Such are the ideas which are intended in the text.
Note 2. p. 4. The Comparative Study Of Religions.
The comparison of Christianity with other religions was necessarily forced upon the Christian church by contact with the heathen world.
We meet in the early fathers with two distinct opinions; the one held in the Alexandrian school, that the heathen religions were imperfect but had a germ of truth, and that philosophy was a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ; the other chiefly in the African school, that they were entire errors, and an obstacle to the conversion of mankind.
In the middle ages, contact with Mahometan life (see Lect. III. p. 88) created a sceptical mode of comparing Christianity with other creeds; circ.u.mstances compelling toleration, and toleration pa.s.sing into indifference. A similar spirit is also seen in the hasty attempt of the French philosophers of the last century to resolve all religion into priestcraft.
It is only in still more recent times that the first scientific conception of a comparative study of religion arose. Even in Herder the comparison is aesthetical more than scientific, and relates to the comparison of literatures more than of religious ideas. Benjamin Constant (_De la Religion Consideree dans sa source, ses formes et ses developpements_, 1824) seems to have been the first who really suggested a serious psychological examination; and hence there soon arose the idea of comparative theology a.n.a.logous to comparative anatomy. His spirit has pervaded French literature subsequently. The religious speculations of the eclectic school give expression to it; e.g. Quinet (_Le Genie des Religions_, vol. i.); and the mode of contemplating religion in Renan (_Etudes de l"Histoire Religieuse_) is based upon it. Caution in using the method is necessary on the part of those who believe in the unique and miraculous character of the Jewish and Christian revelations. In Lect.
III. (p. 87) we have given an enumeration of three modes; the one true, the others false; in which Christianity may be put into comparison with other creeds.
Mr. Maurice"s _Boyle Lectures on the Religions of the World_ refer to this subject; and some useful remarks exist in Morell"s _Philosophy of Religion_,(c. iii. and iv.) But the book most full of information is the interesting _Christian Advocate"s Publication_, of the late archdeacon Hardwick, _Christ and other Masters_; a work full of learning and piety, unfortunately left unfinished by the tragedy of his premature death in August 1859. In the parts published he has compared Christianity with the Egyptian and Persian religions (part iv.), with the Hindoo (part ii.), and the Chinese (part iii.); and he was preparing materials for its comparison with the Teutonic, and with those of the cla.s.sic nations.
Note 3. p. 4. Zend And Sanskrit Literature.
The purpose of this note is to indicate the sources of information in reference to (1) the Zend and (2) the Sanskrit literature, for ill.u.s.trating the comparative history of religion.
1. It was about the middle of the last century (1762) that Anquetil du Perron brought ma.n.u.scripts to Europe from Guzerat, written in the Zend or ancient Persian tongue. For some time the relation of the language to the Sanskrit was not understood. The great scholar to whom are due both the study of the tongue and the editing of the _Yacna_, was Eugene Burnouf.
The work just named is the first of the three works which make up the _Vendidad Sade_; parts of which possibly go back to a period almost coeval with Zoroaster, i.e. perhaps the sixth century B.C. Two other works exist for the study of the Persian theology, though much more modern in date,-the _Desatir_ of the ninth century A.D., and the _Dabistan_ of the seventeenth,-which both contain fragments of ancient traditions embedded in their texts. The _Avesta_, of which the _Vendidad_ is one of the oldest parts, has been edited by Spiegel. References to the older literature concerning it may be found in Heeren"s _History of the Asiatic Nations_, vol. i. ch. ii.
An account of the present results of comparative philology in reference to Persian is given by professor Max Muller in Bunsen"s _Philosophy of History_, vol. i. p. 110. E. T. The Persian theology brought to light by these investigations is discussed by A. Franck, in a paper, _Les Doctrines Religieuses et Philosophiques de la Perse_, in his _Etudes Orientales_, 1861; also in Dr. John Wilson"s _Parsi Religion_, 1843; Martin Haug"s _Essays on the Parsis_, 1861, founded on Burnouf"s researches; and in archdeacon Hardwick"s _Christ and other Masters_, part iv. ch. iii.
(Hyde"s _Hist. Relig. Vet. Pers._ 1700, is obsolete.)
2. The Sanskrit literature has been the subject of still more careful study by a series of learned men. See Donaldson"s _Cratylus_, b. i. ch.
ii. -- 36. 3d ed. Nearly the whole of the literature indirectly offers materials for a history of the alteration and deterioration of religious and ethical ideas, and of the relation of schools of philosophy to a national creed preserved by the priesthood and deposited in books esteemed sacred. The literary works can be placed in their relative order, though the absence of all chronological dates from the time of the contact of the Indians with the Greeks (third century B.C.), down to the visits of the Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in the fourth and seventh centuries A.D., whose works have been translated into French by A. Remusat and Stanislas Julien,(1055) and the Mahometan histories, renders the determination of absolute dates impossible. The following are the dates approximately given for the chief works of Sanskrit literature. The _Vedas_, especially the oldest, date from B.C. 1200 to 600. The _Epic Poems_, the _Ramayana_ and _Mahabharata_, are perhaps of the third century B.C.; the laws of _Manu_, or more truly of the family which claimed descent from the mythical _Manu_, contain materials dating from several centuries B.C., but were put into their present form probably several centuries A.D.; the _Bhagavat Gita_, an episode in the _Mahabharata_ bearing traces of a Christian influence, dates some centuries A.D. The Hindu drama is perhaps subsequent to 500 A.D. The _Puranas_ carry on the literature to mediaeval times.
Several of the systems of philosophy were probably constructed anterior to the Christian era; but the date at which they were put into their present form is undetermined.
The earlier literature is regarded as the most valuable for the study of the growth of religious ideas and inst.i.tutions. The development or deterioration may be traced from the simple nature-worship of the _Vedas_, to the acc.u.mulation of legends which disgrace the modern creed. The causes which gave birth to mythology are no longer a matter of conjecture; the study of the Sanskrit language and literature having exhibited an historical instance of it. In this way the early Sanskrit literature becomes one of the most precious treasures to the mental philosopher who approaches his subject from the historical side.
The earliest _Veda_ is in course of publication by professor Max Muller.
It has been partly translated by the late professor H. H. Wilson, and wholly by Langlois. Mr. M. Muller has given the results of his studies of this early literature in his admirable work, the _History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature_, 1859; which is full of instruction for the philosopher who is inquiring concerning intellectual and religious history. Most of the other works named above have also been translated into European languages, viz. the _Epic Poems_,-the _Ramayana_, in Italian by Gorresio, and in French by H. Fauche, 1854; and _Episodes_ from the _Mahabharata_ by P. E. Foucaux, 1862;-also the _Laws of Manu_,(1056) in English by Sir W. Jones, and in French by A. Loiseleur Des-Lonchamps; the _Bhagavat Gita_ by Wilkins, 1809, the text of which was edited by Schlegel, 1823; the 2d ed. by C. La.s.sen, 1846. One of the _Puranas_ (the _Vishnu_) has been translated by Wilson; and part of the _Bhagavat_ by Burnouf, who has also edited the text.
Concerning the systems of Hindu philosophy; see Ritter"s _History of Philosophy_, E. T. vol. iv. b. xii. ch. v; Archer Butler"s _Lectures on Philosophy_, vol. i. p. 243 seq.; Colebrooke"s _Essays on the Philosophy of the Hindus_, 1837; _Aphorisms of Hindu Philosophy_, printed under the care of Dr. Ballantyne for the Benares government college; and Dr. R.
Williams"s _Christianity and Hinduism_, 1856. The work of the late archdeacon Hardwick, _Christ and other Masters_, also contains a brief account of three of the systems of philosophy, the _Vedanta_, founded on the sacred books, the _Sankhya_ or atheistic, and the _Yoga_ or mystic, together with a comparison of them with Christianity (part ii.). An explanation of a part of the _Nyaya_ or Logical Philosophy, is given by Max Muller in the Appendix to Dr. Thomson"s _Outlines of the Laws of Thought_, 3d ed.
On the system of thought in Buddhism, on which the study of the Pali has thrown light, consult E. Burnouf"s _Introduction a l"Histoire du Buddhisme Indien_; and Spence Hardy"s _Manual of Budhism_, 1853. Also archdeacon Hardwick"s work above named. The Hindu history, exhibiting its double movement, of philosophy on the one hand and of the Buddhist reformation on the other, has been thought to offer a distant a.n.a.logy to the mental history of Europe in the double movement of the scholastic philosophy and the reformation.
The celebrated works of C. La.s.sen, _Indische Alterthumskunde_, 1844-47, and A. Weber, _Indische Studien_, 1850, are well known as sources of information in reference to the general subject. Also Dr. J. Muir has lately published (1858) _Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and Progress of the Religion and Inst.i.tutions of India_. Several articles in reviews have appeared which contain much popular information; e.g. in the _North British Review_, Nov. 1858; _Westminster Review_, April 1860; _Edinburgh Review_, Oct. 1860. On the general subject of this note compare also Quinet, _uvres_, t. i. 1. 2, 3.
Note 4. p. 12. The Controversy Between Christians And Jews.
The history of the controversy of Christianity with Judaism is so connected in the writings of the early apologists with the contemporaneous one directed against Paganism, and in recent times so related in one of its aspects to rationalism, that these reasons seem sufficient, independently of the literary interest, to justify the insertion of a brief notice of it, and of the sources of information with respect to it.
The controversy with the Jew varies in different ages. We can distinguish three separate phases; (1) that which is seen in the early centuries, (2) in the middle ages, and early modern times, (3) the position which is taken up by the educated Jew at the present day. The sources for understanding the contest are, partly the Jewish writings, and partly those of Christians who have written against them.
1. In the early ages the controversy merely turned upon the question whether Jesus was the Christ. The Jews did not deny the fact of the Christian miracles, but explained them away; and the controversy accordingly turned on the interpretation of Jewish prophecy. This phase of the contest is seen in the New Testament, in the Apology of Justin Martyr against Trypho, to which a new kind of objection expressive of prejudice is added in the discourse which Celsus, as preserved in Origen (_Contr.
Cels._ b. i. and ii.), puts into the mouth of the Jew whom he introduces.
In reference to it, the commentators on these fathers, and especially Semisch"s work on Justin Martyr (translated), and the works on the Jewish Talmudic literature and philosophy, may be consulted. The contest is continued at intervals in treatises by inferior writers; an account of which may be found in the sources of information hereafter given, and in _Hagenbach"s Dogmengesch._ -- 144.
2. The second phase of the contest is seen in the middle ages, and in modern times till about 1700 A.D. It is marked by two lines of thought on the part of the Jewish writers; a system of defence of their own tenets by a method of scriptural interpretation; and the attack of calumny or of argument against Christianity. The former existed especially in Moorish Spain about the twelfth century, the golden age of Jewish literature. For a brief account of the theological literature of the Jewish nation at that time, and in the period which had intervened since the early ages, the writer may be permitted to refer to one of his own Sermons, and the references there given (_Science in Theology_, 1859, Sermon IV.); to which references add Beugnot"s _Les Juifs d"Occident_, 1820, and the new work of De Los Rios on _Spanish Literature_. The movement included both a philosophical side in Maimonides, and a critical in Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, &c.
The other movement, which was hostile to Christianity, was marked by a series of works, written by Jews for their own nation, and carefully hidden from the sight of Christians, probably for fear of persecution and suffering; which were given to the world by the learning of the foreign Hebrew scholars of the seventeenth century. The chief of these works are, the _Nizzachon Vetus_ of the twelfth century, first published in Wagenseil"s _Tela Ignea Satanae_, 1681. In the thirteenth, the _Disputatio Jechielis c.u.m Nicholao_, _Disputatio Nachmanidis c.u.m fratre Paolo_, and the celebrated _Toldos Jeschu_ or Jewish view of Christ"s life. About 1399 the Rabbin Lipmann wrote the second book _Nizzachon_, which was published by Hackspan, 1644; and also the _Carmen Memoriale_; and about 1580(1057) the Rabbin Isaac wrote the noted _Chissuk Emuna_, or _Munimen Fidei_. All these (with the exception of the second _Nizzachon_) are contained in Wagenseil. During the period one important defence of Christianity against the Jews appeared, the _Pugio Fidei_ by Raymund Martin, in Arragon, about 1278, which has been edited with an introduction by De Voisin 1651, and by Carpzov. Another defence was by Alphonso de Spina. _Fortalitium Fidei contra Judaeos, Saracenos_, 1487. In Eichhorn"s _Geschichte __ der Literatur_, vol. vi. 26, another treatise is named by a writer called Hieronymus, 1552.
During the period just considered the contest with the Jews was carried on chiefly in Spain, or the few Jewish settlements of Lithuania. Henceforth it is chiefly seen in Germany and Holland, where the learned Dutch and German theologians of the seventeenth century were brought into contact with them, or were attracted to the study of the controversy by an interest in the newly awakened taste for Hebrew learning. This age supplies works of great value in gaining a knowledge of Jewish literature, some of which will be named below, and a few treatises, such as, one by Micraelius (_De Messia_, 1647); a brief notice by Hoornbeek, _Summa Controv._ 1653 (p. 65); an unfinished treatise by Hulsius, _Theologia Judaica_, 1653; and one by Cocceius, _Jud. Respons. Consid._ 1662. The activity of the Jews is seen in the fact that an unfair attack by Bentz, 1614, was answered in the _Theriaca Judaica_ of the Jew Salomo Zebi, Hanover 1615, which again met with a Christian respondent in Wulferus, 1681. Also Limborch had a dispute with a Jew in his _Amica Collatio c.u.m Erudito Judaeo_ (Dr. Orobius), 1687. The controversy continued through the eighteenth century, probably outlasting its cause; for defences on the side of the Jews ceased. We meet with two works by Difenbach, _Judaeus Convertendus_, 1696, and _Judaeus Conversus_, 1709; Calvoer"s _Gloria Christi_, 1710; Mornaeus" _De Verit. Relig. Christianae_, 1707; and, in England, Bp. Kidder"s and Dr. Stanhope"s _Boyle Lectures_, the former of which was the basis of the treatise, _The Demonstration of the Messias_, 1700; and C. Leslie"s _Short Method with the Jews_. Catalogues of the writings, of which the above are the best known, may be found in J. A.
Fabricius"s _Biblioth. Graec._ (ed. 1715), vii. 125; and _De Verit. Relig.
Christianae_, 1725, ch. x.x.xi; and _Blasphemia Judaeorum_, Id. ch. x.x.xvii; Walch"s _Biblioth. Theol. Selecta_, vol. i. c. v. sect. 8. (1757); also in Bartollocci"s _Dictionary of Jewish Authors_, 1678, and Imbonati"s _Dictionary of Christian Writers_ concerning the Jews, 1694; and especially in Wolff"s _Biblioth. Hebr._, 1715, and De Rossi"s _Dizionario degli Autori Ebrei_, 1802. For information concerning sources of Jewish theology and literature, it is enough to cite Hottinger"s _Historia Orientalis_, Carpzov"s _Introductio_, and Owen"s _Prelim. Exercitationes_.
3. In the third phase of the controversy, viz. that which exists with the modern Jew, the controversy is a little changed. The old prejudices against Christianity are in a great degree made obsolete by the freedom of commercial intercourse, and the enjoyment of protection and civil liberty; and hence the contest takes two forms; either the continuation of the argument concerning the meaning of Jewish prophecy, or a discussion on the function of the Jewish religion in history. Sources for the former are found in the older books of evidence. A digest of the arguments concerning it is given in J. Fabricius (not the celebrated Fabricius), _Consideratio Variarum Controversiarum_, 1704, p. 41, and in Stapfer"s _Inst.i.tut.
Theolog. Polemic_, vol. iii. 1-288, 1752; or in the modern works, Greville Ewing"s _Essays addressed to the Jews_, and Dr. McCaul"s _Old Paths_, 1837, and his _Warburton Lectures_, 1846. The condition of Jewish life and thought may he seen in Allen"s _Modern Judaism_. The system of interpretation on which the controversy is conducted is either the ancient Messianic and allegorical of the Targums and Talmud, or the literal and grammatical introduced by the Spanish mediaeval commentators.(1058)
The other form of Jewish argument which Christians have to encounter is more novel, and, being confined to educated Jews, its influence is less wide, and does not actuate the stratum of Jewish life with which missionaries generally come into contact. It is based on modern rationalist speculations, and is seen in a work of Dr. Philippsohn, late rabbin at Magdeburg, _Development of the Religious Idea in Judaism, Christianity, and Mahometanism_, (translated both into English 1855, and also into French,) and in the writings of Salvador. Dr. Philippsohn regards the mission of Judaism to be, from first to last, to teach to the world the lesson of monotheism. He traces the struggle in the Jewish church between priestism and prophetism; and regards Christianity as an abnormal form of the latter, which has led the world away to Tritheism: and, so far from regarding the office of Judaism to be extinct, he considers that its mission is still to restore monotheism to the world. A comparison with the statement of the views of the Tubingen school in Lect.
VII. or the speculations of Mr. Mackay in Lect. VIII. will show how completely this argument is borrowed from the later forms of German historical criticism.
The views of Salvador in France (see p. 299) are too original to be regarded as typical of the views of a party. They reproduce the critical difficulties of Maimonides and Spinoza, which seem never to have found favour with the Jews; but the general similarity of the doctrinal part of Salvador"s system to that just described is very observable.
Note 5. p. 12. The Contest Of Christianity With Mahometanism.
The contest of Christianity with Mahometanism, so far as it has been a struggle of argument and not of the sword, offers few remarkable points.
In the first sweep of the Mahometan conquest, when the Christian nations succ.u.mbed both in the east and west, there was no field for a question of truth. It was only in Christian nations which were removed from peril, and yet sufficiently in contact to entertain the question of the claims of the Mahometan religion, that a consideration of its nature, regarded as a system of doctrine, could arise. Accordingly it is in Constantinople, or in Spain and the other parts of western Europe which came into connexion with the Moors, that works of this character appear.
The history may be conveniently arranged in three periods, each of which is marked by works of defence, some called forth by danger, a real demand, but subsiding into or connected with inquiries prompted only by literary tastes. The first is from the twelfth to the middle of the sixteenth century; the second during the seventeenth and eighteenth; the third during the present century.
1. A notice of the Mahometan religion exists in a work of J. Damascenus, in the eighth century; and Euthymius Zigabenus, a Byzantine writer of the twelfth: but the first important treatise written directly against it was in 1210, _Richardi Confutatio_, edited in 1543 by Bibliander from a Greek copy. The refutation of Averroes by Aquinas, about 1250, can hardly be quoted as an instance of a work against the Mahometan religion, being rather against its philosophy. A treatise exists by John Cantacuzene, written a little after 1350; which is to be explained probably by the circ.u.mstance that the danger from Mahometan powers in the east directed the attention of a literary man to the religion and inst.i.tutions which they professed. Thus far the works were called forth by a real demand.
A series of treatises however commences about the time of the expulsion of the Moors from Spain, the cause of the existence of which is not so easy of explanation. Such are those in Spain by Alphonso de Spina, 1487, and by Turrecremata (see Eichhorn"s _Gesch. der Lit._ vi.); by Nicholas de Cuza, published in 1543; in Italy about 1500 by Ludovicus Vives, and Volterra.n.u.s; one by Philip Melancthon in reference to the reading of the Koran; and a collection of treatises, including those of Richardus, Cantacuzene, Vives, and Melancthon, published by Bibliander in 1543.
Probably the first two of this list may have been the relic of the crusade of Christianity against the Moorish religion; the next two possibly were called forth by the interest excited in reference to Mahometans by reason of their conquests, or less probably by the influence of their philosophy at Padua (see Lect. III. p. 100 seq.). The two last are hardly to be explained, except by supposing them to be an offshoot of the Renaissance, and called forth by the largeness of literary taste and inquiry excited by that event.
2. When we pa.s.s into the seventeenth century, we find a series of treatises on the same subject, which must be explained by the cause just named, the newly acquired interest in Arabic and other eastern tongues. We meet however with others, called forth by the missionary exertions which had brought the Christians into contact with Mahometans in the east.
The treatise by Bleda, _Defensio Fidei Christianae_, 1610, stands alone, unconnected with any cause. It was partly a defence of the conduct of Christians towards the Mahometans. A real interest however belongs to the work of Guadagnoli in 1631. A catholic missionary, Hieronymo Xavier, had composed in 1596 a treatise in Persian against Mahometanism, in which the general principle of theism was laid down as opposed to the Mahometan doctrine of absorption; next the peculiar doctrines of Christianity stated; and lastly, a contrast drawn between the two religions. See Lee"s _Tracts on Christianity and Mahometanism_ (below, _pref._ p. 5 seq.).
This work was answered in 1621 by a Persian n.o.bleman named Ahmed Ibn Zain Elebidin. The line adopted by him was, (1) to show that the coming of Mahomet was predicted in the Old Testament (Hab. iii. 3); (2) to argue that Mahomet"s teaching was not more opposed to Christ"s than his was to that of Moses, and that therefore both ought to be admitted, or both rejected; (3) to point out critically the discrepancies in the Gospels; (4) to attack the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ"s deity. (Lee, _pref._ 41 seq.)
This work was answered (1631) by a treatise in Latin by P. Guadagnoli, dedicated to Pope Urban VIII. It is divided into four parts; (1) respecting the objections about the Trinity; (2) the Incarnation; (3) the authority of Scripture; (4) the claims of the Koran and of Mahomet. (Lee, _pref._ 108 seq. who also gives references (p. 113) to a few other writers, chiefly in the seventeenth century.)