Ancient Faiths And Modern Part 19

800; and if any captive Hebrews came back from Grecia (see Joel iii. 6), we believe that they would naturally bring back with them much of the h.e.l.lenic lore of their conquerors. The reader must not be carried away here with the once popular notion that everything which was found in heathendom, which resembled something biblical or Jewish, came of necessity from scriptural or Israelitish sources. The reverse is much more likely, for the Hebrews in old times are described by their historians and preachers as hankering after novelty--"going whoring after other G.o.ds," as the Bible has it. They, on the other hand, were encouraged to keep themselves aloof from others, and were never a missionary nation; nor, had they been so, were they sufficiently honourable or wealthy, as a race, ever to command respect. They were, indeed, generally despised by the people round about them, who would no more think of adopting Jewish fables than we should care to learn theology and cosmogony from African negroes.

If we endeavour to reduce Grecian mythology to its simplest expression, we find that it consisted of a belief in a creator--grand beyond conception, and one whom the mind could not conceive, nor pencil nor the chisel depict. Under him there was thought to be a host of minor deities, who agreed, more or less, amongst themselves, each having a particular department of creation to preside over, or a definite function to perform. Jupiter, for example, had the air and the heavens generally under his management; Neptune superintended the sea; Rhea, or Gaia, or Gee, was the G.o.ddess of the surface of the earth; and Pluto had the management of the interior of the globe and of those who were buried therein. If corpses were unburied, they did not come under his immediate cognizance. Then, as it was quite possible that one deity might be counteracting another, as, indeed, they are represented to have done during the Trojan war, another G.o.d was necessary to be a medium of communication between the others, and Mercury became the messenger, or go-between.

Below the major G.o.ds was an infinity of smaller ones, who presided over physical and moral matters. There were, for example, wood and tree nymphs; Dryads and hamadryads--G.o.ds of rivers, such as Simois and Scamander. Pan presided over husbandmen; Hermes, over thieves, &c.

Others, like Eros, fulfilled the duty of bringing the s.e.xes together.

Hymen secured them in marriage, and Venus had the duty of insuring connubial happiness, whilst Lucina's business was to bring the offspring of the marriage into the world--with as little pain or danger as possible. Then, again, Fortune brought good luck. The "furies" brought evil, and the "fates" ruled the destiny of mortals.

Against some of these G.o.ds others rebelled. For example, there were the t.i.tans, the sons of Heaven and Earth (Caelus et Terra), who were all of gigantic stature, and may be said to be identical with the giants spoken of in Gen. vi. 2-4, as being the offspring of the sons of G.o.d and the daughters of men. These t.i.tans were much disliked by their father, and confined in the bowels of the earth, or, as we should say, in h.e.l.l; but their mother relieved them, and they in turn revenged themselves upon their progenitor. When Jupiter succeeded to Cronos or Saturn, the giants, the sons of Tartarus and Terra, or h.e.l.l and Earth, united with their half-brothers, the t.i.tans, and attacked Olympus, and its G.o.ds, in dismay, a.s.sumed disguises and fled into Egypt--a rare spot, whence also came as history tells us, the founder of Christianity and the doctrine of the Trinity. To regain his position, Jupiter found a man--a son of his own--whom he had begotten by lying three nights in the heart of the earth, or, as the fable has it, in the arms of Alcmena--Hercules by name, to attack the allied monsters, and thus with the aid of a mortal the G.o.ds became victorious. Just as in more modern days the divine mission and position of Jesus of Nazareth and Mahomet of Mecca, have been determined by the arms of human warriors. The power of men in heaven is wonderful, considering how great is their weakness upon earth!

It is probable, that to the Greeks, Milton owed his ideas of _Paradise Lost_.

According to the ordinary ideas of angels, the G.o.ds, demiG.o.ds, G.o.ddesses, genii, and the like, were essentially the same amongst the Hebrews as the archangels and inferior hierarchy are in modern christian mythology. We shall the more readily see this if we inquire into the ideas of the Greeks respecting _demons_. "The latter were regarded as spirits which presided over the actions of mankind, and watched over their secret intentions." Many Greek theologians thought that each man had two, the one good, the other bad. These sprites could change themselves into any form, and at death the individual was delivered up to judgment by these companions, who testified to his actions during life. Socrates often spoke of his own peculiar "spirit." Not only were these creatures supposed to influence men, but they were also believed to guard places, and a genius loci was the same as the G.o.d of Ekron, or any other locality.

It is almost impossible for a thoughtful man not to compare with the Greek ideas those held by moderns. We hear in familiar discourse, and read in popular books, about a good angel and a bad one. G.o.d is said to use both (see Ps. lxxviii. 49, and 1 Kings xxii. 21, 22.) Many, too, of the readers of Sterne will remember the remarks which he makes about a recording angel who was obliged to register an oath, but who contrived to blot out the entry with a tear (com. Mal. iii. 16.) As we have already adverted to the belief of Jesus that every child had an angel, who is always in the presence of. G.o.d, we need not remark again upon the matter.

But though the Grecian G.o.ds and demiG.o.ds were the counterparts of the archangels and lesser powers of the Jews and Christians, they were not pictorially depicted, as they were in other places, like winged men or other creatures.

Arn.o.bius, for example, in _Advenus genies_, when writing about the divinities of the heathen, remarks, that they are so like ordinary men and women, that the artist has to resort to some contrivance to show that any offspring of his brush, or of his chisel, is a G.o.d or G.o.ddess.

A painter, he observes, will select the finest young women he can discover--or the handsomest prost.i.tute in his country, and from one maiden, or from the collective charms of many, will paint a lovely woman and style her Venus; yet she is only a courtezan after all. His remark is a certainly true one. Jupiter is never represented otherwise than as a man, nor does Minerva ever figure except as a woman. None of the greater G.o.ds of h.e.l.las are winged like the tutelar G.o.ds of the a.s.syrians and Persians were. Even Hermes, though he does bear pinions, does not carry them in the usual form. Instead of having powerful wings behind his arms, like the Gabriel or Michael of Christian mythology, he has little nippers attached to each side of a cap, of a pair of socks, and of a curiously-shaped wand--all of which he can put off when he pleases, or don when he is sent with a message. Jupiter's thunders bear similar wings. But such minor deities, or devils, as Eros or love; Hymen or marriage; Fame, or victory; Aurora, or day-break; the winds, the Genii, the Gorgons, the Furies, the Harpies, Iris, Isis, Hebe, Psyche, and even Pegasus--a wondrous horse, are winged with pinions which resemble those of the eagle.

If we now pause for a moment to compare one thing with another, we readily see that Hymen may fairly be described as the angel of the covenant of marriage, and that Mercury is identical with Raphael. The "genius loci," the "dryad" or "hamadryad," is the counterpart of the cherubim guarding the ark and the mercyseat of the Jewish temple. Apollo is the angel in the sun (Rev. xix. 17.) Neptune is "the angel of the waters" (Rev. xvi. 5.) Nay, we may--indeed we must go further, and affirm that either the angel Gabriel, or "the power of the Highest," which, we are told in Luke i. 26, 35, overshadowed Mary, the espoused wife of Joseph, is a perfect counterpart of the h.e.l.lenic Jupiter who overshadowed Alcmena.

Both produced a being equally celebrated--for we may fairly a.s.sert that Hercules was believed in by as many individuals as have faith in Jesus.

For ourselves, we do not credit the myth of the h.e.l.lenists; of the very existence of a Hercules we are profoundly incredulous. Yet we do not doubt for a moment that Jesus of Nazareth lived as a man upon this earth, and founded, with the subsequent a.s.sistance of Paul, the religion which is called Christian. But of the supernatural conception of Mary and of her impregnation by a deity we are intensely sceptical.

Of the theology of the Romans in the times prior to, and somewhat subsequent to, our era, we need say little. It resembled both the Etruscan and the Greek at the first, and subsequently it was modified by the Egyptian and by the Persian. But it was in Rome, whilst pagan, that the present pictorial type of angels was perfected (see Plates ix. to xiii, Lajard's _Culte de Venus_), in which allegorical figures, from old Roman bas-reliefs, precisely like modern angels, are represented killing the Mithraic bull. I may also add, in pa.s.sing, that the crozier borne by Romanist bishops is a reproduction of the Etruscan _lituus_, the augurs'

or diviners' staff of office.

The Roman nation, like the Papist and Peruvian religions, was omnivorous, and not only venerated the old G.o.ds of the soil, but adopted new divinities eagerly. Whoever chose to import a new deity, and a novel style of worship was hailed, patronized and enriched, much in the same way as at London during recent times, Mesmerists, "spirit rappers,"

"cord-conjurors," clairvoyants, male and female, spiritualists like Home, very High Churchmen, and many other cla.s.ses of a similar stamp have been encouraged. As in Athens, we are told that "the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing" (Acts xvii), no matter whether the novelty was religious or otherwise, so it has been elsewhere. London really, and Rome metaphorically are constantly adopting new ideas, some highly commendable and philosophical, others quite the reverse. Amongst the latter, we may mention that which professes that a certain man can, like Jesus is said to have done, heal by a touch. This a.s.sertion, however, is only spa.r.s.ely credited on the Thames. Far more general is the belief which professes, that an Ec.u.menical Council can by a vote make one man and his official successors "infallible."

We cannot pa.s.s by this subject without remarking that instability in religion is evidence of infidelity; and the adoption of new tenets is a proof of the low estimation in which old ones have been held. Even the new, or Christian dispensation, as it is called, is founded upon the insufficiency of the old or Jewish covenant, which, by those who adopt the one, is a confession that they believe the other was imperfect and therefore not of G.o.d. Consequently, when we find a "church," like the Roman, habitually patching its old clothes, we conclude that its leaders are dissatisfied with them and desire better. A lover who finds his mistress perfect neither seeks nor wishes to change her for another; nor endeavours to induce her to modify her attire until he is dissatisfied therewith. When he insists upon an alteration it is because his ardent love has faded. The philosopher may see clearly why certain prelates desire to have some infallible man to appeal to--for it is easier to find out the opinion of one individual than to harmonize the contradictory hypotheses of fifty dogmatical or authoritative writers.

Yet the same man will not fail to see that such a proceeding, whilst it strengthens the hold of the church upon the weak-minded, cuts it adrift from the strong. The policy is not altogether bad, for it seeks to bind closer those who, whilst wearing the chains of captivity, regard them as ornaments. But all those who adopt such tactics ought, boldly and unequivocally, to withdraw from the rank of truth-seekers, and of envoys of that G.o.d who is not "the author of confusion but of peace."

We may now proceed to the consideration of the angelic mythology of the Old and New Testaments. In our inquiry we shall endeavour to arrive at the ideas contained in the words which are used, and not content ourselves with simple quotation. There is strong reason to believe that Christians in general rarely examine into the real signification of words which they are taught to use, or which, from some fancy or other, they commit to memory. They imagine--if they think on the subject at all--that to repeat a text or a creed is to perform an act of faith, which, in itself, is praiseworthy and a good work. Such do not, in any appreciable degree, differ from the Thibetans, described by the Abbe Hue, who perform their devotions by turning round upon their axles certain cylinders, upon which some prayers are engraved. Not only these Asiatics, but Europeans of large mental calibre are often contented with vague ideas; and when they are challenged to support "the faith which is in them," show that they have never yet examined it. If, for example, they are asked how they can believe in the truth of such pa.s.sages, "I have seen G.o.d (Kohim) face to face" (Gen. x.x.xii. 30); "The Lord (Jehovah) spake unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend" (Exod. x.x.xiii. 11); "Moses whom the Lord knew face to face"

(Deut. x.x.xiv. 10), and the opposite one, "Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live" (Exod. x.x.xiii. 20)--the sole reply rendered is that the first pa.s.sages are figurative, pa.s.sing by entirely the comparison in the second, which a.s.serts that G.o.d talked with Moses as one friend with another.

As a farther ill.u.s.tration of my meaning, I may point to the glibness with which Christians talk, sing, and listen to discourses about blood.

If people really gave heed to what they chant, and to the words of their ministers, they would really be puzzled to find a distinction between the G.o.d whom they worship and that idol deity of Mexico, which called constantly for the hearts and the blood of his worshippers. "Without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. ix. 22) is a dogma that puts the Europeans' G.o.d on the same level as the deities worshipped in pagan Africa, New Zealand, and by the Anthropophagi generally.

In like manner, if ordinary people are asked to reconcile such pa.s.sages as the following--"Who maketh his angels spirits;" "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have" (Luke xxiv. 39)--with a host of others, in which angels are said to have appeared, talked, and acted like men, they allege that "much of the phraseology of the Bible is metaphorical." But if it be granted that the language is metaphorical, must we not equally believe that the facts referred to are mythical; and if so, how much of the so-called inspired book can we trust? If metaphor and figure-imagery are cities of refuge for theologians, those who fly to them must remember, that there they must remain and live therein all their days; they cannot be citizens of the world, and yet never leave their asylum: if, for them, facts are fictions, by parity of reason fictions are facts.

If, when an individual, said to be a prophet, and, as such, the mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost or of Jehovah, tells us that he saw and talked with an angel, who imparted to him such and such information, we are bound either to believe the whole statement or to reject it as valueless, _quoad_ revelation. If the man did see an angel, and that angel spoke, it must have been material; and if material, it could not be a spirit, and if not a spirit, it was not an angel.* If to this it be answered that individuals do see what they deem to be spirits--just as many a drunken man avers that he sees "blue devils," we grant it at once. We go still farther, and state that we know individuals in full possession, apparently, of all their senses, who see, occasionally, men, women, horses, dogs, and other things, which have no more existence than the figures which appear to us in dreams. Such men not only see imaginary beings, but they hear conversations or speeches which have no reality in them. But we cannot for a moment allow that such delusions of the senses are sterling, and such utterances, messages from the Almighty delivered by angels. To be logical, therefore, the theologian must either accept the stories told in the Bible about angelic beings as literally true, to the exclusion of all metaphor, or believe that every thing tainted by such celestial mythology is entirely of human invention.

* The authority for this is Ps. civ. 4; Heb. L 7, 14,--"Who maketh his angels spirits;" "Are they not all ministering spirits?"

As an ill.u.s.tration, let us consider two episodes in the history of Elisha. We find in 2 Kings ii. 11, that a chariot of fire and horses of fire, appeared to this prophet, and parted him from Elijah, with whom he was walking, and carried the latter away into heaven; and we see in 2 Kings vi. 17, that Elisha's servant could really see a mult.i.tude of chariots and horses of fire round about his master. We must also remember that "the chariots of the Lord are thousands of angels"

(Ps. lxviii. 17; see also Ps. x.x.xiv. 7.) Now these were, or were not, realities--if the chariots and hors.e.m.e.n existed, then we infer that some sort of stables and ostlers exist in heaven; if none such exist, then the chariots and horses could neither have been seen, nor have separated the two prophets.

It may be urged that supernatural beings do exist for those who can see them, and for no other; just as the angel was seen by Balaam's a.s.s thrice (see Numbers xxii. 22-33) before he was recognized by her master.

But this observation is worthless, for it amounts to nothing more than this--viz., that the persons seen in dreams exist for the dreamers and for no one else; but it in no way proves the reality of the a.s.serted apparition.

It would be as useless to discuss, at this point, the actuality of what are called "spectres," as of other things named fairies, pixies, gnomes, or sprites. Of the existence of such there is abundance of evidence; and for hundreds of years there was not a human being who did not believe in them. But there was even stronger proof that the world stood still, and the sun went round it, and during untold centuries all who thought on the matter believed the statement. Yet in these days all the testimony is regarded as worthless in the presence of the stern facts of science; and ghosts are only believed in by such as write treatises upon squaring the circle, perpetual motion, and the plane figure of the earth. We shall take up the subject at length in our next chapter.

If we were to follow the bent of our inclination, we should now endeavour to prove that the Jews had no idea of an angelic mythology prior to the Babylonian captivity, and that they had no distinct literature prior to the Grecian and Edomite captivity referred to in Joel, Amos, Obadiah, and Micah, except possibly such records and written laws as may be styled "annals" or "year-books;" and, as a consequence, that all parts of the Old Testament in which angelic beings figure are comparatively modern, having been fabricated after the long sojourn of the Jews in Babylon. But to carry out this intention would require a treatise rather than an essay, and I must content myself with saying that I believe it to be affirmed by all Hebrew scholars, that up to the time of Nebuchadnezzar--or Hezekiah--the sole unseen power recognized by the Jews was Jehovah alone. They did not believe either in angel or devil What their ideas were we may shortly describe*:--

* Long after the remark in the text was written, and long before it was in type, Dr. Kalisch, in his second part of a commentary on Leviticus, published his views upon the point referred to. When I can refer my readers to so masterly a composition as his essay upon Angels in the Jewish theology, it is seedless for me to say much on the subject. I may also refer those who are interested in the matter to a work ent.i.tled _The Devil: his Origin, Greatness, and Decadence_ (Williams & Norgate, London, 1871--small 8vo., pp. 72). My essay supplements these, and in no way clash therewith.

1. Angels were spirits, being also ministers (Heb. L 7.) They were a flaming fire (Ps. civ. 4); compare Jud. xiii. 20, and Acts vii. 35--that is, spirits are made of a combustible material which is, however, incombustible!

2. They could a.s.sume the form of men, and were identical with G.o.d (see Gen. xviii. 19; Tobit, and Luke i.): that is to say, they were masters, yet servants--the sender and the sent at the same time!

3. Their faces were terrible (Jud. xiii. 6); but they also shone (Acts vi. 15) and yet they were so good-looking and handsome that the Sodomites fell in love with them as Jupiter did with Ganymede (Gen. xix).

4 One was the superintendent of destruction, and was visible on one occasion to David (2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 17), to Oman, his sons, and to the elders of Israel (1 Chron. xxi. 16-20.) His weapon was a sword (_ibid._) He certainly must have had flesh and bones. It would be an interesting matter to inquire whether the sword was as spiritual as the angel was.

5. One angel was outwitted by a donkey (see Numb. xxii. 22-33.) Yet this angel was G.o.d (comp. Numb. xxii. 35, and xxiv. 4, 15,16). It is marvellous to me how any one can read this history of Balaam and his a.s.s, and notice how the animal turned G.o.d from His purpose (see chap, xxii. 33), and yet believe the story to be of _divine_ origin!

6. They are made of light (Luke ii. 9), yet can talk the vernacular, and can be counterfeited by Satan (2 Cor. xi. 14); but how he manages it, and whether he then ceases to be a roaring lion or a fallen angel "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day"

(Jude 6), is a matter for surmise.

7. One of them fought with the Devil, and kept his temper (Jude 9.) Of the language used in the disputation we do not know; nor can we tell how the two recognized each other.

8. Some of them are guilty of folly (Job. iv. 18), and some sinned--how, one does not know--and were cast down to h.e.l.l, and delivered into chains of darkness. It is fitting that beings who have no flesh and bones should be bound by fetters that have no reality (2 Peter ii. 4).

9. Some were discontented with their home and were punished (Jude 6); but where their original habitation was, or why it was regarded as so miserable that another place was desired, is a mystery.

10. They have food provided for them (Ps. lxxviii. 25), and they eat like men (Gen. xviii. 8; and xix. 3), consequently angels must have flesh, blood, and a stomach to digest victuals. Sometimes instead of eating food they order it to be burned, and the smoke from the viands serves as a vehicle to heaven (Jud. xiii. 19, 20).

11. Their number is twenty thousand (Ps. lxviii. 17).

12. They are chariots (_ibid_), yet they walk and get their feet dusty (Gen. xviii. and xix. 2; compare Jud. ii. 1; vi. 12); the chariots are of fire, and so are the horses (2 Kings vi. 17); but they are also clouds (Ps. civ. 3).

13. They are taught military discipline and arranged in "legions" (Matt xxvi. 53).

14. They are s.e.xless (Mark xii. 25), yet were men when they appeared to Abraham, Sarah, and the Sodomites (Gen. xviii, xix.).

15. They are liable to do wrong, and will be judged by men, some time or other (1 Oor. vi. 2, 3). As in this pa.s.sage the angels are put below the saints, and in Gen. xviii. and xix., it is clear that Elohim and Jehovah were angels, it follows that holy men, when raised, will be superior to the power that gave them heaven!

16. Though s.e.xless, the angels, or sons of G.o.d, may be captivated by the beauty of woman, and engender giants with them in a very human fashion (Gen. vi).

17. They are very sensitive respecting the hair of women, and require it to be covered in worship--at other times they probably are not so particular. Although they minister upon those who are heirs of salvation (Heb. i. 14), they might be tempted from their business, if they were to see a pretty snood in golden tresses hid (1 Cor. xi. 10).

18. Every child has an angel, or rather angels, to look after it (Matt, xviii. 10), which leads to the belief that the number of angels has increased since the sixty-eighth Psalm was written, when there were only 20,000, and perhaps a few more.*

* The words of the christian father, Tertullian, upon this subject are so very apposite to our subject of angels, that I am tempted to quote them--Clark's edition, vol. i. p. 487- 8.

Speaking to the heathens, he says--"And you are not content to a.s.sert the divinity of such as were once known to you, whom you heard and handled, and whose portraits have been painted, and actions recounted, and memory retained amongst you; but men insist upon consecrating with a heavenly life, i.e.t they insist on deifying, I know not what incorporeal inanimate shadows and the names of things, dividing man's entire existence amongst separate powers, even from his conception in the womb, so that there is a G.o.d (read _angel_) Consevius, to preside over concubital generation, and Fluviona to preserve the infant in the womb; after these come Vitumnus and Sentinus through whom the babe begins to have life and its earliest sensation; then Diespiter, by whose office the child accomplishes its birth. But when women begin their parturition Candelifera also comes in aid, since child-bearing requires the light of the candle; and other G.o.ddesses there are (such as Lucina, Partula, Nona, Decima, and Alemona) who get their names from the parts they bear in the stages of travail There were two Carmentas likewise, according to the general view. To one of them, called Postverta, belonged the function of a.s.sisting the birth of the malpresented child; whilst the other, Prosa or Prorso, executed the like office for the rightly born. The G.o.d Farinus was so called from his inspiring the first utterance, whilst others believed in Locutius from his gift of speech. Cunina is present as the protector of the child's deep slumber, and supplies to it refreshing rest. To lift them when fallen there is Levana, and along with her Rumina (from the old word _ruma_, a teat). It is a wonderful oversight that no G.o.ds were appointed for clearing up the filth of children. Then to preside over their first pap and earliest drink you have Potina and Edula; to teach the child to stand erect is the work of Statina (or Statilinus), whilst Adeona helps him to come to dear mamma-, and Abeona to toddle back again. Then there is Domiduca, to bring home the bride, and the G.o.ddess Mens, to influence the mind to either good or evil. They have likewise Volumnus and Voleta, to control the will; Paventina, the G.o.ddess of fear; Venilia, of hope; Volnpia, of pleasure; Praast.i.tia, of beauty. Then, again, they give his name to Peragenor, from his teaching men to go through their work; to Consus, from his suggesting to them counsel. Juventa is their guide on a.s.suming the manly gown, and 'bearded Fortune,' when they come to full manhood. If I must touch on their nuptial duties, there is Afferenda, whose appointed function is to see to the offering of the dower. But fie on you--you have your Mutunus, and Tutunus, and Pertunda, and Subigus, and the G.o.ddess Prema, and likewise Perfica. O spare yourselves, ye impudent G.o.ds."

19. Some angels are evil, but are much the same as the good (Ps. lxxviii 49), in their power of doing mischief.