CHAPTER LII

216Bingham,Works, iii. 488sqq.Prentiss,loc. cit.p. 549.

217St. Augustine,De peccatorum meritis et remissione, i. 16 (Migne,op. cit.xliv. 16).

218St. Fulgentius,De fide, 27 (Migne,op. cit.lxv. 701).

219Wall,History of Infant-Baptism, i. 460sq.

220Ibid.i. 462, 468. Luther and his followers, however, speak more doubtfully about the efficacy of the parents’ unrealised intention, and lay much stress on actual baptism (ibid.i. 469).

221Augsburg Confession, i. 9.

222Prentiss,loc. cit.p. 550.

223Calvin,Institutio Christiana religionis, iv. 15. 10, vol. ii. 371. Norton,Tracts concerning Christianity, p. 179sqq.

224Calvin,op. cit.iv. 16. 9, vol. ii. 383sq.Wall,op. cit.i. 469. Anderson, ‘Introductory Essay,’ to Logan’sWords of Comfort for Parents bereaved of Little Children, p. xxi.

225Toplady,Works, p. 645sq.

226Hodge,Systematic Theology, i. 26sq.

227Prentiss,loc. cit.p. 559. See also Anderson,loc. cit.p. xxiii.

In order fully to realise the true import of the dogma of damnation it is necessary to consider the punishment in store for the condemned. The immense bulk of the Christians have always regarded hell and its agonies as material facts.228Origen, who was a Platonist and an heretic on many points, was severely censured for saying that the fire of hell was inward and of the conscience rather than outward and of the body;229and in the later Middle Ages Scotus Erigena showed unusual audacity in questioning the locality of hell and the material tortures of the condemned.230The punishment is burning—a penalty which even in the most barbaric codes is reserved for the very gravest crimes; and some great divines, like Jeremy Taylor and Jonathan Edwards, have been anxious to point out that the fire of hell is infinitely more painful than any fire on earth, being “fierce enough to melt the very rocks and elements.”231This awful punishment also exceeds in dreadfulness anything which even the most vivid imagination can conceive, because it will last not for a passing moment,nor for a year or a hundred, thousand, million, or milliard years, but for ever and ever. In case any doubt should arise as regards the physical capacity of the damned to withstand the heat, we are assured by some modern theologians that their bodies will be annealed like glass or asbestos-like or of the nature of salamanders.232This, then, is the future state of the large majority of men, quite independently of any fault of their own, or of the degree of their “guilt.”233It would seem that even the felicity of the few who are saved must be seriously impaired by their contemplation of this endless and undescribable misery, but we are told that the case is just the reverse. They become as merciless as their god. Thomas Aquinas says that a perfect sight of the punishment of the damned is granted to them that they “may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more richly.”234And the Puritans, especially, have revelled in the idea that “the sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints for ever,” as a sense of the opposite misery always increases the relish of any pleasure.235

228Alger,op. cit.p. 516.

229Ibid.p. 516.

230Milman,History of Latin Christianity, ix. 88, n. k.

231Alger,op. cit.p. 516sq.

232Alger,op. cit.pp. 518, 520.Cf.St. Augustine,De Civitate Dei, xxi. 2sqq.

233For the numbers of souls supposed to be lost see Alger,op. cit.p. 530sqq.St. Chrysostom (In Acta Apostolorum Homil. XXIV.4 (Migne,op. cit.Ser. Graeca, lx. 189]) doubted whether out of the many thousands of souls constituting the Christian population of Antioch in his day one hundred would be saved. And at the end of the seventeenth century a History Professor at Oxford published a book to prove “that not one in a hundred thousand (nay probably not one in a million) from Adam down to our times, shall be saved” (Du-Moulin,Moral Reflections upon the Number of the Elect, title page).

234Thomas Aquinas,Summa theologica, iii. Supplementum, qu. xciv. 1. 2 (Migne,op. cit.Ser. Secunda, iv. 1393).

235Jonathan Edwards,Works, vii. 480. Alger,op. cit.p. 541.

In the present times there is a distinct tendency among Christian theologians to humanise somewhat the doctrines of the future life.236But if Christianity is to be judged from the dogmas which almost from its beginning until quite recent times have been recognised by the immense majority of its adherents, it must be admitted that itsconception of a heavenly Father and Judge has been utterly inconsistent with all ordinary notions of goodness and justice. Calvin himself avowed that the decree according to which the fall of Adam involved, without remedy, in eternal death so many nations together with their infant children, was a “horrible” one. “But,” he adds, “no one can deny that God foreknew the future final fate of man before he created him, and that he did foreknow it because it was appointed by his own decree.”237

236Thus the doctrine of endless torments is opposed by a considerable number of theologians (Alger,op. cit.p. 546), and, “if held, is not practically taught by the vast majority of the English clergy” (Stanley,op. cit.p. 94).

237Calvin,op. cit.iii. 23. 7, vol. ii. 151.

Like Christianity, Muhammedanism adorns its godhead with the highest moral attributes and at the same time ascribes to him decrees and actions which flatly contradict even the most elementary notions of human justice. The god of Islam is addressed as the compassionate and merciful; but his love is restricted to “those who fear,”238and his mercy can only be gained by that submissiveness or self-surrender which is indicated by the very name of Islam. He demands a righteous life, he punishes the wrongdoer and rewards the charitable.239Through his Prophet he has revealed to mankind both the rules of morality and the elements of a social system containing minute regulations for a man’s conduct in various circumstances of life, with due rewards or penalties according to his fulfilment of these regulations.240The whole constitution of the State has on it a divine stamp; as an Arab proverb says, “country and religion are twins.”241But foremost among duties is to believe in God and his Prophet. “God,” it is said, “does not pardon polytheism and infidelity, but He can, if He willeth, pardon other crimes.”242And the “pillars of religion” are the five duties of reciting the Kalimah or creed, of performing the five stated daily prayers, of fasting—especially in the month of Ramaḍân,—of giving the legal alms, and of making the pilgrimage to Mecca.243These duties are based on clearsentences of the Koran, but the traditions have raised the most trivial ceremonial observances into duties of the greatest importance. It is true that hypocrisy and formalism without devotion were strongly condemned by Muhammed. “Righteousness,” he said, “is not that ye turn your faces towards the East or the West, but righteousness is, one who believes in God, and the last day, and the angels, and the Book, and the prophets, and who gives wealth for His love to kindred, and orphans, and the poor, and the son of the road, and beggars, and those in captivity; and who is steadfast in prayer, and gives alms; and those who are sure of their covenant when they make a covenant; and the patient in poverty, and distress, and in time of violence; these are they who are true, and these are those who fear.”244Yet in Muhammedanism, as in other ritualistic religions, the chief importance is practically attached to the punctual performance of outward ceremonies, and the virtue of prayer is made dependent upon an ablution.245In the future life the felicity or suffering of each person will be proportionate to his merits or demerits,246but the admittance into paradise depends in the first place on faith. “Those who believe, and act righteously, and are steadfast in prayer, and give alms, theirs is their hire with their Lord.”247Those who have acknowledged the faith of Islam and yet acted wickedly will be punished in hell for a certain period, but will finally enter paradise.248As regards the future state of certain infidels the Koran contains contradictory statements. In one place it is said, “Verily, whether it be of those who believe, or those who are Jews or Christians or Sabaeans, whosoever believe in God andthe last day and act aright, they have their reward at their Lord’s hand, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”249But this passage is considered to have been abrogated by another where it is stated that whoso desires any other religion than Islam shall in the next world be among the lost.250The punishments inflicted upon unbelievers are no less horrible than the torments of the Christian hell. Yet in one point the Muhammedan doctrine of the future life is more merciful than the dogmas of Christianity. The children of believers will all go to paradise, and the children of unbelievers are generally supposed to escape hell. Some think they will be in Aʿráf, a place situated between heaven and hell; whilst others maintain that they will be servants to the true believers in paradise.251

238Koran, iii. 70.

239Supra,i. 553.

240Cf.Muir,Life of Mahomet, iii. 295sq.; Lane-Poole,Studies in a Mosque, p. 101.

241Sell,Faith of Islám, pp. 19, 39.

242Ibid.p. 241.

243Ibid.p. 251.

244Koran, ii. 172.

245Cf.Polak,Persien, i. 9; Wallin,Reseanteckningar från Orienten, iv. 284sq.; Sell,op. cit.p. 256.

246Lane,Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, i. 95sq.Sell,op. cit.p. 231. Lane-Poole,Studies in a Mosque, p. 319.

247Koran, ii. 277.

248Lane,op. cit.i. 95. Sell,op. cit.p. 228. The Muʿtazilas, however, teach that the Muslim who enters hell will remain there for ever. They maintain that the person who, having committed great sins, dies unrepentant, though not an infidel, ceases to be a believer, and hence suffers as the infidels do, though the punishment is lighter than that which an infidel receives (Sell,op. cit.pp. 229, 241).

249Koran, ii. 59.

250Ibid.iii. 79. Sell,op. cit.p. 359sq.

251Sell,op. cit.p. 204sq.

The formalism of Muhammedan orthodoxy has from time to time called forth protests from minds with deeper aspirations. The earlier Muhammedan mystics sought to impart life to the rigid ritual;252and in the nineteenth century Bábíism revolted against orthodox Islam, opposing bigotry and enjoining friendly intercourse with persons of all religions.253At present there are some liberal Muhammedans who set aside the scholastic tradition, maintain the right of private interpretation of the Koran, and warmly uphold the adaptability of Islam to the most advanced ideas of civilisation.254To them Muhammed’s mission was chiefly that of a moral reformer. “In Islam,” says Syed Ameer Ali, “the service of man and the good of humanity constitute pre-eminently the service and worship of God.”255

252Ibid.p. 110.

253Ibid.p. 136sqq.

254Ameer Ali,Life and Teachings of Mohammed,passim.Idem,Ethics of Islâm,passim.Cf.Lane-Poole,Studies in a Mosque, p. 324; Sell,op. cit.p. 198sq.

255Ameer Ali,Ethics of Islâm, p. 3sq.Idem,Life and Teachings of Mohammed, p. 274.

In the next chapter I shall try to explain the chief facts now set forth relating to gods as guardians ofworldlymorality.

WEhave seen that the gods of uncivilised races are to a very large extent of a malevolent character, that they as a rule take little interest in any kind of human conduct which does not affect their own welfare, and that, if they show any signs of moral feelings, they may be guardians either of tribal customs in general or only of some special branch of morality. Among peoples of a higher culture, again, the gods are on the whole benevolent to mankind, when duly propitiated. They by preference resent offences committed against themselves personally; but they also avenge social wrongs of various kinds, they are superintendents of human justice, and are even represented as the originators and sustainers of the whole moral order of the world. The gods have thus experienced a gradual change for the better; until at last they are described as ideals of moral perfection, even though, when more closely scrutinised, their goodness and notions of justice are found to differ materially from what is deemed good and just in the case of men.

The malevolence of savage gods is in accordance with the theory that religion is born of fear. The assumed originators of misfortunes were naturally regarded as enemies to be propitiated, whilst fortunate events, if attracting sufficient attention and appearing sufficiently marvellous to suggest a supernatural cause, were commonly ascribed to beings who were too good to requireworship. But growing reflection has a tendency to attribute more amiable qualities to the gods. The religious consciousness of men becomes less exclusively occupied with the hurts they suffer, and comes more and more to reflect upon the benefits they enjoy. The activity of a god which displays itself in a certain phenomenon, or group of phenomena, appears to them on some occasions as a source of evil, but on other occasions as a source of good; hence the god is regarded as partly malevolent, partly benevolent, and in all circumstances as a being who must not be neglected. Moreover, a god who is by nature harmless or good may by proper worship be induced to assist man in his struggle against evil spirits.1This protective function of gods becomes particularly important when the god is more or less disassociated from the natural phenomenon in which he originally manifested himself. Nothing, indeed, seems to have contributed more towards the improvement of nature gods than the expansion of their sphere of activity. When supernatural beings can exert their power in the various departments of life, men naturally choose for their gods those among them who with great power combine the greatest benevolence. Men have selected their gods according to their usefulness. Among the Maoris “a mere trifle, or natural casualty, will induce a native (or a whole tribe) to change his Atua.”2The negro, when disappointed in some of his speculations, or overtaken by some sad calamity, throws away his fetish, and selects a new one.3When hard-pressed, the Samoyede, after invoking his own deities in vain, addresses himself to the Russian god, promising to become his worshipper if he relieves him from his distress; and in most cases he is said to be faithful to his promise, though he may still try to keep on good terms with his former gods by occasionallyoffering them a sacrifice in secret.4North American Indians attribute all their good or bad luck to their Manitou, and “if the Manitou has not been favourable to them, they quit him without any ceremony, and take another.”5Among many of the ancient Indians of Central America there was a regular and systematical selection of gods. Father Blas Valera says that their gods had annual rotations and were changed each year in accordance with the superstitions of the people. “The old gods were forsaken as infamous, or because they had been of no use, and other gods and demons were elected…. Sons when they inherited, either accepted or repudiated the gods of their fathers, for they were not allowed to hold their pre-eminence against the will of the heir. Old men worshipped other greater deities, but they likewise dethroned them, and set up others in their places when the year was over, or the age of the world, as the Indians had it. Such were the gods which all the nations of Mexico, Chiapa, and Guatemala worshipped, as well as those of Vera Paz, and many other Indians. They thought that the gods selected by themselves were the greatest and most powerful of all the gods.”6These are crude instances of a process which in some form or other must have been an important motive force in religious evolution by making the gods better suited to meet the wants of their believers.

1von Rosenberg,Der malayische Archipel, p. 162 (Niase). Howard,Life with Trans-Siberian Savages, p. 192 (Ainu). Georgi,Russia, iii. 273sq.(shamanistic peoples of Siberia). Buch, ‘Die Wotjaken,’ inActa Soc. Scient. Fennicæ, xii. 633.Supra,ii. 701,702,704sq.

2Polack,Manners and Customs of the New Zealanders, i. 233.

3Wilson,Western Africa, p. 212.

4Ahlqvist, ‘Unter Wogulen und Ostjaken,’ inActa Soc. Scient. Fennicæ, xiv. 240.

5Bossu,Travels through Louisiana, p. 103. Frazer,Totemism, p. 55.

6Blas Valera, quoted by Garcilasso de la Vega,First Part of the Royal Commentaries of the Yncas, i. 124sq.

But men not only select as their gods such supernatural beings as may be most useful to them in their struggle for life, they also magnify their good qualities in worshipping them. Praise and exaggerating eulogy are common in the mouth of a devout worshipper. In ancient Egypt the god of each petty state was within it held to be the ruler of the gods, the creator of the world, and the giver of all good things.7So also in Chaldea the god ofa town was addressed by its inhabitants with the most exalted epithets, as the master or king of all the gods.8The Vedic poets were engrossed in the praise of the particular deity they happened to be invoking, exaggerating his attributes to the point of inconsistency.9“Every virtue, every excellence,” says Hume, “must be ascribed to the divinity, and no exaggeration will be deemed sufficient to reach those perfections with which he is endowed.”10The tendency of the worshipper to extol his god beyond all measure is largely due to the idea that the god is fond of praise,11but it may also be rooted in a sincere will to believe or in genuine admiration. That nations of a higher culture have especially a strong faith in the power and benevolence of their gods is easy to understand when we consider that these are exactly the peoples who have been most successful in their national endeavours.12As the Greeks attributed their victory over the Persians to the assistance of Zeus,13so the Romans maintained that the grandeur of their city was the work of the gods whom they had propitiated by sacrifices.14

7Wiedemann,Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, p. 11.

8Mürdter-Delitzsch,Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens, p. 24.

9Macdonell,Vedic Mythology, p. 16sq.Barth,Religions of India, p. 26. Hopkins,Religions of India, p. 139.

10Hume,Philosophical Works, iv. 353.

11Seesupra,ii. 653sq.

12Cf.Oldenberg,Die Religion des Veda, p. 281; Macdonell,op. cit.p. 18.

13Supra,ii. 713.

14Cicero,De natura deorum, iii. 2.

The benevolence of a god, however, does not imply that he acts as a moral judge. A friendly god is not generally supposed to bestow his favours gratuitously; it is hardly probable, then, that he should meddle with matters of social morality out of sheer kindliness and of his own accord. But by an invocation he may be induced to reward virtue and punish vice. We have often noticed how closely the retributive activity of gods is connected with the blessings and curses of men. In order to give efficacy to their good or evil wishes men appeal to some god, or simply bring in his name when they pronounce a blessing or a curse; and if this is regularly done in connection with some particular kind of conduct, the idea may grow up that the god rewards or punishes it even independently ofany human invocation. Moreover, powerful curses, as those uttered by parents or strangers, may be personified as supernatural beings, like the Greek Erinyes; or the magic energy inherent in a blessing or a curse may become an attribute of the chief god, owing to the tendency of such a god to attract supernatural forces which are in harmony with his general nature.15So also, the notion of a persecuting ghost may be changed into the notion of an avenging god.16Various departments of social morality have thus come to be placed under the supervision of gods: the rights of life17and property,18charity19and hospitality,20the submissiveness of children,21truthspeaking and fidelity to a given promise.22That gods are so frequently looked upon as guardians of truth and good faith is, as we have seen, mainly a result of the common practice of confirming a statement or promise by an oath; and where the oath is an essential element in the judicial proceedings, as was the case in the archaic State,23the consequence is that the guardianship of gods is extended to the whole sphere of justice. Truth and justice are repeatedly mentioned hand in hand as matters of divine concern. We have seen how frequently the same gods as are appealed to in oaths or ordeals are described as judges of human conduct.24“En Égypte,” says M. Amélineau, “la vérité et la justice n’avaient qu’un seul et même nom,Mât, qui veut aussi bien dire vérité que justice, et justice que vérité.”25Zeus presided over assemblies and trials;26according to a law of Solon, the judges of Athens had to swear by him.27And the Erinyes, the personifications of oaths and curses, are sometimes represented by poets and philosophers as guardians of right in general.28

15Seesupra,ii. 68.

16Supra,i. 378sq.

17Supra,i. 379sqq.

18Supra,ii. 59sqq.

19Supra,i. 561sqq.

20Supra,i. 578sqq.

21Supra,i. 621sqq.

22Supra,ii. 114sqq.

23Leist,Græco-italische Rechtsgeschichte, p. 228.

Back to Index Next