, nay in the elements of Sanskrit grammar« Why should it be different in England? The intellectual fibre, I know, is not different in the youth of England and in tho youth of Germany, and if there is but a fair field and no favour, Comparative* Philology, I feel convince^ will soon hold in Kngland too» that place which it ought to hold at every public school, in every university, and in every classical examination *.
In beginning to-day a course of lectures on the
1 Sinoe this*wuB written, Comparative Ailology hftft been edmHted to Hs rightful plftoü in the University of Oxford la the fint Pobtío Examination candidatea for Honour» in Greek or L*tia Lite**tare wtľ be examined in the elemente <ff Üoinp*r*tive Philology m iilurtjr*tíag tibe Greek mä Latin UnguAgw, Zu the An«! Publlo Exwalwition, Comparative Philology wiU fbra * sped*! subject, by Ote tide rtf the hiitory of Ancient Literature,
B íl
4          LECTÜBES  OK THE SCIENCE JF ftELlGIOtf.
Science qfBeligion,—or I should rather say on some preliminary points that have to he settled before we can enter upon a truly scientific study of the* religions of t*le world»—I feel as I folk when -first pleading in this very place for the*Sciences Language.
I know that I shall have t$ meet determined antagonists who will deny the ?ery* possibility of a scientific treatment of religions, as formerly they denied the possibility of a scientific treatment of languages. I foresee even far more serious conflicts with familiar prejudices and fluep-rooted convictions; but 1 feel at the same time that I am prepared to meet my antagonists, and I havo such faith in their honesty and love of truth» that I doubt not of a patient und impartial hearing on their part, and of a verdict influenced by nothing but by* the ovidenco that I shail havo to place before them.
In those our days it is almost impossible to speak of religion at all, without giving offence either on the right or on the, left. With hoi»«, religion seems too sacred a subject for scientific treatment; with others it stands on ß level with §,lehemy and astrology, as a mere tissue of errors or halueinations, far beneath tho notice of tho man of science,
In a certain sense, í accept both tfiese views. R«b ligion is a sacred subject, and whether in its most perfect or in its most imperfect form, it has a right to our highest reverence, In this respect wo might learn something from those whpm wo are so reafly to teach* I quote «from tho * Declaration of Principles' by which the church founded by Keshufe Chunder Sen professes to bo guided. After stating that no created object »ball ever be worshipped, nor any man or inferior being
LECTURE T,
5
or material object be treated as identical v^i^h God, or like unto God, or as an ^incarnation ^God» and tltat no prayer or hymn shall be sai^ unto or m the jiame of any one except God, the declaration continues:«
ťNo created being $r object that has been or^may hereafteP be worshipp$4 liy any sect shall be ridiculed or contemned injhe course of the" divine service to be conducted here.
'No book shall be acknowledged or received as the infirilible Word of Go3; yet no book which has been or may hereafter be acknowledged by any sect to be infallible shall be ridiculed or contemned/
'No sect shall be vilified, ridiculed, or hated.*
It might bo thought, perhaps, that these broad sentiments of religious toleration were borrowed by Keshub Chflnder Sen, or rather by the founder of the Brahma-Samáj, Kammohun Eoy, from Christian writers. That may bo so. But they need not havo gone to Europe for these truly Christian principles. They might have found them inscribed on the very rocks of India, placed there more than 2000 ycjars ago by Aaoka, who ruled from 259 to %%% B.c. Aaoka, who had left thfc old Vedic religion, and had embraced the essential principles of Buddha's teaching, says"in ono of his Edicts: 'The King Pi~ yadasi wishes that all sects should dwell everywhere (unmolested); for all of them approve of restraint (of the senses) and purification of the soul.' And again» ' The Kingp Piyadasi honours all sects, monks and house» holders; he honours them* by liberality and various kinds of favours... * $ut there is a fundamental law for every sect, namely moderation in speech, that one should not exalt one's own sect in decrying others,
6           LECTURES ON THE SCIENCE.OF BEL1GI0N,
and not depreciate them lightly, but that one ought on tbe contrary to^how always«to other sects the honour due £o them. In th$ manner one exalts one's own secí, and benefits others, while in %cting otherwise ono injiftes one's own sect, and Jges not benefit others. He who exalts his own sect agd decries otfeers, cloes it from devotion to "his own sect in order to make it illustrious, but really in acting thus he only damages his own sect. Therefore peace "alone cs good, so that all should hear and listen glailly to the opinion of others V
The Students of the Science of Religion snoma at all events endeavour not to be outdone in impartiality by this ancient king. Apd, as for myself, I can promise that no ono who attends these lectures, be he Christian or Jew, Hindu or iWohantniedan, shall hear his own way of serving God spoken of irreverently2,, But true reverence does not consist in declaring a subject, because it is dear to us, to bo unfit for free and honest inquiry: far from it í True reverence is shown in treating evrry subject, however sacred, however dear to us, with perfect confidence; without fear and without f&vour; with tenderness and love> by all means, but, before all, with an unflinching and uncompromising loyalty to truth. >
On the other hand, I fully admit that religion ha»
1 *Le« TiiKťíriptkmB tfa riyatburi,' par K, ffanari, i88x, p. 174; Septiime Kdit; p. 249, Doiialeme Kctit.
9 My Attention has bees directed to & curíoviň lattice of real AtaviKiu. My great gratut-father, Bane<low, the founder of the Phitttn-thropmnm, At IteHKau, wrote almost tolidm. vtrbia * that in the genera! divine tierviao at hiß ashool nothing aheuhl huppen by wont or deed, that oouM not be approval of by every worshipper of God, be he Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, or Pewt/ Nee ' Arohiv fur Lebenaho« icbreibtmg/ p* 63; Katuner,*Ö<mohtahto 4er Pädagogik/ ii. p. 374.
LECTÜEE I.
7
stood" in former ages, and stands also in onr own age, if we look abroad, anďif we look iafco some of Äie highest and some of the lowest places af home,, on a level with alchem^nd astrology. There exist superstitions, little short of fet^hism; and, what is worse, íhere exists hypocrisy, as ba$ as thaCof the Roman augurs*
In practical Jife it would be wrong to assume a neutral position between such conflicting^ views. Where wo see* that {he reverence due to religion 5s violated, we are bound to protest; where we see that superstition saps the roots of faith, and hypocrisy poisons the springs of morality, we must take sides. But as students of the Science of Religion we move in a higher and mere serene atmosphere. We study error, as the physiologist studies a disease, looking for its causes, tmcing ils influence, speculating on possible remedies of this Upfe i/oßo-os, but leaving tho application of such remedies to a different class of men, to the surgeon and the practical physician. Ľiveraoe diverm jnmnt applies here as everywhere else, and a division of labour, according to the peculiar abilities and tastes of different individuals, will always yield tho best results. The student of the history of tho physical sciencos is not angry with tho alchemists, nor does ho argue with the astrologists: ho rathor tries to enter into their view of things, and to discover in tho errors of alchemy the seeds of chemistry, and in the halucinations of astrology a yearning and groping after a true knowledge of the heavenly bodies. It is the same with the "student of the Science of Religion. He wanty to find out what religion is, what foundation it has in the soul of man, and what laws it follows in its historical growth.    For that
8           LECfrXTRES 02í THE SOIENOE »Off BELIGI0N.
purpose the, study of errors is to him more instructive than the *<study. of that religion which he considers the ijrue on£, and the#smilmg augur as interesting a subject as the Boman «uppliant wl^o*veiled his, face in pray%r,-that he might be alone#jrith his God.
The very title of the* Science#of Keligion vÄll jar, I know, on the ears of many persons, and a comparison of air the religions of the world, in which none can claim a privileged position, will no doubt seem to many dangerous and reprehensible1, because ignoring that peculiar reverence which everybody, down to the mere fetish worshipper, feels for his mvn religion and for hie own God. Let me say then at once that I myself have shared these misgivings, hut that I have tried to overcome them, because I would not and could not allow myself to surrendereitherwhat I hold to be the truth, or what I hold still dearer tha* the truth, the right of testing truth. Nor do I regret it. I do not say that the Science of Religion is all gain. No, it entails losses, and losses of many things which we hold dear. But this I will say, that, as far as my humble judgment goes, it does not entail the loss of anything that is essential to true religion, and that if we strike the balance honestly, the gain *is immeasurably greater than the loss.
One of the first questions that was asked by classical scholars when invited to consider the value of the Science of Language, was,c What shall we gain by a comparative study of languages V Language«, it was said, are wanted for practical purposes, for speaking
1 'Tbe so-called "Science of Religion" of the present day, with its attempts to put into competition the sacred books of India and the Holy Scriptures, is deeply to be deprecated.*   Bishop of Gloucester*
LECTURE I.
9
and reading; and by studying too many languages a* once, we run the risk of losing the firm g£&sp which we ought to have on the few th%t are really important. Our kjjtowledg% *by becoming wider, must needs, it was thought, become shallower, and the gain, if $here is any,*in knowing £he structure of dialects which have never pr^duc^d any literature at all, would certainly be outweighed by the loss in accurate and practical scholarship.*
if jfchis could be said of a comparative study of languages, with how much greater force will it be urged against a comparative study of religions! Though I do not expect that those who study'the religious books of »Brahmans and Buddhists, of Confucius and Laotse, of Mohammed and Nának, will be accused of cherishing in their secret heart the doctrine« of those ancient masters, or of having lost the firm hold on their own religious convictions, yet I doubt whether the practical utility of wider studies in the vast field of the religions of the world will be admitted with greater readiness by professed theologians than the value of a knowledge of Sanskrit, Zend, Gothic, or Celtic "for a thorough mastery of Greek and Latin, and for a rea.1 appreciation of the nature, the purpose, the laws, the growth and decay of language was admitted, or is even now admitted, by some of our most eminent professors and teachers.
People ask, What is gained by comparison?—Why, all higher knowledge is acquired by comparison^ «ad rests on comparison. If it is said that the character of scientific research ip. our age is pre-eróafentíy comparative, this really means that our researches are now based on the widest evidence that can be ob-
10       LECTURES ON THE SCIENCE ,OF RELIGION.
tained, on t]ie broadest inductions that can be grtusped by the human mind.
W|jat can* be gained by comparison?—Why, look at the study of languages. If ypfiftgo bacfe but a hundred years and examine Sjjie folios of the most learned -writers on questions connected with language, and then open a bofck written b^y the merest tiro in Comparative Philology, you will see what can be gained, what has been gained/ by the comparative method. A few hundred years ago, the idea^ that Hebrew was the original language of mankind was accepted as a matter of course, even as a matter of i&ith, the only problem being to find out by what process Greek, or Latin, or any oüer language could have been developed out of Hebrew. The idea, too, that language was revealed, in the ^scholastic sense of the word, was generally accepted, although, as «arly as the fourth century, St. Gregory, the learned bishop of Nyssa, had strongly protested against it1. The grammatical framework of a language was either considered as the result of a conventional agreement, or the terminations of nouns and verbs were supposed to have sprouted forth like *buds from the roots and stems of language; and the vaguest similarity in the sound and meaning of words was taken to be a sufficient criterion for testing their origin and their relationship. Of all this philological somnambulism we hardly find a trace in works published since the days of Humboldt, Bopp, and Grimm.
Has there been any loss*here ? Has it not been pure gain"? Does language excite our imagination less, because we know that, though the faculty of
1 'Lectures on the Science of Language/ vol. i. p. 32.
LECTUBE I.                                      11
speaking is the work of Him who Wßrks things, the invention <af words for, naming each object was left to man, and was achieved through the working of %he human mind? Is Hebrew Jess carefully studied, because it is no longer believed to be a repealed language, sent down from heaven, but a language closeljr allied to Arabic, Syriac and ancient Babylonian, and receiving light from these jjognate, and in some respects more primitive, languagesj for th© explanation of ifiany of its grammatical forms, and for the exact interpretation of many of its obscure and difficult words? Is the grammatical articulation of Greek and Latin less instructive, because instead of seeing in the terminations of nouns and verbs merely arbitrary signs to distinguish the plural from the singular, or the future from the present, we can now perceive an intelhgible principle in the gradual production of formal out of the material elements of language? And are our etymologies less important, because, instead of being suggested by superficial similarities, they are now based on honest historical and physiological research? Lastly, has our own language ceased to hold its own peculiar place? Is our love* for our own native tongue at alb impaired ? Do men speak less boldly or pray less fervently in their own mother tongue, because they know its true origin and its unadorned history; because they know that eveiything in language that goes beyond the objects of sense, is and must be pure metaphor? Or does any one deplore the fact that there Jis in all languages, iven in the jargons of the lowest savages, order and wisdom; nay, something that makes the world akin?
12       LEOTÜBKS OK" THE SCIENCE dOF RELIGION.
Why, thgn, should we hesitate to apply the* comparative inethop\ which has produced such great results in otfcer spheres of knpwledge, to a study of religion? Th%t it will change many of the *views commonly held*about the origin, the character, the growth, and decay of the religions of the world, I do n<ft deny; but unless we hold Tihat fearless« progression in new inquiries, which is our bounden duty and our honest pride in all other branches of knowledge, is dangerous in the study of religions, unless Ve allow ourselye»to be frightened by the once famous dictum, that whatever is new in theology is false, this ought to be the very reason why a comparative study of religions should no longer be neglected or delayed.
When the students of Comparative Philology boldly adapted Goethe's paradox, *He who knows one language knows none) people were startled at first; but «they soon began to feel the truth which was hidden beneath the paradox. Could Goethe have meant that Homer did not know Greek, or that Shakespeare did not know English, because neither of them knew more bhan his own mother tongue? No I what was meant pras that neither Homer nor Shakespeare knew what that language really ^as which he handled with so □auch power and cunning. Unfortunately the old p*erb fto can/ from which 'canny' and 'cunning,' is ost in English, otherwise we should be able in two vords to express our meaning, and to keep apart the wo kinds of knowledge of which we are here speaking. Is we say in German könneh is not kennen, we might ay in English, to can, that is toJbe cunning, is not to m, that is to know; and it would then become clear »t once, that the most eloquent speaker and the most
LEOTTTRE I.
19
gifted poet, with all their cunning of wordg ^nd skilful mastery of expression, would have bat litfte to say if asked, -vfhat really is languages The same applies to religio*. He tylto^knows one9fcnows none. There are thousands of people -qäiose faith is such thaťiťfcould move mountains, ang who yet, if they were asked what religion ^ally is, would remain silent, or would speak of outward tokens rather than of th^ inward nature, or of the faculty of faith.
at rtwill be easily perceived that religion means at least two very different things. When we speak of the Jewish, or the Christian, or the Hindu religion, we mean a body of doctrines handed down by tradition, or in canonical books, and containing all that constitutes the faith of Jew, Christian, or Hindu. Using religion in that sense, we may say that a man has changed his religion, that is, that he has adopted the Christian instead of the Brahmanical body of religious doctrines, just as a man may learn to speak English instead of Hindustani.
But religion is also used in a different sense. As there is a faculty of speech, independent of all the historical forms of language, there is a faculty of faith in man, independent of «all historical religions. If we say that it is religion which distinguishes man from the animal, we do not mean the Christian or Jewish religion; we do not mean any special religion; but we mean a mental faculty or disposition, which, independent of, nay in spite of sense and fcjceaôcwv enables man to apprehetfd the Infinite undefr du&aeé$fc names, and under "jcarying disguises. ,"Wfrthout that faculty, no religion, not even the lowest worship of idols and fetishes, would be possible; and if we will
14       LEÖTUBES ON THE SCIENCE OT BELIGION.
but listen attentively, we can hear in all religions a groaning of the,j9pirit3 a struggle to conceive the inconceivable/to utter ijae unutterable, a longing after the ^Infinite, a love ofrGod. Whetjhßr the etyjaology whicÉL the ancients gave of therGreek word &vdp(uTro$t man, be true or not (thfy derive^ it from ó &v9> áôpôv, he who looks upward), certain itris that what makes man Haan, is that he alone can turn his face to heaven f certain it is that he alone yearns for something that neither sense nor refison can supply v nay for something which both sense and reason by themselves are bound to deny.
I£ then there is a philosophical discipline which examines into the conditions of sensuous or intuitional knowledge, and. if there is another philosophical discipline which examines into the con<litions*of rational or conceptual knowledge, there is clearly a place for a third philosophical discipline that has to examine into the existence and the conditions of that third faculty of man, co-ordinate with, yet independent of, sense and reason, the faculty of the Infinite1, which is at the root of all religions. In German we can distinguish that third faculty by the name of Vernunft) as opposed to Verstand, reason, and JSinn, sense. In English I know no better name for it, than the faculty of faith, though it will have to be guarded by careful definition, in order to confine it to those objects only, which cannot be supplied either by the evidence of the senses, or by the evidence of reason, and the existence «f which is nevertheless postulated \fy something without us
1 I use the word Infinite, because it is lescrliable to be rnisunderstood than the Absolute, or the Unconditioned, or the Unknowable. On the distinction between the Infinite and the Indefinite,, see Kant, ' Critique of Pure Reason,' translated by M. M., vol. ii. p. 44a.
LEOTUEE I.
15
which we cannot resist. No simply historical fact can eW fall under th^ cognisance of faifcn, in oar sense of»the word.
If w$ look at*tjie history oř modern thought,, we find that the dominant school of philosophy, pretious to Kanfr, had reducec^all intellectual activity to one faculty, that of _the ^enses, * NiMl in intellectu quod non ante fuerit in sensu9—' Nothing exists in the intellect but what has before existed in the senses,' wai their watchword ;*and Leibniz answered epigram-matically, but most profoundly, 'Nihil—nid inteU lectusj ť Yes, nothing but the intellect/ Then followed Kant, who, in his e Criticism of Pure Reason/ written ninety years ago, hut not yet antiquated, proved that our knowledge requires, besides the data of sensation, the admission of lihe intuitions of space and time, and 4he categories, or, as we might call them, the laws and necessities of the understanding. Satisfied with having established the a priori character of the categories and the intuitions of space and time, or, to use his own technical language, satisfied with having proved the possibility of synthetic judgments a priori, Kant declined to go further, and he most energetically denied to the human intellect tbe power of transcending the finite,« or the faculty of approaching the Infinite. He closed the ancient gates through which man had gazed into Infinity; but, in spite of himself, he was driven in hisc Criticism of Practical Reason,' to open a side-door through which to admit the sense of duty, and with it the senda of the Divine. This has always seemed to me the vulnerable point ín Kanťs philosophy, for if philosophy has to explain what is, not what ought to be, there will be and can be no
16       LEOTUBES ON THE SCIENOE.OF RELIGION.
rest till wefr admit that there is in man a third faculty, TOhich I call si$nply the faculty of apprehending the Inflate, ndt only in0 religion, but in all tilings; a po^er independent or sense and rpás<pn, a po^er in a certfihr sense contradicted by^sense and reason, but yet a very real powerj which £as held its ofvm from the beginning of thfe world, neither j^ense nor reason being able to overcome it, while it alone is able to overcome in many cases both reason and sense1.
According to the two meanings of the word» religion, then, the science of religion is divided into two parts; the former, which has to deal with the historical forms of religion, is called Comparative Theo-
1 As this passage has given rise to strange misunderstandings, I quote a passage from another lecture of ndne^not yet published ' It is difficult at present to speak of the human mind sn any technical language whatsoever, without being called to order by some philosopher or other. According to some, the mind is one and indivisible, and it is the subject-matter only of our consciousness which gives to the acts of the mind the different appearances of feeling, remembering, imagining, knowing, willing or believing. According to others, mind, as a subject, has no existence whatever, and nothing ought to be spoken of except states of consciousness, some passive, some active, some mixed. I myself have been sharply taken to task for venturing to speak, in this enlightened 19th century of ours, of different faculties of the mind,— faculties being purely imaginary creations, the illegitimate offspring of mediaeval scholasticism» Siow I confess I am amused rather than frightened by such pedantry, ľaculty, facultas, seoms to me so good a word that, if it did not exist, it ought to be invented in order to express the different modes of action of what we may still be allowed to call our mind. It does not commit us to more than if we were to speak of ih$ facilities or agihtxes of the mind, and those only who change the forces of nature into gods or demons, would be frightened by the faculties as green-eyed monsters seated in the dark recessSs of our Self. I shall therefore retain the name of faculty,' &c.
On the necessity of admitting a faculty of perceiving the Infinite I have treated more fully in my ' Lectures on the Science of Language/ voL ii pp. 635-632. The subject is ably discussed by Nicotra Sangia-loomo, in VInßmto di Max-Müller, Oatania, 188a.
LBOTUBB L
vr
logy; tyie latter, which has to explain the«ot>nditions under which religion, -whether in its* highest or its lowest form, is possible, is calle* Theoretic Theology.
We skall at present «have to *deal with the former only; nay it will be «my objjct to show that the problems which chieiy occupy .theoretic theology, ought not to be*taken up till all the evidence, that can possibly be gained from a comparative stoidy of the religions of the world has been fully collected, clarified, and analysed. I feel certain that the time will come when all that is now written on theology, whether from an ecclesiastical or philosophical point of view, will seem as antiquated, as strange, as unaccountable as the" works of Vossius, Hemsterhuys, Valckenaer, and Lqnnep, by the side of Bopp's Comparative Gráinmar.
It ihay seem strange that while theoretical theology, or the analysis of the inward and outward conditions under which faith is possible, has occupied so many thinkers, the study of comparative theology has never as yet been seriously taken in hand, But the explanation is very simple. The materials en which alone a comparative study of the religions of mankind could have been founded were not acceSsible in former days, while in our own days they have come to light in such profusion that it is almost impossible for any individual to master them all.
It is well known that the Emperor Akbar (154a-» 1605)1 had a passion for the study of religions, ajotcl that he invited to his court Jews, Christians^ Mohammedans, Brahmans, and Zoroastrians, and had as many of their sacred books as he could get access to, trans-
* See Kote A, On Akbar. O
18       LEOTUMS ON THE SOIBÜTOE'OF RELIGION.
lated for im own study \   Yet, how small was i$ie collection offered books that even an Emperor of India could command not more than 300 years ago, com-pafe^ to what may now be {ound in the library of any poor scholar!   W$ have the original text of the Veda, which neithgr the bribes nor the threats of Akbar could extort from the Bmhmnns.   The translation #f the Veda which he is said to have obtained, was a translation of the so-called Attíarva-veda, and comprised most likely the Upanishads only, ai^tic and philosophical treatises, very interesting, very important in themselves, but as far removed from the ancient poetry of the Veda as the Talmud is from the Old Testament, as Sufiism is frofh. the Koran.   We have the Zendavesta, the sacred jmtings of the so-called fire-worshippers, and we possess translations of it, far more complete and far more correct thafl any that the Emperor Akbar obtained from Ardsher, a wise Zoroastrian whom he invited from Kirman to India2.    The religion of Buddha, certainly in many respects more important than either Brahmanism, or Zoroastrianisnr, or Mohammedanism, is never mentioned in the religious discussions that took place every Thursday evening3 at the imperial court of Delhi. Abulfazl, it is said, the minister of AJAar, could find( no one to assist him in his inquiries respecting Buddhism.    We possess the whole sacred canon of the Buddhists in various languages, in Páli, Burmese, and Siamese, in Sanskrit, TibetajL, Mongolian, and Chinese,
1 Elpbinstone's «History of India,' e<ř CWell, book ix. cap. 3. a See 'Journal of tne Asiatio Sooiety of Bengal/ 1868, p. 14. g See * Ami Aibari/ fcransl. by Blochinann, p. 1/1, note 3.
liEOTUBE I.
19
and J£ is our fault entirely, if as yet tlfere is no complete translation in any European tongue of this important collection of sacred* books. The aácient religion* of China again, that of Confucius and^ťhat of Laotse, may now be studied in excellent translations of their sacred feooks by anybody interested in the ancient fait!» of «mankind.
But this is not all. We owe to missionaries particularly, care&l accounts of the religious belief and worfehip among tribes far lower in the scale of civilisation than the poets of the Vedic hymns, or the followers of Confucius. Though the belief of African and Melanesian savages is more recent in point of time, it may or may not represent an earlier and far more primitive phase in point of growth, and is therefore as instructive to the student of religion as the study* of uncultivated dialects has proved to the student of language1.
Lastly, and this, I believe, is the most important advantage which we enjoy as students of the history of religion, we have been taught the rules of critical scholarship. No one would venture, flow-a-days, to quote from any book, whether sacred or profane, without having asked these simple and yet momentous questions :^Vhen was it written ? Where ? and by whom? Was the author an eye-witness, or does he only relate what he has heard from others? And if the latter, were his authorities at least contemporaneous with fiie events which Jbhey relate, and were ttoy
1 See Tiele, ' De PlaatB van Oe Godsdiensten der Natarvolken in de Gtodsdienstge^edenie,' Amsterdam, 1873. E- B- T^lor» ' Fortnightly Eeview/ j866, p. 71.
O %
ZO       LECTURES ON THE SCIENCE 'off RELIGION.
under fche*sway of party feeling or any other disturbing influeftqe? °Was the whole book written at once, or dďes it contain portions of an earlier date; and if so, 2^ it possible for us to separate tn«se earlier documents from the body of the bock?
A study of the original documents on which the principál religions of the world profeas to be founded, carried«on in this spirit, has enabled some of our best living scholars to distinguish in each religion between what is really ancient and what is comparatively modern; between what was the doctrine of the founders and their immediate disciples, and what were the afterthoughts and, generally, the corruptions of later ages. A study of these later developments, of these later corruptions, or, it may be, improvements, is not without its own peculiar charm, and is full of practical lessons; yet, as it is essential that we should 'know the most ancient forms of every language, before we proceed to any comparisons, it is indispensable also that we should have a clear conception of the most primitive form of every religion, before we proceed to determine its'* own value, and to compare it with other forms of religious faith. Many an orthodox Mohammedan, for instance, will relate miracles wrought by Mohammed; but in the Koran MTohammed says* distinctly, that he is a man like other men. He disdains to work miracles, and appeals to the great works of Allah, the rising and setting of the sun, the rain that fructifies the eyth, the plants that grow, and the Jiving souls that are born into the world— who can tell whence?—as the *eal signs and wonders in the eyes of a true believer. e I am only a warner/ lie says; *I cannot show you a sign—a miracle—-
LEOTÜRE L
21
except what ye see every day and nighty Signs are withftodV
The Buddhist legends teem ^fith miserable miracles attribitfed to Buddha and his disciples—miracles wiiicL in wonderfulness čertily surpass the miracles Äf any other reüigion: yet in^their own sacred canon a saying of Buddha's is jecoi;ded, prohibiting his disciples from working miracles, though challenged to do so fry the multitudes, wiio required a sign that they might believe. And what is'the miracle that Buddha commands his disciples to perform? 'Hide your good deeds/ he says,' and confess before the world the sins you have committed/ That is the true miracle of Buddha.
Modern Hinduism rests on the system of caste as on a rock which no arguments can shake: but in the Ved», the highest authority of the religious belief of the Hindus, no mention occurs of the complicated system of castes, such as we find it in Manu: nay, in one place, where the ordinary classes of the Indian, or any other society, are alluded to, viz. the priests, the warriors, the citizens, and the slaves, all are represented as sprung alike from Brahman, the source of all being.
It would b© too much to say that the critical sifting of the authorities for a study of each religion has been already fully carried out. There is work enough still to be done. But a beginning, and a very successful beginning, has been made, and the results thus brought to light will serve as a Wholesome caution to every* body who is engage^ in religious researoSes.   Thus,
1 'The Speeches and Table-talk of the Prophet Mohammad,1 by Stanley Lane-Poole, 1882, InirocL p, juuvi and zli.
%%       LEOTÜBES ON THE SpiENÖB ötf RELIGION.
if we stujj-j the primitive religion of the Veda, we ha?e to dLtíngTjish most carefully, not only be£ween the h^mns *bf the Ejg-veda on one side, and the hynjps collected in th« S&ma-veda, «Yaýur-ve^a, and Athafvfiř-veda on the other, bu^ critical scholars distinguish with equal calte between the more *tocient and the more modern hymns of #the Jlig-veda itself, so far "as even the faintest indications of language, of grammar, or metre enable them to do sot
In order to gain a clear insight into the motives and impulses of the founder of the worship of Ahu-ramazda, we must chiefly, if not entirely, depend on those portions of the Zendavesta which are written in the Gáthá dialect, a more primitive? dialect than that of the rest of the sacred code of the Zoroastrians.
In order to do justice to Buddha,Ve misst not mix the practical portions of the Tripiiaka, the Dharma, with the metaphysical portions, the Abhidharma. Both, it is true, belong to the sacred canon of the Buddhists j hut their original sources lie in very different latitudes of religious thought.
We have in Jhe history of Buddhism an excellent opportunity for watching the process by which a canon of sacred books is called into existence. We see here, as elsewhere, that during the lifetime of the teacher, no record of events, no sacred code containing the sayings of the master was wanted. His presence was enough, and thoughts of the future, and more particularly, of future greatness, seldom entered the minds of those who followed him. It was only after Buddha had left the world, that íýs disciples attempted to recall the sayings and doings of their departed friend and master.   At that time everything that seemed to
LECTURE I*
23
redound to the glory of Buddha, however extraordinary aSid incredible, -was eagerly welcomed *while -witnesses who would have ventured to criticise0 or reject unsupported statements, or to .detract in any *way from the holy cßaracter of Buddha, had no change* of even bei»g listened to*. And» when, in spite of all this, differences of opinion arose, they were not brought to the test by a careful weighing of evidence, birfc the names of 'unbeliever' and 'heretic' (nástika, páShaíMŽa) werp quickly invented in India as elsewhere, and bandied backwards and forwards between contending parties, till at last, when the doctors disagreed, the help of the secular power had to be invoked, $nd kings and emperor^ assembled councils for the suppression of schism, for the settlement of an orthodox creed, and f<jr the completion of a sacred canon. We kno-% of Bang Asoka, the contemporary of Seleucus, sending his royal missive to the assembled elders, and telling them what to do, and what to avoid, warning them also in his own name of the apocryphal or heretical character of certain books which, as he thinks, ought not to be admitted into the sacred canon2.
1 'Mahávansa,' p. 12, N*a»»ehi tatha vatthabbam im, 'it cannot be allowed to other priests to be present.'
3 The following is Professor Kern's translation of the Second Bairat Book Inscription, containing the rescript which Aroka addressed to the Council of Magadha; ' King Priyadarsin of Magadha greets the Assembly (of Clerics) and wishes them wel&re and happiness. Ye know, Sirs, how great is our reverence and affection for the Triad which is called Buddha (the Master), Faith, and Ass&nUy. All that oar Lord Buddlja has spoken» my Lords, is well spoken. Wherefore, Sirs, it must indeed be regarded as hiring indisputable authority, se the true faith shall last long. Thus, my Loras, I honour in Jhe first place these religious works:—Summary of the Discipline* Tfee Supernatural Powers of the Master (or of the Masters), The Terrors of the Future, The Song of the Hermit, The Sútra on Asceticism, The Question of Upatishya, and  the Admonition  of Mania concerning Falsehood,
24        LEOTUBES ON THE SOIENC^ Off BELIGION.
We here learn a lesson, which is confirmed by the 4udy of oiher Religions, that canonical books, though they funusii in most cases the most ancient «and most authentic information within the reach of the. student of religion, are not to be trusfted implicitly, nay, that they must be submitted to a more searchingr>criticism and to more stringent tests than any other historical books. For that purpose the Science of Language has proved in many cases a most valuable auxiliary. It is not easy to imitate ancient language so a$ to deceive the practised eye of the grammarian, even if it were possible to imitate ancient thought that should not betray to the historian its modern origin. A forged book, like the Ezour-vecja, which deceived even Voltaire, and was published by him as 'the most precious gift for which the West wag indebted to the East,' could hardly impose again on any Sanskrit scholar of the present day. This most precious gift from the East to the West, is about the silliest book that can be read by the student of religion, and all one can say in its defence is that the original writer never meant it as a forgery, never intended it for the purpose for wfiich it was used by Voltaire.
I may add that a i>ook which has lately attracted considerable attention, La Bible dans^ľlnde, by M, Jacolliot, belongs to the same class of books. Though the passages from the sacred 'books of the Brahmans
uttered by our Lord Buddha. These religious works, Sirs, I wish that the monks and nuns, for the advancement of their good name, should uninterruptedly study and remember, as also the laios of the male and female sex. 'For this end, my Lords, I cause this to be written, and have made my wish evident.' See Indian Antiquary, vol. v. p. 257; Cunningham, 'Corpus Insoript. Indio,' p. 13a; Oldenberg, 'Yinaynr pitaka,1 vol, i., Introd. p. xL
' LECTUBB I.
85
are not given in the original, but only in a v^eijy poetical French translation, no Sanskrit scholar woujjd hesitate for one Inoment to say that they are forgeries* and that MÄJacolliofothe President of the Court of Justice at Chandernagore, hag been deceived by hisrüative teacher. * We find many childiáh and foolish things in the Veda, but -vtfien #we read the following line, as an extract from the Veda:
'La famine c'egt ľáme de ľhumajiité,—
it is not difficult to see that this is the folly of the nineteenth century, and not of the childhood of the human race. M. Jacollioťs conclusions and theories are such as might be expected from his materials1.
"With all the genuine documents for studying the history of the religions of mankind that have lately been*brought to light, and with the great facilities which a more extensive study of Oriental languages has afforded to scholars at large for investigating the deepest springs of religious thought all over the world, a comparative study of religions has become a necessity. If we were to shrink „from it, other nations and other creeds would take up the work. A lecture was lately delivered at Calcutta, by the >minister of tlTb Ádi-Samáj (i.e. the Old Church), 'On the Superiority of Hinduism to every other existing Religion.' The lecturer held that Hinduism was superior to all other religions, 'because it owed its name to^xo man; because it acknowledged no me* diator between God and*man; because the Hindu worships God, in tix% intensely devotion»? sense, as the soul of the soul; because the Hindu alone caa
1 See Selected Essays, roL ii., p. 468 sq.
26       LECTUBES ON THE SCIENCE«OF RELIGION.
worship God at all times, in "business and pleasure, and everything; because, while other Scriptures inculcate the practice o^piety and virtue for the sake of etepnal happiness, the» Hindu Scriptures alon£ main-tain*that God should be worshipped for the sake of God alone, and virtue J>ractised#for the sake*öf virtue alone; because Hifiduism inculqates universal benevolence, while other faiths merely refer to man; because Hinduism is non-sectarian (believing that all faiths are good if the men who hold them are goad), non-proselytizing, pre-eminently tolerant, devotional to an entire abstraction of the mind from time and sense, and the concentration of it on the Divine; of an antiquity running back to tiie infancy of the human race, and from that time till now influencing in all particulars the greatest affairs of the State and the most minute affairs of domestic life1.*
A Science of Religion, based on an impartial and truly scientific comparison of all, or at all events, of the most important, religions of mankind, is now only a question of time. It is demanded by those whose voice cannot be disregarded. Its title, though implying as yet a promise rather than a fulfilment, has become more or les« familiar in Germany, France, and America; its great problems hav& attracted the eyes of many inquirers, and its results have been anticipated either with fear or with delight. It becomes therefore the duty of those who have devoted their life to the study of the principal religions of the world in their original documents, and who value religion alid reverence it in whatever form it may present itself, to take possession of this new territory in
1 See * limes,1 Oct. 27, 1872.
•LECTURE I.
27
the name of true science, and thus to jjnjtecfc its sacred precincts from the inroads of those who thin!» that they have a right to speak on^the ancient religions of mankind, whejbter those of the Brahmans, the Zp-roastrians, or Buddhist^, or those of the Jew« And Christians, without ev^r having*taken the trouble of learning the languages in which their sacred books are written. What should we think of philosophers writing on the religion of Homer, without knowing Greek, or on the religion of Meses, without knowing Hebrews
I do not wonder at Mr. Matthew Arnold1 speaking scornfully of La Science des Religions, and I fully agree with him that such statements as he quotes would take away the breath of a mere man of letters. But are these statements supported by the authority of any*scholars? Has anybody who can read either the Vedas or the Old and New Testaments in the original ever maintained that € the sacred theory of the Aryas passed into Palestine from Persia and India, and got possession of the founder of Christianity and of his greatest apostles, St. Paul and St. John; becoming more perfect, and returning more and more to its true character of a " transcenAent metaphysie," as the doctors of*the Christian Church developed it?' Has Colebrooke, or Lassen, or Bournouf, ever suggested 'that we Christians, who are Aryas, may have the satisfaction of thinking that the religion of Christ has not came to us from the Semites, and that it is in the hymns of the Veda^ind not in the Bible thafc we are to look for the primordial source oř any religion ; that the theory of Christ is the theory of the
i 'literature and Dogma,'p. 117.
28       LECTURES ON THE SCIENCE OP RELIGION,
Vedic Agni, or fire; that the Incarnation represents %he Vedic solemnity of the*production of fire, symbol of £re of every ksnd, of all movement,* life, and thought; that the Trinity o£ FatKqr, Son, and Spirit is íhé Vedic Trinity of Sun, Fire, and Wind; and God finally a cosmic unity*' Mr. Arnold quotes indeed the name of Burnouf, but ke ought to have knôwp. that Eugene Burnouf has left no son and no successor.
Those who would use a comparative study 6i religions as a means for lowering Christianity by exalting the other religions of mankind, are to my mind as dangerous allies as those who think it necessary to lower all other religions in order to exalt Christianity. Science wants no partisans. I make no secret that true Christianity, I mean the religion of Christ, seems to me to become more and more exalted the more wS know and the more we appreciate the treasures of truth hidden in the despised religions of the world. But no one can honestly arrive at that conviction, unless he uses honestly the same measure for all religions. It would be fetal for any religion to claim an exceptional treatment, most of all for Christianity. Christianity enjoyed no privileges and claimed no immunities when it boldly confronted and confounded thj most ancient and the most powerful religions of the world. Even at present it craves no mercy, and it receives no mercy from those whom our missionaries have to meet face to face in every part of «the world. Unless Christianity has ceased to be what it was, its defendera should not shrink from this new trial of •strength, but should encourage rather than depreciate the study of comparative theology.
«fcEÖTUKE I.
29
AnbUet me remark this, in the very beginning, that no other religion, with th» exception, perhaps, of early Buddhism», would have favoured the idea »of an#impartial qpmparisorŕ of the prinoipal religions of the world—would ever have^ tolerated our science. Nearly every reHgion seems Jp adopt *the language of the Pharisee rather ijian that of the Publican. It is Christianity alone which, as the religion of humanity, as the religion of no caste, of no chosen peopľe, has taught us to study tire history of mankind, as our own, to discover the traces of a divine wisdom and love in the development of all the races of the world, and to recognise, if possible, even in the lowest and crudest forms of religious belief, not the work of the devil, but something that indicates a divine guidance, something that makes us perceive, with St. Peter, ' that God is no respecter of persons, but that in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.'
In no religion was there a soil so well prepared for the cultivation of Comparative Theology as in our own. The position which ChristianityjErom the very beginning took up with regard to Judaism, served as the first lesson in comparative tieology, and directed jthe attention ewen of the unlearned to a comparison of two religions, differing in their conception of the Deity, in their estimate of humanity, in their motives of morality, and in their hope of immortality, yet shar-* ing so much in common that there are but few of the psalms and prayers in the*01d Testament in which a Christian cannot heartily join even now, antt but few rules of morality which he ought not even now to obey.   If we have once learnt to see in the exclusive
80      LECTURES ON THE SCIENCE OF BELIGION.
religion *of the Jews a preparation of what was "to be ťhe all-embracing religion df humanity, we shall feel muck less*difficulty «in recognising in the mazes of other religions a hidden purpose; & wandering in the desert? it may be, but a preparation also for the land of promise.
A study of these two religions, th% Jewish and the Chnstjan, such as it has long been carried on by some of our most learned divines, simultaneously with the study of Greek and Boman mythology, has, in «fact, served as a most useful preparation for wider inquiries* Even the mistakes that have been committed by» earlier scholars have proved useful to those who followed after j and, once corrected«; they are not likely to be committed again. The opinion, for instance, that the pagan religions were mere corruption» of the religion of the Old Testament, once supported by men of high authority and great learning, is now as completely surrendered as the attempts of explaining Greek and Latin as corruptions of Hebrew K
The theory again, that there was a primeval preternatural revelation granted to the fathers of the human race, and that the grains of truth which catch our eye when exploring the temples of heathen idols, are the scattered fragments of that sacied heirloom,— the seeds that fell by the wayside or upon stony places—would find but few supporters at present; no more, in fact, than the theory that there was in the beginning one complete and perfect primevaWanguageä
1 Tertalliqp, 'Apolog.* xtoii: 'Undo naeo, oro vos, pnilosophis aut poetistam oaosimili&t Nonnisi de nostrijg sacramentis: si de nostris sacramentie, tit de prioribus, ergo fideliora sunt nostra magisque ere-denda, quorum imagines quoqne fidem inveninnV See Hardwiok,' Christ and other Masters/ vol. i. p. 17.
LECTUBE I.
31
broken* up in later times into the numberless.Ianguages of the world.
Some other principles, too, have been 'established within ttis lirnitejl'sphere by a comparison of Judaism and Christianity with the religions of Greece %nd Eome, wffich will provf extremely usefdl in guiding us in our own researches. It haS been proved, for instance, that the language of antiquity is not like the language of our own times; that the language of the East is not like tfte language of the West; and that, unless we make allowance for this, we cannot but misinterpret the utterances of the most ancient teachers and poets of the human race. The same words do not mean» the same thing in Anglo-Saxon and English, in Latin and French: much less can we expect that the words of any modern language should be the* exact equivalents of words belonging to an ancient Semitic language, such as the Hebrew of the Old Testament.
Ancient words and ancient thoughts, for both go together, have in the Old Testament not yet arrived at that stage of abstraction in which,, for instance, active powers, whether natural or supernatural, can be represented in any but a personal and more or kss human form. When we speak of a temptation from within or from without, it was more natural for the ancients to speak of a tempter, whether in a human or in an animal form; when we speak of the ever-preseat help of God, they call the Lord their rock, and their fortress, their buckler, and their h5g& tower. They even speak of ťthe Kock ti$Sfc begat them' (Deut. xxxii. 18), though in a very different sense from that in which Homer speaks of the rock
32       LECTURES ON TEE SCIENÖS OF RELIGION.
from whence man has sprung. "What with us* is a heavenly message, or a godsend, was to them a winged messenger? what we,call divine guidance, they speak of#as a pillar of a cloud, to lead thsm the way, and a pillar-of light to give them %ht; a refuge from the storm, and a shadowgram the. heat. Whalf is really meant is no doubt the same, and the ^ault is ours, not theirs, if we wilfully misinterpret the language of ancient prophets, if we persist in understanding their words in their outward and material asjfect only, and forgetathat before language had sanctioned a distinction between the concrete and the abstract, between the purely spiritual as opposed to the coarsely material, the intention of the speakers comprehended both the concrete and the abstract, both the material and the spiritual» in a manner which has become quite sirange to us, though it lives on in the language of every tru« poet. Unless we make allowance for this mental parallax, all our readings in the ancient skies will be, and must be, erroneous. Nay, I believe it can be proved that more than half of the difficulties in the history of religion owe £heir origin to this constant misinterpretation of ancient language by modern language, of ancient thought by modern thought, particularly whenever the word has become more sacredi^han the spirit. That much of what seems to us, and seemed to the best among the ancients, irrational and irreverent in the mythologies of India, Greece, and Italy can thus be removed, and that many of their childish fables can thus be read again flx their original child-like sense, has been proved by the researches of Comparative Mythologists. The phase of language which gives rise, inevitably, we may say, to these misunder-
LEOTUEE  L
83
standings, is earlier than the earliest literary documents." Its work in 'thei Aryan languages was done before the time of the Veda, befqre the time of Homer, thoughts influence continues io be felt to a much later period.
Is it likely that the Semitic* languages, .and, more particularly, Hebrew, should, as *by a miracle, have escaped altogether the influence of a process which is* inherent in the very nature and growth of language, and« which, in fact, may rightly be called an infantine disease, against which no precautions can be of any avail ?
I hold indeed that the Semitic languages, for reasons which I explained en a former occasion, have suffered less from mythology than the Axyan languages; yet we have only to read the first chapters of Genesis in order©to convince ourselves, that we shall never understand its ancient language rightly, unless we make allowance for the influence of ancient language on ancient thought» If we read, for instance, that after the first man was created, one of his ribs was taken out, and that rib made into a woman, every student of ancient language sees at once that this account must not be taken in its bare, literal #ense. We need not dwell on the &ct that in the first chapter of Genesis 'a far less startling account of the creation of man and woman had been given. What could be simpler, and therefore truer, than; ' So God created man in his owi* image, injihe image of God created he him; male an4 female created he them. And God blessed thefn, m& God said unto them, Be fruitful, and muM%>Iyř «aid replenish ih$ earth, and subduo it?' The question then is, how, after this jwscount of the creation of
34       IECTÜBES OK THB SCIENCE* 0Í1 BELIGION.
man an$ vornan, could there be a second account of the creation oi man, of his»lone estate in the garden of Egen, atíd of the rgmoval of one of his ribs, which wa£ to be made into & help meet fo* him ?     (
TQose who are familiar wit& the genius of ancient Hebrew, can hardly hesitate as to the original intention of such traditions. *et us remember that whefi we, in our modern languages, speak of the selfsame thing, the Hebrews speak of the bone (02?), the Arabs of the eye of aching. *This is a well knt>wn Semitic idiom, and it is not without analogies in other languages. 'Bone' seemed a telling expression for whkt we should call the innermost essence; 'eye* for what we should call the soul or Self of a thing. In the ancient hymns of the Vedav too, a poet asks: (Who has seen the first-born, when he «who had no bones, i.e. no form, bore him that had bones f' Le.*when that which was formless assumed form, or, it may be, when that which had no essence, received an essence? And he goes on to ask: * Where was the life, the blood, the soul of the world? Who sent to ask this from any that»knew it?' In the ancient language of the Veda, bone, blood, breath, are all meant to convey more than what we sRould call their material meaning; but in course of time, the Sanskrit dtman, meaning^ originally breath, dwindled away into a mere pronoun, and came to mean self. The same applies to the Hebrew 'etzem. Originally meaning bone, it came to be used at last as a mere pronominal adjective, in the senseÄ of self or same.
After these preliminary explanations, we can well understand that, while if speaking and thinking in a modern language Adam might have been made to say
liEOTURB I.
35
to Eve,«'Thou art the same as I am,5 such a «thought would in ancient Hebrew be expressed by: 'Thou art* bone of m^ bone, and flesh of my» flesh.' Let sucb an expression be repeated Jfor a feV generations only, and a literal, that is to flay, a material and deceptive interpretation, would so$n springVp^ and people would at last bring themeelves to believe that the first woman was formed from the bone of the first man, or %om a rib, for the simple reason, it may be, because it could bette» be spared than any other bone. Such a misunderstanding, once established, retained its place on account of its very strangeness, for a taste for the unintelligible springs up at a very early time, arid threatens to destroy among ancient nations the power of appreciating whatever is simple, natural, and wholesome. Thus oaly can it be explained that the account pf the creation of the woman obtained its place in the second chapter, though in clear opposition to what had been said in the first chapter of Genesis \
It is not always possible to solve these ancient riddles, nor are the interpretations which have been attempted by various scholars always »right. The only principle I stand up for is this, that misunderstandings of this kind are iaevitable in ancient languages, and tkat we must be prepared to meet with tfiem in the religions of the Semitic as well as of the Aryan nations.
Let us take another Semitic religion, the ancient religion of «Babylon, as described to us in the fragments of Berosus. The similarities between that religion and the religion^ of the Jews are noi to be mistaken, but such is the contrast between the sim-1 See 'Selected Essays,' rol. ii. p. 456.
36       LECTURES ON TBCEŽ ÖOIEJföE OF RELIGION
plicaty of the Bibte language and the wild; extra-vagance«of tha Babylonian ťheogonies, that it requires some courage to guess at the original outlines behind tbe distorted featured of a hideous caricature*.
$e* havo no reason to doubt the accuracy of Berosus m describing the religion of the Babylonians, at least for the time in which he lived. He' was a Babylonian by birth, a priest of the temple of Belus, a contemporary of Alexander the Great. He wrote the History of the öhaldseans, in Greek» evidently intending it to be read by the Greek conquerors, and ho states in his first book that he composed it fttsm the registers, astronomical and chronological, which were preserved at Babylen, and which comprised a period of 300,000 yearg (150,000, according to the Syncellus). The history of Berosus is lost. Extracts from it had been made by AlexandA Poly« histor, in the first century before our era-, but his work too is lost, It stul existed, however, at the tíme when Eusebius {370-340} wrote his Chronicon, and was used by him in describing the ancient history of Babylon, * But the Chronicle of Eusebius, too, is loot, at least in Greek, and it ia only in an Armenian translate of Eus&braö that many of the passages have teen preserved to us, which refer to the bisto^ of Babylon, as originally described by Berosus. This Armenian translation was published in 1818, and its importance was first pointed out by Niebuhr2, As we possess large extraejs from Eusebitrf; preserved
1 Booses, - Egypt/ it. ]* 364.
s Eufiôbii Pw&phili GaesariftBsw Sfcttsoopi Chnwioott S^&cttav ntmo primům ex Armemaoo textu in Latinum conversum, opera P. Jo. B^Awj&er; VenetiÍB, i8í8.
LECTURE I.
87
by Georgius the Syneellus, i. e. the concellaneus, or cell-companion, the ViceJ&atriarch of Constantinople, who write a Chronography about 800"a.D., it is possible© in several places to compare the original Qreek text with the Armenian, and thus to establish the trustworthiness of #ie Armánian translation.
Berôsus thus describes the Babylonian traditions of the creationl:
6 There was a time in which all was darkness and water, and in these were generated monstrous creatures, having mixed forms; men were born with two and some with four wings, with two faces, having one body, but two heads, a man's and a woman's, and bearing the marks«of male and female nature; and other men with the legs and horns of goats, or with horses' feet, »and having the hind quarters of horses, but ťhe fore part of men, being in fact like Hip-pocentaurs. Bulls also were produced having human heads, and dogs with four bodies, having fishes' tails springing from their hinder parts; and horses with dogs1 heads, and men and other creatures* having heads and bodies of horses, but tails „of fishes; and other creatures having the shape of all sorts of beasts. Besides these, fishes, and reptHes, and snakes and ^many other ■wonderful and strange beings, one having the appearance of the other, the images of which are to be seen in the temple of Belus. At the head of all was a woman, called Qmorka* (Armen, Marcafit), which
*  Eusebii Chxonioon, voL 1. p. 29* »Pcagment» mzt&fom&S Yt*. it
P- 497'                                                                  .   V
*  According to Lenoraaitf ('Deluge,* p, 30) BotH Un*TJw&, In modem Armenian, Am-«argS 3s súd to mean motler-earth. Prof. I«etrio]»expl»i»ed toward*» homw-kai, the nwtterofthe egg. See Bunaen's 4 Egypt,' iv. p. 150.
38       LEOTUBES ON THE SCJIENÖB OF BELIGTOff.
is said to be Thalatth1 in Chaldean, and translated in Qreelj;, Thalassa (or serf). When all these were thus togetKer, Belus eame and cut the womifn in two: an,d one half of her he made the eärlh, and the other half tiie sky; and he destroyed all the creatures that were in her. But thiS account of nature is% be understood aUegoricafly. For when allr was stilľ moist, and "creatures were born in it, then the god (Belus) cut off his own head, and the gods mixed the blood that flowed from it with the earth, and formed men; wherefore men are rational, and participate in the divine intelligence/
*And Belus, whom they explain as Zeus (and the Armenians as Aramazd), cut the darkness in two, and separated earth and heaven from each other, and ordered the world. And animals which could not bear the power of the light, perished. And «Belus, when he saw the desert and fertile land, commanded one of the gods to cut off his head, to mix the earth with the blood flowing from it, and to form men and beasts that could bear the air. And Belus established also the stars^and the sun, and the moon, aad the five planets.'
1 Mr. Sayce -writes to mft 'Perhaps Lenonnant is right in correcting BvX&rO (when compared with the Tav0£ or Tavftjsof Damaseius) into eavárQ, that is, the Assyrian Tthamtu or Tamtu, the sea, the Het£ Dinfl. In this case the correspondence of the Babylonian account with Genesis i. 2 will be even greater' Bunsen explained Taládeth from the Hebrew yalad, as meaning 'laying eggs,' Bunsen's 'Egypt,' vol. iv p. 150, Dr. Haupt ('Die SumeriBohe-akkadis^he Sprache,' p. 276) points out that m in SumeryAccadian dwindled down to v, and that the same change may be observed in Assyrian also. Thus the Assyrian Tdmdu, sea (- tahmatu, or tí 'ämdu, ti'Ômtu, stát. oonstr. ť Ämat; cf Hebrew tehom) is represented as TavŮé by Damasoius, ' Questiones de primis principiis/ ed, Kopp. p. 384), and Damkina, the wifeof Éa, ftsAaii/«?.
LECTTOE L
39
Nothing can be at first sight more senseless and confused than this Babylonian version» of tfye genesis of the earth and of man; yet, iJS» we examine it more carefully, we ean stjjl distinguish the following elements:
i. In file beginningtthere waS darkness and water.
In Hebrew: «Darkness was upon the face of the deep,
%. The heaven was divided from the earth.
Ift Hebrew: Let there be a«firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the
waters.....And God called the firmament Heaven;
.....and God called the dry land Earth.
3.  The stars were made, and the sun and the moon, and the five planets.
In Hebrew: And God made two great lights; the grea&r light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.
4.  Animals of various kinds were created.
5.  Men were created.
It is in the creation of animals in particular that the extravagant imagination of the Babylonians finds its widest scope. It is said that the images of these creatures are to be seen in the temple of Belus, and as their description certainly agrees with some of the figures of gods and heroes that may now be seen in the British Museum, it is not unlikely that the Babylonian story of the creation of these monsters may have arfcen from the contemplation of the a&efc&t idols in the temples of BaBylon. But this would »till leave the original conception of such moBstetrs unexplained.
The most important point, however, is this, that
40       LECTUBES OK THE SOIENÖEf OF RELIGION.
the Babylonians represented man as participating in divine intelligence. The syntbolical language in which they» express this id«a is no doubt horrible and disgusting, but let us recollect tfyat ttíeJBEebrew^symbol, too,*' that God breathed into n*an's nostrils the breath of life/ is after all but another weak attempt at expressing the same idea,—an idea so «exalted that no language can ever express it without loss or injury.
In order to guess with some hope of success at the original meaning of ancient traditions, it is absolutely necessary that we should be familiar with the genius of the language in which such traditions took their origin. Languages, for instance, which do not denote grammatical gender, will be free from many mythological storieB which in Sanskrit Greek, and Latin are inevitable. Dr. Bleek, the indefatigable student of African languages, has frequently dwelt ofi this fact. In the Preface to his Comparative Grammar of the South-African Languages, published in 1863, he says:
ť The forms of a language may be said to constitute in some degree the skeleton frame of the human mind whose thoughts they express .... How dependent, for example, the higl&st products of the human mind, the religious ideas and conceptions 0? even highly civilized nations, may be upon this manner of speaking has been shown by Max-Muller, in his essay on Comparative Mythology (Oxford Essays, 1855)1. This will become still more evident from otfr African researches. The primary cause of the ancestor worship of the one race (Kafirs, JTegroes, and Polynesians), and of the sidereal worship, or of those forms 1 'Chips from a German Workshop,' vol. ii. pp. 1-146.
LEOTUBE r.
41
of religion which have sprung from the veneration of heavenly bodies, of th<J other (Hottentots, North-African, Semitic, and Aryan nations), ia Sapplied by the vény form^ %i their languages. The nations speaking Sex-denoting languages are distinguished by a higher poetical^ conception, by which human agency is transferred to other beirľgs, and even to inanimate things, in consequence of which their* personification takes place, forming the origin 01 almost all «mythological legends. This faculty is not developed in the Kafir mind, because not suggested by the form of their language, in which the nouns of persons are not (as in the Sex-denoting languages) thrown together with those of inanimate beings into the same classes or genders, but are in separate classes, without anj» grammatical distinction of sex1/
If Äierefore, without* possessing a knowledge of the Zulu language, I venture on an interpretation of an account of creation that has sprung up in the thought and language of the Zulus, I do so with great hesitation, and only in order to show, by one instance at least, that the religions of savages, too, will have to
1 See also his Preface to the second volume of the Comparative Grammar, published 1869. Mr. E. B.# Tylor has some valuable ^remarks on the sdrne subject, in his article on the Beligion of Savages, in the Fortnightly Review, 1866, p. 80. Looked at from a higher poi*i of view, it is, of couse, not language, as swob, which dominate» &* mmd, but thought and language are only two manifestation» of the game energy, mutually determining each other. Failing to perceive *te& «a$ has to take «efuge, like Tylor, with the old so-called nnrlyi ľľin^ďM||I as the apparent source of all mjfcbology. But thfe p^Ě^SĚM tautological, not a genetic explanation of m.y&oiý0r sEfftf** ^ important difference between the inevitable «od ^'«ÉjSe dBtetáaafl of the genius of language. The deepest source of mythology lies in the former, and must be carefully dmtíngraBhsä from the later sporadic diseases of language.
42       LECTUBES ON THE SÖIENÜS OF BELIGION.
submit hereafter to the same treatment whidh we apply to the sacred traditions of the Semitic and Axy#an nations. I ejiould not be at all surprised if the tentative interpretation whiclf J venture to propose, «were proved to be untenable by those who have studied the Zuřu dialec^p, but I shalFbe much more ready to surrender my interpretation, tíhan to lose*the conviction that there is no solid foundation for the study of the religions of savages except the study of their languages.
How impossible it is to arrive at anything like a correct understanding of the religious sentiments of savage tribes without an accurate and scholarlike knowledge of their dialects, is best shown by the old controversy whether there are any tribes of human beings entirely devoid of religious sentiments or no. Those who, for some reason or other, hold that religious sentiments are not essential to human nature, rind little difficulty in collectiijg statements of travellers and missionaries in support of their theory. Those who hold the opposite opinion find no more difficulty in rebutting such statements1. Now the real point to settle before we adopt the one or the other view is, what kind of authority can be claimed by those whose opinions we quote; did they really know the language, and did they know it, not only sufficiently well to converse on ordinary subjects, but to enter into a friendly and unreserved conversation on topics on which even highly educated people are so apt to misunderstand %ach other? We want in-formanti in fact, like Dr. Callaway, Dr. Bleek, men
1 See Scnelling, Werke, vol. i. p 72; and Mr. E. B. Tyler's reply to 8ir John Lubbock, 'Primitive Culture,' vol. i p. 381.
LEOTUBE I.
43
who $re both scholars and philosophers. Savages are shy and silent in the1 presence of white «naen, and they have a superstitious reluctance against mentioning eve» the n^ifies of their gods and heroes. Not many years ago it wae^supposed, on what would "seem to be gold authority, ^hat the Sulus had no religious ideas tit all; at» present our very* Bishops have been silenced by their theological inquiries.
Captain Gardiner, in his Narrative of a Journey to the«Zoolu Country undertaken in 1835, gives the following dialogue:
'Have you any knowledge of the power by whom the world was made? When you see the sun rising and setting, and tbe trees growing, do you know who made them and who governs them?'
Tpai, a Zadu (afier a little pause, apparently deep in th&ught),—'No; we see them, but cannot tell how they come; we suppose that they come of themselves/
A. ' To whom then do you attribute your success or failure in war?'
Tpai. 'When we are not successful and do not take cattle, we think our father {Itango) has not looked upon us.'
A. 'Do yoa think your father's spirits (Amatongo) 'made the world?'
Tpai.  'No.'
A. 'Where do you suppose the spirit of m&a goes after it leaves the body V
Tpai,   'We cannot tell/
A.   ' Do you think it lives for ever % *
Tpai. 'That we cannot tell; we believe that the spirit of our forefathers looks upon us when we go
44       LECTURES ON THE SCIENÖ» OF BELIGION.
to war; but we do not think about it at any "other time.'
A* ťT?oft admit that you cannot control &e sun or th£ moon, or even make a hair of ýqur head J» grow. Hafe»you no idea of any ßower capable of doing this?'
Tpai «No; we*know of none: v® know that we camfbt do these things, and we suppose that they come of themselves/
It may seem difficult to find a deeper shade of religious darkness than is pictured in this dialogue. But now let us hear the account which the Bev, Dr. Callaway1 gives of the fundamental religious notions which he, after a long residence among the various clans of the Zulus, after acquiring an intimate knowledge of their language, and, what is still luux-e important, after gaining their confidence, was able to extract from their old men and women. They all believe, first of all, in an ancestor of each particular family and clan, and also in a common ancestor of the whole race of man. That ancestor is generally called the Unkulunkulu, which means^ the  great-great-grandfather2     When
1 Dr. Callaway, '"Dnkulimkulu,' p. 54
9 Ibid, p. 48. Unkulunkulu, the word by which Cod is rendered in Zulu, is derived, according to Bleek, by reduplicatftm of a (nasahsečtt form of the 9th class from the adjective stem -kula (great, large, ol * u-ku-kula, to grow, etc.), and seems to mean originally a great-greatgrandfather, or the first ancestor of a family or tribe, though perhaps the unnasalised form u-kuluJcuht, is at present more usual in this signification. Then it was applied by metaphor to that being from whom everything was derived, who ac*>rdmg to the Zulu tradition has created all^men, animals, and other things to whom life and death are due, &c. In Inhambane the word for God, derived .from the same root is MubtAgufa; in Ki-hiáu, Ki-kamba* and Kinika it is Mvhtňgu; in Ki-euáheli, Mhtngu; in Makua, Muhngo or MuUko; in Sofala, Mwvhgv; m Tette, Murttngo or Morungo; in the Eu-suáheli dialect
LEOTÜRE I.
m
presse^ as to the fother of this great-great-grandfather, the general answer of tile Zulus seems to tya that he 'branched off froin a reed/ or that he 'came from a bed of *eeds.'
Here, I cannot help» suspecting that language* has been at Vork spinning mythology. In Sanskrit the word fparvan) which means origiáally a knot or joint in a cane, comes to mean a link, a member;*and, transferred to a family, it expresses the different shoots and» scions that spring from the original stem. The name for stem or race and lineage in Sanskrit is vawwa, which originally means a reed, a bamboo-cane. In the Zulu language a reed is called uthlanga, strictly speaking a reed which is capable of throwing out offshoots1. It comes thus metaphorically to mean a source of being. A father is the uthlanga of his children,* who are supposed to have branched off from him. Whatever notions at the present day the ignorant among the natives may have of the meaning of this tradition, so much seems to be generally admitted, even among Zulus, that originally it could not have been intended to tQ&ch that men sprang from a real reed2. cIt cannot be doubted/ Dr. Callaway writes, 'that the*word alone has come down to the people, whilst the meaning has been teat'
of Mombas, Müiigv; in the Ki-pofeómo, Mvhgo; in Otyi-Herertí, $ Mukům; see Bleek,* Comparative Grammar,* §§ 389-394. In Heréwř UU Mubtem is our fatlter Jfofcvr«; eee KoiW« * fflfrgtiifc fipmé-Dictionary/ s. v. God.                  O
1 Dr» Callaway, * TTnkülunkulu,' p. a, note,
1 In Herero,' tua memnjsi Mnknm' means, irií tpfo'lttwit oreftted, i.e. broken tut of the omumborombong* (cre*tk»-toée) 1n Herero fashion by Mnkuru; see &oIbe*s ' English-Herero Dictionary/ b v. God.
46       LECTURES ON THE SCJIENCE*0F EELiaiON".
The interpretation which I venture to progoše of this Zulu myth is this:—The Zulus may have said originally that they T*ere all offshoots of a re£d, using reed in the same sense in which vawfea is usedán San» skril? and meaning therefore no jnore than that they all were children of one feifcher, members of one ftice. As the word uthlanga, -ftrhich came to mean race, retained also its original meaning, viz. reed, people, unaccustomed to metaphorical language and thought, would soon say that men camja from a reed, or were fetched from a bed of reeds, while others would take Uthlanga for a proper name and make him the ancestor of the human race. Among some Zulu tribes we actually find that while TJnkulunkulu is the first man, Uthlanga is represented as the first woman1. Among other tribes where Unkulunkulu was tha first man, Uthlanga became the first woman (p. 58).
Every nation, every clan, every family requires sooner or later an ancestor. Even in comparatively modern times the Britons, or the inhabitants of Great Britain, were persuaded that it was not good to be without an ancestor, and they were assured by Geoffrey of Monmouth that they might claim descent from Brutus. In the same manner the Hellenes, or the ancient inhabitants of Hellas, claimed «descent from Hellen. The name of Hellenes, originally restricted to a tribe living in Thessaly2, became in time the name of the whole nation8, and hence it was but natural that JEolos, the  ancestor of the «Eolians,
1 Dr. Callaway, 'Unkulunkulu,* p. 58. According to the Popol Vah the first woman was created from the marrW of a reed ee© 'Selected Essays/ ü. P* 394-
* Horn. E. a. 684.                                                 1 Thucyd. i. 3.
LECTURE I,
47
Doros, $he ancestor of the Dorians, and Xuthos> the father of Achseos and IotíJ should all be represented as the sons of Hellen. So far all* is intelligible, if,we will onlyrxemembQr*that this is the technical language of the heraldic office of ancient Greece.
But very soon the question «arose, who was the father öf Hellen^the ancestor of the Greeks, or, according to the intellectual horizon of the ancient Greeks, of the whole human race? If he was the ancestor of the whole Human race, or the first man, he could only be the son of Zeus, the supreme god, and thus we find that Hellen is by some authorities actually called the son of Zeus. Others, however, give a different account. There was in Greece, as in many countries, the tradition of a general deluge by which every living being had been destroyed, except a few ^ho escaped in a boat, and who, after the flood had subsided, repeopled the earth. The person thus saved, according to Greek traditions, was called Deu-kakon, the ruler of Thessaly, the son *of Prometheus. Prometheus had told him to build a ship and furnish it with provisions, and when the, flood came, he and his wife Pyrrha were the only people who escaped.
Thus it will be seen that the Greeks had really two ancestors of the human race, Hellen and Deukalion, and in order to remove this difficulty, nothing remained but to make Hellen the son of Deukalion» All this is perfectly natural and intelligible» if only we will learn to sjieak, and not only $o speak, but also to think the language of thefaneient world.
The story then goes on to explain how Deukalion
48        LECTUBES ON THE SOIENOS OF RELIGIÖS.
became the father of all the people on earth; .that he and his^wife Pyrrha were töld to throw stones (or the bones of &e earth) backward behind thenf, and that t&ese stones became men and woiiien. No^ here we have "clearly a myth or a niiracle,—a miracle, too, without any justification, for jf Pyrrha was the wife of Deukalion, why should not Hellen be theár son? Autosomes clear, if we look at the language in which the story is told. Pyrrha means the Red, and was originally a name for the red "earth. As the Hellenes claimed to be indigenous or autochthonic, born of the earth where they lived, Pyrrha, the red Earth, was naturally called their mother, and being the mother of the Hellenes, she must needs be made the wife of Deukalion, the father of the Hellenes. Originally, however, Deukalion, like Manu ni India, was represented as having alone escaped from the deluge, and hence the new problem how, without a wife, he could have become the father of the people ? It was in this perplexity, no doubt, that the myth arose of his throwing stones behind him, and these stones becoming the new population o| the eartL The Greek word for people was \a6$, that for stones Xats;—hence what could be more natural, whei* children asked, whence the kaós or the people of Deukalion came3 than to say that they came from XSes or stones1 ?
I might give many more instances of the same kind, all showing that there was a meaning in the
1 The North. American Indians told Roger Willisana, that 'they had it Hrom their fathers, that Kautantounpii made one man and woman of a stone, which diehking, he broke thfim in pieces, and made another man and woman of a tree, which were the fountain of all mankind.' 'Publications of Narragansett Club/ voL i. p. 158.
LECTURE I.
49
most fneaningless traditions of antiquity, all showing, what is still more important, that these traditions, many of them in their present starfce absurd and repulsive, regain a simple, intelligible, and even beautiful character if i$ divest them of the «crust •which language in its inevitable decay has formed around «them.
We never lose, we always gain, when we discover the most ancient intention of sacred traditions, instead of beáng satisfied with'their later aspect, and their modern misinterpretations. Have we lost anything if, while reading the story of Hephsestos splitting open with his axe the head of Zeus, and Athene springing from it, full armedf we perceive behind this savage imagery, Zeus as the bright Sky, his forehead as the East, Hephsestos'as the young, not yet risen Sun, and Athene as the Dawn, the daughter of the Sky, stepping forth from the fountain-head of light—
rA.au/c07rw, with eyes like an owl (and beautiful they are);
UapOivoSj pure as a virgin;
Xpóo-ea, the golden;
'Ajcpfa, lighting up the tops of the mountains, and her own glorious Parthenon in he$own favourite town of Athens;
UaXKás, whirling the shafts of light;
9A\4a9 the genial warmth of the morning;
ľlpóixaxoS) the foremost champion in the battle between night and day;
ľíávoir\ost in full armour in her panoply, of Bght, driving away the darkless of night, and řŽuáng men to a bright life, to bright thoughts, to bright endeavours?
60       LECJTTOES ON THE SCIENCE OF BELIGION.
Would the Greek gods lose in our eyes i£ instead of believing that Apollon €tnd Artemis murdered the twelve children of. Niobe, we perceived -feat Niobe was, in a former period of language, a namý of snow and innter, and that no nibre was intended by the ancient poet than tfeat Apollon and Artemis, the vernal deities, must «lay every year wi|h their darts the briHiant and beautiful, but doomed children of the Sno\r? Is it not something worth knowing, worth knowing even to us# after the lapse of four qr ňve thousand years, that before the separation of the Aryan race, before the existence of Sanskrit, Greek, or, Latin, before the gods of the Veda had been worshipped, and before there was a. sanctuary of Zeus among the sacred oaks of Dodona, one supreme Deity had been found, had been named, hadjbeen invoked by the ancestors of our race, and had been invoked by a name which has never been excelled by any other name, Dyaus, Zeus, Jupiter, Tyr,—all meaning originally light and brightness, a concept which on one side became materialized as sky, morning, and day, while on the other it developed into a name of the bright and heavenly beings, the Devas, as one of the first exprefcsions^of the Divine?
No, if a critical examination of the ancient language of our own religion leads to no worse results thaln those which have followed from a careful interpretation of the petrified language of ancient India and Greece, we need not fear; we shall be gainers, not losers. Like an old precious metal, the ancient religion, after the rust of ages haB been removed, will come out in all its purity aifd brightness: and the image which it discloses will be the image of the
LEOTUBB I.
51
Father,« ^he Father of all the nations upon earth; and the "superscription, when we can read it again, will be, not in Judaea only, but in the languages flof all the races of tbs world, the Word of God, revealed, where alone it can be revealed,—revealed £n the heart 06 man.
Eft