CHAPTER XLIX. Duties to Gods (_concluded_)

DUTIES TO GODS (concluded)

SUPERNATURAL beings are widely believed to have a feeling of their worth and dignity. They are sensitive to insults and disrespect, they demand submissiveness and homage.

"The gods of the Gold Coast," says Major Ellis, "are jealous gods, jealous of their dignity, jealous of the adulation and offerings paid to them; and there is nothing they resent so much as any slight, whether intentional or accidental, which may be offered them. . . . There is nothing that offends them so deeply as to ignore them, or question their power, or laugh at them." The wrath of Yahveh burst forth with vehemence whenever his honour or sanctity was in the least violated, however unintentionally. Many peoples consider it insulting and dangerous merely to point at one of the celestial bodies; and among the North American Indians it is a widespread belief that, if anybody points at the rainbow, the finger will wither or become misshapen.

Nor is it to supernatural danger only that a person exposes himself by irreverence to a god, but in many cases he is also punished by his fellow men. On the Slave Coast insults to a god "are always resented and punished by the {640} priests and worshippers of that god, it being their duty to guard his honour." Among the ancient Peruvians and Hebrews, as also among Christian nations up to comparatively recent times, blasphemy was a capital offence. In England, in the reign of Henry VIII., a boy of fifteen was burned because he had spoken, much after the fashion of a parrot, some idle words affecting the sacrament of the altar, which he had chanced to hear but of which he could not have understood the meaning. According to Muhammedan law a person guilty of blasphemy is to be put to death without delay, even though he profess himself repentant, as adequate repentance for such a sin is deemed impossible. These and similar laws are rooted in the idea that the god is personally offended by the insult. It was the Lord himself who made the law that he who blasphemed His name should be stoned to death by all the congregation. "Blasphemy," says Thomas Aquinas, "as being an offence directly against God, outweighs murder, which is an offence against our neighbour . . . . The blasphemer intends to wound the honour of God." That blasphemy is, or should be, punished not as a sin against the deity but as an offence against the religious feelings of men, is an idea of quite modern origin.

In many cases it is considered offensive to a supernatural being merely to mention his name. Sometimes the name is tabooed on certain occasions only or in ordinary conversation, sometimes it is not to be pronounced at all.

In Morocco the jnûn (jinn) must not be referred to by name in the afternoon and evening after the [(]â[s.]ar. If speaking of them at all, the people then make use of some circumlocution; the Berbers of Southern Morocco call them w[=i]d-iá[d.]nin, "those others," or w[=i]d-ur[d.]-h[)e]r'nin, "those unseen," or w[=i]d-tntl-tísnt, "those who shun salt." The Greenlanders dare not pronounce the name of a glacier {641} as they row past it, for fear lest it should be offended and throw off an iceberg. Some North American Indians believe that if, when travelling, they mention the names of rocks or islands or rivers, they will have much rain or be wrecked or be devoured by some monster in the river. The Omahas, again, "are very careful not to use names which they regard as sacred on ordinary occasions; and no one dares to sing sacred songs except the chiefs and old men at the proper times." Some other Indians considered it a profanation to mention the name of their highest divinity. Among certain Australian natives the elders of the tribe impart to the youth, on his initiation, the name of the god Tharam[=u]l[)u]n; but there is such a disinclination to pronounce his name that, in speaking of him, they generally use elliptical expressions, such as "He," "the man," or "the name I told you of," and the women only know him by the name of Papang (father). The Marutse and allied tribes along the Zambesi shrink from mentioning the real name of their chief god Nyambe and therefore substitute for it the word molemo, which has a very comprehensive meaning, denoting, besides God, all kinds of good and evil spirits, medicines, poisons, and amulets. According to Cicero, there was a god, a son of Nilus, whose name the Egyptians considered it a crime to pronounce; and Herodotus is unwilling to mention the name of Osiris on two occasions when he is speaking of him. The divine name of Indra was secret, the real name of Agni was unknown. The gods of Brahmanism have mystic names, which nobody dares to speak. The real name of Confucius is so sacred that it is a statutable offence in China to {642} pronounce it; and the name of the supreme god of the Chinese is equally tabooed. "Tien," they say, "means properly only the material heaven, but it also means Shang-Te (supreme ruler, God); for, as it is not lawful to use his name lightly, we name him by his residence, which is in tien." The "great name" of Allah is a secret name, known only to prophets, and possibly to some great saints. Yahveh said, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain"; and orthodox Jews avoid mentioning the word Yahveh altogether. Among Christian nations, as Professor Nyrop observes, there is a common disinclination to use the word "God" or its equivalents in everyday speech. The English say good instead of God ("good gracious," "my goodness," "thank goodness"); the Germans, Potz instead of Gotts ("Potz Welt," "Potz Wetter," "Potz Blitz"); the French, bleu instead of Dieu ("corbleu," "morbleu," "sambleu"); the Spaniards, brios or diez instead of Dios ("voto á brios," "juro á brios," "par diez").

These taboos have sprung from fear. There is, first, something uncanny in mentioning the name of a supernatural being, even apart from any definite ideas connected with the act. But to do so is also supposed to summon him or to attract his attention, and this may be considered dangerous, especially if he is looked upon as malevolent or irritable, as is generally the case with the Moorish jnûn. The uncanny feeling or the notion of danger readily leads to the belief that the supernatural being feels offended if his name is pronounced; we have noticed a similar association of thought in connection with the names of the dead. But a god may also have good reason for wishing that his name should not be used lightly or taken in vain. According {643} to primitive ideas a person's name is a part of his personality, hence the holiness of a god may be polluted by his name being mentioned in profane conversation. Moreover, it may be of great importance for him to prevent his name from being divulged, as magic may be wrought on a person through his name just as easily as through any part of his body. In early civilisation there is a common tendency to keep the real name of a human individual secret so that sorcerers may not make an evil use of it; and it is similarly believed that gods must conceal their true names lest other gods or men should be able to conjure with them. The great Egyptian god Râ declared that the name which his father and mother had given him remained hidden in his body since his birth, so that no magician might have magic power over him. The list of divine names possessed by the Roman pontiffs in their indigitamenta was a magical instrument which laid at their mercy all the forces of the spirit world; and we are told that the Romans kept the name of their tutelary god secret in order to prevent their enemies from drawing him away by pronouncing it. There is a Muhammedan tradition that whosoever calls upon Allah by his "great name" will obtain all his desires, being able merely by mentioning it to raise the dead to life, to kill the living, in fact to perform any miracle he pleases.

* * * * *

One of the greatest insults which can be offered a god is to deny his existence. Plutarch was astonished at people's saying that atheism is impiety, while at the same time they attribute to gods all kinds of less creditable qualities. "I for my part," he adds, "would much rather have men to say of me that there never was a {644} Plutarch, at all, nor is now, than to say that Plutarch is a man inconstant, fickle, easily moved to anger, revengeful for trifling provocations, vexed at small things." But Plutarch seems to have forgotten that a person is always most sensitive on his weak points, and that the weakest point in a god is his existence. Religious intolerance is in a large measure the result of that feeling of uncertainty which can hardly be eradicated even by the strongest will to believe. It is a means of self-persuasion in a case where such persuasion is sorely needed. Moreover, a god who is not believed to exist can be no object of worship, and to be worshipped is commonly held to be the chief ambition of a god. But atheism is a sin of civilisation. Uncultured people are ready to believe that all supernatural beings they hear of also exist.

Some gods are extremely ungenerous towards all those who do not recognise them, and only them, as their gods. To believe in Ahura Mazda was the first duty which Zoroastrianism required of a man; it was Angra Mainyu, the evil spirit, that had countercreated the sin of unbelief. Doubt destroyed even the effects of good actions; indeed, only the true believer was to be regarded as a man. The faithful were summoned to a war to the death against the opposing spirits, the Daevas, and their followers. And to judge from ancient writers, the Persians, when they came into contact with nations of another religion, also carried into practice the intolerant spirit of their own. Yahveh said:--"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. . . . Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." In the pre-prophetic period the existence of other gods was recognised, but they were not {645} to be worshipped by Yahveh's people. Nor was any mercy to be shown to their followers, for Yahveh was "a man of war." The God of Christianity inherited his jealousy. In the name of Christ wars were waged, not, it is true, for the purpose of exterminating unbelievers, but with a view to converting them to a faith which alone could save their souls from eternal perdition. So far as the aim of the persecution is concerned we can thus notice a distinct progress in humanity. But whilst the punishment which Yahveh inflicted upon the devotees of other gods was merely temporal and restricted to a comparatively small number of people--he took notice of such foreign nations only which came within his sphere of interests,--Christianity was a proselytising religion on a large scale, anxious to save but equally ready to condemn to everlasting torments all those who refused to accept it, nay even the milliards of men who had never heard of it. In this point Christianity was even more intolerant than the Koran itself, which does not absolutely confine salvation to the believers in Allah and his Prophet, but leaves some hope of it to Jews, Christians, and Sabæans, though all other infidels are hopelessly lost.

That Muhammedanism has in course of time become the most fanatical of existing religions is due to political rather than religious causes. For a thousand years the Christian and Muhammedan world were engaged in a deadly contest, in which the former came off victorious. Most nations confessing Islam have either lost their independence or are on the verge of losing it. The memory of past defeats and cruelties, the present state of subjection or national weakness, the fear of the future--are all factors which must be taken into account when we judge of Moslem fanaticism. In its younger days Islam was undoubtedly, not only in theory but in practice, less intolerant than its great rival, Christian subjects of Muhammedan rulers being on the whole treated with {646} consideration. Earlier travellers in Arabia also speak favourably of the tolerance of its inhabitants. Niebuhr was able to write:--"I never saw that the Arabs have any hatred for those of a different religion. They, however, regard them with much the same contempt with which Christians look upon the Jews in Europe . . . . The Mahometans in India appear to be even more tolerant than those of Arabia . . . . The Mussulmans in general do not persecute men of other religions, when they have nothing to fear from them, unless in the case of an intercourse of gallantry with a Mahometan woman." In China the Muhammedans live amicably with the infidel, regarding their Buddhist neighbours "with a kindly feeling which it would be hard to find in a mixed community of Catholics and Evangelicals." Muhammedanism looks upon the founder of Christianity with profound reverence, as one of the apostles of God, as the only man without sin. Christian writers, on the other hand, till the middle of the eighteenth century universally treated Muhammed as a false prophet and rank impostor. Luther called him "a devil, and a first-born child of Satan," whilst Melanchthon was inclined to see in him both Gog and Magog.

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 heretic intends to 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. {647} 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. Moreover, the heretic is an apostate, a traitor who may be forced to pay the vow which he has once taken. The 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. Nor 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; and 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.

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." Among 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 perfectly {648} natural 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." On 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. "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." In 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; and 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. Among 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. So 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 every {649} other 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." It 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."

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 the {650} assistance 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. The 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. Islam disapproves of all magic which is practised with the assistance of evil spirits, or jinn, although such magic is very prevalent and popularly tolerated in Muhammedan countries. Among polytheistic peoples, again, witchcraft is certainly in many cases treated with great severity; a large number of uncivilised races punish it with death, and among some of them it is the only offence which is capital. But then witchcraft is punished because it is considered destructive to human life or welfare. "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 witchcraft {651} are now generally wicked; its processes generally involve moral guilt; the spirits invoked are, for the most part, avowedly evil and maleficent." Among the Gaika tribe of the Kafirs "witchcraft is supposed to be an influence for evil, possessed by one individual over another, or others." Among the Bondeis "the meaning of witchcraft is simply murder." That 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. The 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." But, 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." The Laws of ammurabi, 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." It is said in 'Vishnu Purâna' that he who practises magical rites "for the harm of others" is punished in the hell called Krimîsa. Among the ancient Teutons not every kind of magic but only such as was considered of injurious nature was criminal. {652} In 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; and during the Empire persons were severely persecuted for political astrology or divination practised with a view to discovering the successors to the throne. Plato, 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." As 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. Sometimes we find even among a polytheistic people that sorcery is particularly opposed by its priesthood; but 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.

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 Buddhism is due to religious {653} indifference, but 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.

* * * * *

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. A 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!" {654} The ancient Egyptians flattered their gods, the 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. The Hindus say that by praise a person may obtain from the gods whatever he desires.

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, and 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 injurious {655} energy, from which the infected person tries to rid himself by mechanical means. But 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.

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. By the call contained in it he is invited to partake of the offering, or his attention is drawn to it. "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!" In 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." Throughout 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. Mithra 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." {656} According 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. By 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. In a Vedic hymn the people are exhorted to "sing to Indra a song very destructive to the demons." By pronouncing the praise of Asha, Zarathustra brings the Daevas to naught; by mentioning the name of Ahura Mazda their malice is most effectually destroyed. Thus 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.

In earlier chapters we have often noticed how curses gradually develop into genuine prayers, and vice versa may a prayer develop into a curse or spell. Dr. Rivers observes that the formulæ used in Toda magic have the form of prayers. So 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." Vedic 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. {657}Brahma is a force by which the gods act, by which they are born, and by which the world has been formed; but 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 demands--"the prayer governs them." This omnipresent force is personified in Brahma[n.]aspati, 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. It 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. In 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; in the Yasts prayer is regarded as a goddess, as the daughter of Ahura Mazda. In 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." Greek literature supplies other instances of men conjuring their gods by incantations; the word [Greek: a)ra/] means both prayer and curse. And "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."

{658} Whilst an ordinary curse readily develops into a prayer when the name of a god is brought in for the purpose of giving magic efficacy to the curse, a prayer may contrariwise assume a magic character by being addressed to a god--just as a sacrifice becomes endowed with magic energy in consequence of its contact or communion with the supernatural being to which it is offered; and the constraining force in the prayer or sacrifice may then be directed even against the god himself. But there can be little doubt that the extreme importance which the magic element in the cult attained among the nations of ancient civilisation was chiefly due to the prevalence of a powerful priesthood or class of persons well versed in sacred texts. A successful incantation presupposes a certain knowledge in him who utters it. The words of the formulæ are fixed and may not suffer the slightest modification under penalty of losing their potency. Right intonation is equally important. The Brahmanic mantras "must be pronounced according to certain mystic forms and with absolute accuracy, or their efficacy is destroyed"; nay, if in the repetition of a mantra the slightest mistake is made, either by omission of a syllable or defective pronunciation, the calamity which it was intended to bring down on an enemy will inevitably recoil on the head of the repeater. The potency of the incantation largely lies in the voice, which is the magical instrument par excellence. A Buddhist priest who was asked what advantage he could expect to derive from merely repeating a number of words with the sense of which he was entirely unacquainted, gave the answer that the advantage of often repeating the sounds was incalculable, infinite; and a Muhammedan writer argues that prayers which are offered in any other language than {659} Arabic are profane and useless, because "the sounds of this language"--whether understood or not--"illuminate the darkness of men" and "purify the hearts of the faithful." Ideas of this sort are of course most strongly advocated by those who derive the greatest profit from them--priests or scribes. And it is easy to understand that with their increasing influence among a superstitious and credulous people the magic significance which is so readily ascribed to a religious act also has a tendency to grow in importance.

* * * * *

Among all sins there is none which gods resent more severely than disobedience to their commandments. Mr. Macdonald says of the Efatese, in the New Hebrides, that no people under the sun is more obedient to what they regard as divine mandates than these savages, who believe that an offence against a spiritual being means calamity and death. The Chaldeans had a lively sense of the risks entailed upon the sinner by disobedience to the gods. According to the Bible disobedience was the first sin committed by man, and death was introduced into the world as its punishment. "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry." On the history of morals this demand of obedience has exercised considerable influence. It gives emphasis to moral rules which are looked upon as divine injunctions, and it helps to preserve such rules after the conditions from which they sprang have ceased to exist. The fact that they have become meaningless does not render them less binding; on the contrary, the mystery surrounding them often increases their sanctity. The commandments of a god must be obeyed independently of their contents, simply because disobedience to him is a sin. Acts totally different in character, crimes of the worst description and {660} practices by themselves perfectly harmless, are grouped together as almost equally offensive to the deity because they have been forbidden by him. And moral progress is hampered by a number of precepts which, though rooted in obsolete superstitions or antiquated ideas about right and wrong, have an obstinate tendency to persist on account of their supposed divine origin.

* * * * *

Duties to gods are in the first place based on prudential considerations. Supernatural beings, even when on the whole of a benevolent disposition, are no less resentful than men, and, owing to their superhuman power, much more dangerous. On the other hand, they may also bestow wonderful benefits upon those who please them. The general rule that prudence readily assumes a moral value holds particularly true of religious matters, where great individual interests are at stake. Waterland says in his Sermon on Self-love:--"The wisest course for any man to take is to secure an interest in the life to come. . . . He may love himself, in this instance, as highly and as tenderly as he pleases. There can be no excess of fondness, or self-indulgence, in respect of eternal happiness. This is loving himself in the best manner, and to the best purposes. All virtue and piety are thus resolvable into a principle of self-love. . . . It is with reference to ourselves, and for our own sakes, that we love even God himself."

At the same time it may be not only in people's own interests, but in the interests of their fellow men as well, for them to be on friendly terms with supernatural beings. These beings often visit the iniquity of fathers or forefathers upon children or descendants, or punish the community for the sins of one of its members; and, on the other hand, they reward the whole family or group for the virtues of a single individual. So also, when the {661} members of a community join in common acts of worship, each worshipper promotes not only his own welfare, but the welfare of his people. In early religion it is of the utmost importance for the tribe or nation that the established cult should be strictly observed. This is a fact which cannot be too much emphasised when we have to explain how conduct which is pleasing to a god has come to be regarded as a moral duty; for, if the latest stages of religious development be excepted, the relations between men and their gods are communal rather than individual in character. Ahura Mazda said, "If men sacrifice unto Verethraghna, made by Ahura, if the due sacrifice and prayer is offered unto him just as it ought to be performed in the perfection of holiness, never will a hostile horde enter the Aryan countries, nor any plague, nor leprosy, nor venomous plants, nor the chariot of a foe, nor the uplifted spear of a foe!" Thus the duties to gods are at the same time social duties of the first order, owing to the intensely social character of religious relationships.

Another circumstance which has contributed to the moral condemnation of offences against gods is that people are anxious to punish such offences in order to prevent the divine wrath from turning against themselves; for punishment, as we have seen, easily leads to moral disapproval. But although prudential considerations of some kind or other be the chief cause of the obligatory character attached to men's conduct towards their gods, they are not the only cause. We must also remember that gods are regarded with genuine reverence by their worshippers; and where this is the case offences against religion naturally excite sympathetic resentment in the latter, whilst great piety calls forth sympathetic approval and is praised as a virtue.

I have here spoken of duties which men consider they owe to their gods, not of duties to supernatural beings in general. This distinction, though not always easy to {662} follow in detail, is yet of vital importance. People may no doubt be afraid to offend and even anxious to please other spirits besides their gods, but religious duties chiefly arise where there are established relationships between men and supernatural beings; indeed, it may even be a duty to refrain from worshipping or actually to persecute other spirits, as is the case in monotheistic religions. Men depend for their welfare on their gods more than on any other members of the spiritual world. They select as their gods those supernatural beings from whom they think they have most to fear or most to hope. Hence it is generally in the relations to them only that those factors, prudential and reverential, are to be found which lead to the establishment of religious duties.