Chapter 137

45Lane-Poole,Studies in a Mosque, p. 298sq.

46[Deutsch,] ‘Islam,’ inQuarterly Review, cxxvii. 295sq.Bosworth Smith,Mohammed and Mohammedanism, pp. 67, 69. Pool,Studies in Mohammedanism, p. 406.

Equal in enormity with the sin of not believing in a certain god is sometimes the sin of having a false belief about him. It seems strange that a god should be so easily offended as to punish with the utmost severity those who hold erroneous notions regarding some attribute of his which in no way affects his honour or glory, or regarding some detail of ritual. Thomas Aquinas himself admits that the hereticintendsto take the word of Christ, although he fails “in the election of articles whereon to take that word.” But it is in this election that his sin consists.Instead of choosing those articles which are truly taught by Christ, he chooses those which his own mind suggests to him. Thus he perverts the doctrines of Christ, and in consequence deserves not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but to be banished from the world by death.47Moreover, the heretic is an apostate, a traitor who may be forced to pay the vow which he has once taken.48The extreme rigour of this sophistical argumentation can only be understood in connection with its historical surroundings. It presupposes a Church which not only regards itself as the sole possessor of divine truth, but whose cohesion and power depend upon a strict adherence to its doctrines.49Nor was it a religious motive only that induced Christian sovereigns to persecute heretics. Certain heresies, as Manichæism and Donatism, were expressly declared to affect the common welfare;50and the Frankish kings treated heretics not only as rebels against the Church, but as traitors to the State, as confederates of hostile Visigoths or Burgundians or Lombards.51

47Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.ii.-ii. 11. 1, 3.

48Ibid.ii.-ii. 10. 8.

49Cf.Ritchie,Natural Rights, p. 183.

50Milman,History of Latin Christianity, ii. 33.

51Ibid.ii. 61.

Whilst intolerance is a characteristic of all monotheistic religions which attribute human passions and emotions to their godhead, polytheism is by nature tolerant. A god who is always used to share with other gods the worship of his believers cannot be a very jealous god. The pious Hennepin was struck by the fact that Red Indians were “incapable of taking away any person’s life out of hatred to his religion.”52Among the natives of the African Gold and Slave Coasts, though a man must show outward respect for the gods so as not to provoke calamities, he may worship many gods or none, just as he pleases. “There is perfect liberty of thought in matters of religion…. At this stage, man tolerates any form of religion that tolerates others; and as he thinks it perfectlynatural that different people should worship different gods, he does not attempt to force his own personal opinions upon anyone, or to establish conformity of ideas.”53On the Slave Coast even a sacrilege committed by a European is usually regarded with indifference, as the gods of a country are supposed to be concerned about the actions of the people of that country only.54“The characteristics of Natural Religion,” says Sir Alfred Lyall, “the conditions of its existence as we see it in India, are complete liberty and material tolerance; there is no monopoly either of divine powers or even of sacerdotal privilege.”55In China the hatred of foreigners has not its root in religion. The Catholics residing there were left undisturbed until they began to meddle with the civil and social institutions of the country;56and the difficulty in persuading the Chinese to embrace Christianity is said by a missionary to be due to their notion that one religion is as good as another provided that it has a good moral code.57Among the early Greeks and Romans it was a principle that the religion of the State should be the religion of the people, as its welfare was supposed to depend upon a strict observance of the established cult; but the gods cared for external worship rather than for the beliefs of their worshippers, and evidently took little notice even of expressed opinions. Philosophers openly despised the very rites which they both defended and practised; and religion was more a pretext than a real motive for the persecutions of men like Anaxagoras, Protagoras, Socrates, and Aristotle.58So also the measures by which the Romans in earlier times repressed the introduction of new religions were largely suggested by worldly considerations; “they grew out of that intense national spirit which sacrificed everyother interest to the State, and resisted every form of innovation, whether secular or religious, that could impair the unity of the national type, and dissolve the discipline which the predominance of the military spirit and the stern government of the Republic had formed.”59It has also been sufficiently proved that the persecutions of the Christians during the pagan Empire sprang from motives quite different from religious intolerance. Liberty of worship was a general principle of the Imperial rule. That it was denied the Christians was due to their own aggressiveness, as also to political suspicion. They grossly insulted the pagan cult, denouncing it as the worship of demons, and every calamity which fell upon the Empire was in consequence regarded by the populace as the righteous vengeance of the offended gods. Their proselytism disturbed the peace of families and towns. Their secret meetings aroused suspicion of political danger; and this suspicion was increased by the doctrines they professed. They considered the Roman Empire a manifestation of Antichrist, they looked forward with longing to its destruction, and many of them refused to take part in its defence. The greatest and best among the pagans spoke of the Christians as “enemies,” or “haters of the human race.”60

52Hennepin,New Discovery of a Vast Country in America, ii. 70.

53Ellis,Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast, p. 295. See alsoIdem,Ew̔e-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast, p. 81; Monrad,Skildring af Guinea-Kysten, p. 28; Kubary, ‘Die Verbrechen und das Strafverfahren auf den Pelau-Inseln,’ inOriginal-Mittheil. aus d. ethnol. Abtheil. d. königl. Museen zu Berlin, i. 90.

54Ellis,Ew̔e-speaking Peoples, p. 81.

55Lyall,Natural Religion in India, p. 52.

56Davis,China, ii. 7.Cf.Edkins,op. cit.p. 178.

57Edkins,op. cit.p. 75.

58See Schmidt,Die Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 24sqq.

59Lecky,History of European Morals, i. 493.Cf.Dio Cassius,Historia Romana, lii. 36.

60Lecky,op. cit.i. 408sqq.Ramsay,The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 346sqq.See alsosupra,i. 345sq.;ii. 178sq.

The same difference in toleration between monotheistic and polytheistic religions shows itself in their different attitudes towards witchcraft. A monotheistic religion is not necessarily averse from magic; its god may be supposed to have created magical as well as natural energy, and also to have given mankind permission to utilise it in a proper manner. Both Christianity in its earlier phases and Muhammedanism are full of magical practices expressly sanctioned by their theology—for instance, the use made of sacred words and of the relics of saints. But besides this sort of magic there is another kind—witchcraft, in the narrow sense of the term,—which is ascribed to theassistance of exorcised spirits, regarded not as the willing agents but as the adversaries of God; and this practice is naturally looked upon as highly offensive to His feelings. In Christianity witchcraft was esteemed the most horrible form of impiety.61The religious law of the Hebrews—which generally prohibited all practices that savoured of idolatry, such as soothsaying and oracles—punished witches and wizards with death.62Islam disapproves of all magic which is practised with the assistance of evil spirits, orjinn, although such magic is very prevalent and popularly tolerated in Muhammedan countries.63Among polytheistic peoples, again, witchcraft is certainly in many cases treated with great severity; a large number of uncivilised races punish it with death,64and among some of them it is the only offence which is capital.65But then witchcraft is punished because it is considered destructive to human life or welfare.66“In Africa,” says Mr. Rowley, “there is what is regarded as lawful as well as unlawful witchcraft, the lawful being practised professedly for the welfare of mankind, and in opposition to the unlawful, which is resorted to for man’s injury.” But “the purposes of witchcraftare now generally wicked; its processes generally involve moral guilt; the spirits invoked are, for the most part, avowedly evil and maleficent.”67Among the Gaika tribe of the Kafirs “witchcraft is supposed to be an influence for evil, possessed by one individual over another, or others.”68Among the Bondeis “the meaning of witchcraft is simply murder.”69That witchcraft, as a malicious practice, must be a grave and at the same time frequent offence among savages, is obvious from the common belief that death, disease, and misfortunes of every description are caused by it. From a similar point of view it is condemned by polytheistic nations of a higher type. Among the Aztecs of ancient Mexico anybody who employed sorcery or incantations for the purpose of doing harm to the community or to individuals was sacrificed to the gods.70The Chinese Penal Code punishes with death those who have been convicted of writing and editing books of sorcery, or of employing spells and incantations, “in order to agitate and influence the minds of the people.”71But, according to Mr. Dennys, the hatred of witches and wizards cherished in the West does not seem to exist in China; “those reputed to possess magic powers are regarded with dread, but it is rare to hear of any of them coming to untimely end by mob violence.”72The Laws of Ḫammurabi, the ancient Babylonian legislator, enjoin that “if a man weave a spell and put a ban upon a man, and has not justified himself, he that wove the spell upon him shall be put to death.”73It is said in ‘Vishnu Purâna’ that he who practises magical rites “for the harm of others” is punished in the hell called Krimîsa.74Among the ancient Teutons not every kind of magic but only such as was considered of injurious nature was criminal.75In Rome, also, what was deemed harmless magic was left undisturbed, whereas, according to the ‘Law of the Twelve Tables,’ “he who affects another by magical arts or with poisonous drugs” is to be put to death;76and during the Empire persons were severely persecuted for political astrology or divination practised with a view to discovering the successors to the throne.77Plato, writes in his ‘Laws’:—“He who seems to be the sort of man who injures others by magic knots or enchantments or incantations or any of the like practices, if he be a prophet or divine, let him die; and, if not being a prophet, he be convicted of witchcraft, as in the previous case, let the court fix what he ought to pay or suffer.”78As Mr. Lecky justly remarks, both in Greece and Rome the measures taken against witchcraft seem to have been almost entirely free from religious fanaticism, the magician being punished because he injured man and not because he offended God.79Sometimes we find even among a polytheistic people that sorcery is particularly opposed by its priesthood;80but the reason for this is no doubt hatred of rivals rather than religious zeal. Miss Kingsley, however, does not think that the dislike of witchcraft in West Africa at large has originally anything to do with the priesthood.81

61Lea,History of the Inquisition, iii. 422, 453. Pollock and Maitland,History of English Law before the Time of Edward I.ii. 552sqq.Milman,op. cit.ix. 69. Lecky,Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe, i. 26. Keary,Outlines of Primitive Belief among the Indo-European Races, p. 511sqq.Rogers,Social Life in Scotland, iii. 265, 268. Ralston,Songs of the Russian People, pp. 386, 416sq.

62Exodus, xxii. 18.Leviticus, xix. 26, 31; xx. 6, 27.Deuteronomy, xviii. 10sqq.

63Polak,Persien, i. 348. Lane,Modern Egyptians, i. 333.

64Supra,i. 189sq.Cruickshank,Eighteen Years on the Gold Coast, ii. 179. Bowdich,Mission to Ashantee, p. 260. Johnston,British Central Africa, p. 403 (Bakongo). Cunningham,Uganda, pp. 35 (Banyoro), 140 (Bavuma), 305 (Basukuma), Arnot,Garenganze, p. 75. Decle,Three Years in Savage Africa, p. 76 (Barotse). Casalis,Basutos, p. 229. Kidd,The Essential Kafir, p. 148sq.Sibree,The Great African Island, p. 292 (Malagasy). Swettenham,Malay Sketches, p. 196 (Malays of Perak). Dalton,Ethnology of Bengal, (Oraons). Egede,Description of Greenland, p. 123sq.Krause,Die Tlinkit-Indianer, p. 293sq.Jones, quoted by Kohler, ‘Die Rechte der Urvölker Nordamerikas,’ inZeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtswiss.xii. 412 (Chippewas). Morgan,League of the Iroquois, p. 330; Seaver,Life of Mrs. Jemison, p. 167 (Iroquois). Powell, ‘Wyandot Government,’ inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.i. 67. Stevenson, ‘Sia,’ibid.xi. 19. Lumholtz,Unknown Mexico, i. 325 (Tarahumares). Forbes, ‘Aymara Indians of Bolivia and Peru,’ inJour. Ethn. Soc.N. S. ii. 236, n. *

65Supra,i. 189.

66Cf.Dorsey, ‘Omaha Sociology,’ inAnn. Rep. Bur. Ethn.iii. 364.

67Rowley,Religion of the Africans, p. 125sq.See also Kidd,The Essential Kafir, p. 148.

68Maclean,Compendium of Kafir Laws, p. 123.

69Dale, inJour. Anthr. Inst.xxv. 223.

70Bancroft,Native Races of the Pacific States, ii. 462.

71Ta Tsing Leu Lee, sec. cclvi. p. 273.

72Dennys,Folk-Lore of China, p. 80.

73Laws of Ḫammurabi, 1.

74Vishńu Puráńa, p. 208.

75Brunner,Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, ii. 678.

76Lex Duodecim Tabularum, viii. 25.

77Lecky,History of European Morals, i. 420.

78Plato,Leges, xi. 933.

79Lecky,Rationalism in Europe, i. 18.

80Kingsley,West African Studies, p. 137. Rink,Greenland, p. 201.

81Kingsley,West African Studies, p. 135sq.

The religious intolerance which has accompanied the rise of monotheism is, as we have just observed, the result of the nature attributed to its godhead. But the evolution of religion does not end with the triumph of a jealous and irritable heavenly despot. There is a later stage where men believe in a god or supernatural power which is absolutely free from all human weakness, and in such a religion intolerance has no place. It has been said that the tolerant spirit of Buddhism82is due to religiousindifference,83but the original cause of it seems to be the absence of a personal god; and the increasing tolerance of modern Christianity is undoubtedly connected with the more ethical view it takes of the Deity when compared with the opinions of earlier ages. It should be remembered, however, that religious toleration does not mean passive indifference with regard to dissenting religious ideas. The tolerant man may be a great propagandist. He may do his utmost to eradicate, by means of persuasion, what he considers to be a false belief. He may even resort to stronger measures against those who do mischief in the name of their religion. But he does not persecute anybody for the sake of his faith; nor does he believe in an intolerant and persecuting god.

82Hardy,Eastern Monachism, p. 412. Monier-Williams,Buddhism, p. 126. Waddell,Buddhism of Tibet, p. 568. Edkins,Religion in China, p. 127. Gutzlaff,Sketch of Chinese History, i. 70. Forbes,British Burma, p. 322sq.

83Forbes,op. cit.p. 322.Cf.Kuenen,Hibbert Lectures on National and Universal Religions, p. 290.

Supernatural beings, according to the belief of many races, desire to be worshipped not only because they depend upon human care for their subsistence or comfort, but because worship is an act of homage. We have seen that sacrifice, after losing its original significance, still survives as a reverent offering. So also prayer is frequently a tribute to the self-regarding pride of the god to whom it is addressed. A supplication is an act of humility, more or less flattering to the person appealed to and especially gratifying where, as in the case of a god, the granting of the request entails no deprivation or loss, but on the contrary is rewarded by the worshipper. Moreover, the request is very commonly accompanied by reverential epithets or words of eulogy; and praise, nay even flattery, is just as pleasant to superhuman as to human ears. Gods are addressed as great or mighty, as lords or kings, as fathers or grandfathers.84A prayer of the ancient Peruvians began with the following words:—“O conquering Viracocha! Ever present Viracocha! Thou art in the ends of the earth without equal!”85The ancient Egyptians flattered their gods,86the Vedic and Zoroastrian hymns are full of praise. Muhammedans invoke Allah by sentences such as, “God is great,” “God is merciful,” “God is he who seeth and heareth.” Words of praise, as well as words of thanks, addressed to a god, may certainly be the expressions of unreflecting admiration or gratitude, free from all thought of pleasing him; but where laudation is demanded by the god as a price for good services, it is simply a tribute to his vanity. There is a Chinese story which amusingly illustrates this little weakness of so many gods:—At the hottest season of the year there was a heavy fall of snow at Soochow. The people, in their consternation, went to the temple of the Great Prince to pray. Then the spirit moved one of them to say, “You now address me as Your Honour. Make it Your Excellency, and, though I am but a lesser deity, it may be well worth your while to do so.” Thereupon the people began to use the latter term, and the snow stopped at once.87The Hindus say that by praise a person may obtain from the gods whatever he desires.88

84See Brinton,Religions of Primitive Peoples, p. 105.

85de Molina, ‘Fables and Rites of the Yncas,’ inNarratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas, p. 33.

86Amélineau,L’évolution des idées morales dans l’Égypte ancienne, p. 214.

87Giles,Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio, ii. 294.

88Ward,View of the History, Literature, and Religion of the Hindoos, ii. 69.

We have different means of gratifying a person’s self-regarding pride: one is to praise him, another is to humiliate ourselves. Both have been adopted by men with reference to their gods. Besides hymns of praise there are hymns of penitence, the object of which is largely to appease the angry feelings of offended gods. Prayers for remission of sins form a whole literature among peoples like that of the Vedic age, the Chaldeans,89and the Hebrews, who commonly regarded calamities to which men were subject not as the result of an inexorable fate nor as the machinations of evil spirits, but as divine punishments. According to early ideas, as we have seen, sin is a substance charged with injuriousenergy, from which the infected person tries to rid himself by mechanical means.90But at the same time the effect of sin is conceived as a divine punishment, and this suggests atonement. In the Rig-Veda we not only hear of the removal of sins by magical operations, but the gods are requested to free the sufferer from his sin.91

89Zimmern,Babylonische Busspsalmen,passim. Mürdter-Delitzsch,Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens, p. 38sq.Delitzsch,Wo lag das Paradies?p. 86. Hommel,Die semitischen Völker und Sprachen, p. 315sqq.Meyer,Geschichte des Alterthums, i. 178.

90Supra,i. 52sqq.

91See Oldenberg,Die Religion des Veda, pp. 292, 296, 317sq.

Gods are fond of prayers not only as expressions of humility or repentance but for other reasons as well. In early religion a prayer is commonly connected with an offering, since the god is not supposed to bestow his favours gratuitously.92By the call contained in it he is invited to partake of the offering, or his attention is drawn to it.93“Compassionate father!” says the Tanna priest when he offers first-fruits to a deified ancestor; “here is some food for you, eat it, and be kind to us on account of it!”94In one of the Pahlavi texts it is said that when the guardian spirits of the righteous are invited they accept the sacrifice, whereas if they are not invited “they go up the height of a spear and will remain.”95Throughout the Yasts we hear of the claims of deities to be worshipped with sacrifices in which they are invoked by their own names and with the proper words.96Mithra complains, “If men would worship me with a sacrifice in which I were invoked by my own name, as they worship the other Yazatas with sacrifices in which they are invoked by their own names, then I would come to the faithful at the appointed time.”97According to Vedic and Zoroastrian texts the gods were purified, strengthened, and encouraged not only by offerings but by prayers, although it is difficult in this respect to distinguish between two elements in one and the same rite which are so closely interwoven with each other.98By his invocations man assists the gods in their combats with evil demons, he sends his prayer between the earth and the heavens there to smite the fiends.99In a Vedic hymn the people are exhorted to “sing to Indra a song very destructive to the demons.”100By pronouncing the praise of Asha, Zarathustra brings the Daevas to naught;101by mentioning the name of Ahura Mazda their malice is most effectually destroyed.102Thus prayer may be a religious duty also on account of the magic efficacy ascribed to it, and the same is the case with incantations directed against evil spirits.

92Tylor,Primitive Culture, ii. 364sqq.Georgi,Russia, iii. 272 (shamanistic peoples of Siberia). Maspero,Études de mythologie et d’archéologie égyptiennes, i. 163;Idem,Dawn of Civilization, p. 124, n. 5 (ancient Egyptians). Darmesteter, inSacred Books of the East, iv. (1st ed.) p. lxix. (Zoroastrians). Oldenberg,op. cit.p. 430sqq.; Barth,Religions of India, p. 34 (Vedic people). Donaldson, ‘Expiatory and Substitutionary Sacrifices of the Greeks,’ inTrans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, xxvii. 430. Grimm,Teutonic Mythology, i. 29. Among the Kafirs of Natal “a soldier wounded in battle would only pray if his hurt were slight; but if it were serious, he would vow a sacrifice on his return, naming perhaps the particular beast” (Shooter,Kafirs of Natal, p. 164).

93Cf.Brinton,Religions of Primitive Peoples, p. 104.

94Turner,Nineteen Years in Polynesia, p. 88.

95Shâyast Lâ-Shâyast, ix. 12.

96Yasts, viii. 23sqq.; x. 30.

97Ibid.x. 55.Cf.ibid.x. 74.

98See Bergaigne,La religion védique, ii. 237, 250, 273sqq.; Zimmer,Altindisches Leben, p. 337sqq.; Oldenberg,Religion des Veda, p. 437; Macdonell,Vedic Mythology, p. 60; Meyer,Geschichte des Alterthums, i. 534sq.(Zoroastrianism).

99Yasna, xxviii. 7.Yasts, iii. 5.Vendîdâd, xix. 1, 2, 8sqq.Darmesteter,Ormazd et Ahriman, pp. 101, 119, 131, 193.Idem, inSacred Books of the East, iv. (1st ed.) p. lxix.

100Rig-Veda, viii. 78. 1.

101Yasts, xiii. 89.Cf.ibid.xiii. 90.

102Ibid.i. 3, 4, 10, 11, 19.

In earlier chapters we have often noticed how curses gradually develop into genuine prayers, andvice versamay a prayer develop into a curse or spell. Dr. Rivers observes that the formulæ used in Toda magic have the form of prayers.103So also Assyrian incantations are often dressed in the robe of supplication, and end with the formula, “Do so and so, and I shall gladden thine heart and worship thee in humility.”104Vedic texts which were not originally meant as charms became so afterwards. Incantations are comparatively rare in the Rig-Veda, and seem even to be looked upon as objectionable, but towards the end of the Vedic period the reign of Brahma, the power of prayer, as the supreme god in the Indian Pantheon began to dawn.105Brahmais a force by which the gods act, by which they are born, and by which the world has been formed;106but it is also the prayer which ascends from the altar to heaven and by means of which man wrests from the gods the boon he demands107—“the prayer governs them.”108This omnipresent force is personified in Brahmaṇaspati, the lord of prayer, who resides in the highest heaven but of whom not only every separate god but the priest himself becomes a manifestation at the moment he pronounces the mantras or sacred texts.109It is a current saying in India that the whole universe is subject to the gods, that the gods are subject to the mantras, that the mantras are subject to the Brahmans, and that therefore the Brahmans are the real gods.110In Zoroastrianism prayers are not made efficacious by devotion and fervency, but to the words themselves belongs a mysterious power and the mere recitation of them, if correct and faultless, brings that power into action;111in the Yasts prayer is regarded as a goddess, as the daughter of Ahura Mazda.112In ancient Egypt, M. Maspero observes, “la prière n’était pas comme chez nous une petition que l’homme présente au dieu, et que le dieu est libre d’accepter ou de refuser à son gré: c’était une formule dont les terms ont une valeur impérative, et dont l’énonciation exacte oblige le dieu à concéder ce qu’on lui demande.”113Greek literature supplies other instances of men conjuring their gods by incantations;114the word ἀρά means both prayer and curse.115And “in the Roman, as in the majority of the old Italian cults, prayer is a magic formula, producing its effect by its own inherent quality.”116

Back to Index Next