66

or that Alyvos is now considered to be a Greek form of Kah-Ptah ;1 or that he is the second Vulcan of Cicero, "In Nilo natus Phthas, ut Ægyptii appellant quem custodem esse Ægypti volunt;"2 or of his affinity with the Pataikoi which the Phoenician mariners carried on the prows of their triremes. Again, when the goddess Neith is spoken of as being the female divinity of Lower Egypt, no mention is made of her representation by the Greeks as Athene. Plato, in the Timæus, speaking of Sais, says that it had a ruling deity, Αἰγυπτιστὶ μὲν τοὔνομα Νηΐθ, Ελληνιστὶ δὲ ὡς ὁ ἐκείνων λόγος Αθηνα.” (P. 21, E.) De Pressensé has endeavoured in a weak way to seize hold of the fact that there were certain well-defined periods and epochs in the development of Egyptian mythology and civilization; the marks of which transition can be found in those curious compound names, such as Ptah-Sokari-Osiris, which tell also of a religious struggle and of a religious compromise which had to be effected ere there could be any general amalgamation in the divinities. With regard to the noble myth of Isis and Osiris, which forms the consolidation of all the Egyptian mythology, the wicked god Typhon who slays Osiris, and who is conquered by Horus the son of Isis, is by far the most difficult personage to trace out completely. At first he was known as Set, Seti, or Sutech, and in modern times, through the reading of an inscription by Lepsius, he has been identified with the Phoenician Bel or Baal, a connection which may find some countenance in the Baal-Zephon mentioned in Exodus and Numbers; represented, as he was, by a human form, surmounted by the head of an animal held in detestation by the ancient Egyptians; such as an ass, or a crocodile, or a hippopotamus, or a bear. On the ancient worship of the Egyptians De Pressensé is silent; yet Apis and Serapis play no inconspicuous part in the popular worship. A more important matter now claims our notice. In a long section upon Judaism, occupying no inconsiderable portion of his book, Dr. de Pressensé merely remarks upon the common elements which Judaism shared with all the other religions which were parallel with it in point of timesacrifice-sacerdotalism-temple worship and festivals. Of Judaism, he says (p. 193), "It passed through Egypt before it was definitely constituted under Moses." But was there indeed no other and nearer connection between the Hebrew and Egyptian systems? Are there no other points of similarity which, according to his own principles, ought surely to be mentioned in ever so cursory a review of the "Religions before CHRIST ?" Whichever way the subject be turned over, there must have been a real influence exerted by Egypt upon the minds of the Hebrews. We know that it was so, in the case of Abraham. Moses, too, was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. It is a rule that a small people dwelling amidst a larger do receive very strong external 1 Uhlemann, Ægypt. Alt. f. 11, 12.

2 De Nat. Deor. iii. 55.

impressions; indeed, the Hebrews were as nothing in comparison of the Egyptians, amongst whom they dwelt; an old-established and complete organization would be brought to bear upon them; they could but be disciples, not teachers, while they sojourned in the land of Goshen. A modern writer has thus hypothetically put the

case:

"If many of the oldest Greek Philosophers, as Thales, or Pythagoras, or Plato, who had sojourned here a shorter period, could return exulting from the land of Egypt laden with a rich variety of intellectual spoils; if through their visits many a germ of mathematical science, and the outlines of a purer system of ethics and theology were rescued from comparative oblivion; if the principle of distributing their pupils into outer and inner classes, an enlarged conception of the grandeur of the universe, or a more fascinating sort of dogmas such as that of transmigration and the like, had all been widely spread along the shores of the Mediterranean: why should not the foster-child of Pharaoh's daughter have been equally imbued with reverence for ideas and institutions of his adopted country, or at least induced to tolerate in what to lofty spirits like his own may have been radiant with the light of true philosophy?"

The same writer shows that all this will not hold good, that God had given to the Hebrew a genius and nationality distinctive, separative, incapable of compromise, impatient of amalgamation, and which seemed to be supernatural in the vitality which it exhibited under the most crushing circumstances. It must be admitted that Moses was a prophet divinely taught and inspired, yet God did permit him to assimilate under altered circumstances some of those primary notions which underlay every system of pagan belief. We will notice a few points in which the Jewish and Egyptian agree. Abraham heard of circumcision when he sojourned in the land of Egypt, for Herodotus says, "The Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians are the only nations of the world who have practised circumcision from the first." (Lib. ii. § 104.) Diodorus tells us that the Troglodytes used it as well: lastly, the passage in Joshua v. 9, is taken to mean that "the reproach of Egypt" was the lack of circumcision. GOD invested this rite with a new and peculiar force-like our Blessed LORD, by His baptism in the Jordan, consecrated for ever the "laver of regeneration." Again, the Egyptian Sphinx has been compared with Hebrew cherubim. The andro-sphinx, with the head of a man and the body of a lion, symbolizing wisdom and intelligence with courage and force, might embody that same fundamental of life which the Prophet Ezekiel attributes to the Cherubim, for they were not mere guards and watchers. To the Egyptian they were tutelary deities, to the Hebrew, God's own representatives of man before His throne of mercy and of glory. Another resemblance occurs between the temple of the Egyptian and the holy and most holy place of the

Jew. According to Uhlemann there was "a most holy region" in all the Egyptian temples, a sacred shrine or adytum, secreted from the popular gaze by a mysterious curtain; yet how different was the presence there enshrined as contemplated by the Hebrew and the Egyptian. The former felt that a peculiar presence of the Most High was located behind that shrine, the latter saw one of the lowest forms of his degrading idolatry. The Hebrew Urim and Thummim had an external counterpart in that small image of Thmei, the goddess of truth and justice, which the chief judge wore attached to a chain of gold round his neck, when deciding important cases, a figure of impartial justice and truth and discrimination, the attributes of which led doubtless the LXX to translate these words as the δήλωσις καὶ ἀλήθεια.

The red heifer furnishes us with another parallel, for red was the Typhonic colour; it represented the deadly, scathing, fierce disposition of this evil monster; it came home to the Hebrew either as an image of unpardoned sin or "as a remembrancer of moral evil flowing out into its penal consequences." Between the scape-goat of the Jew and the old Egyptian imprecations upon the head of the slain animal which Herodotus records (ii. 39) many minor points of resemblance exist, which all converge into the one idea of a vicarious sacrifice, the innocent bearing the punishment which was due to the sinner for his transgression. When we come to notice the doctrine which was associated and expounded by these respective rituals, then all correspondence ceases. Pritchard has truly observed, "with respect to theology no two systems can be more directly opposed to each other than the Mosaic doctrine was to that of the Egyptian." At every point we meet with a direct antagonism; the way in which the Hebrew prophet regarded these things is one great and convincing proof how alien was the spirit that each system possessed. The visions of the Prophet Ezekiel, in which he associates the degradation of God's chosen people with many forms of the Egyptian mythology, form by no means an unauthoritative commentary upon the use that the Jew made of these ancient ingredients in the old pagan systems. We think that De Pressensé has done wrong in omitting as he does all notice of the parallelisms of which mention has just been made.

Of the Persian religion, and of the dualistic antagonism of the principles worshipped under the names of Ormuz and Ahriman, a very fair summary has been drawn up. We agree with De Pressensé's opinion that Zoroaster, in compiling the Zendavesta, did but reduce to order the confused myths already in existence. Bournouf's commentary upon the Yacna, a liturgical book, forming a most ancient part of the Avesta, places our knowledge of the Zoroastrian creed upon most exact data. The religion of the Egyptian was for the most part sacerdotal, that of the Persian is more regal. The

1 Egypt. Myth., p. 406.

mythology of Egypt is the basis of its structure; this shrinks into insignificance with the Persian; he cares little for mythology, with him history is all in all. The Vendidad Sade, another of the Persian sacred books, contains many allusions to the doctrine of a future state; the Tshinavat, or bridge of retribution, has to be crossed ere Paradise be attained. Dr. De Pressensé gives in the following words an excellent summary of the whole bearings of the Persian faith.

"If we judge it as a whole, it appears far superior to all preceding forms of worship. It impelled to action, to energy, to progress; it looked on life as a combat and a field of ennobling labour; it sanctified the sweat of the labourer and the life of the family. The gods it adored were the beneficent gods, the champions of light and goodness. Still dualism prevails. The creation was held to be an emanation from Ormuz, and by virtue of this claims our worship. The moral world was not distinguished from the material. The pollution of the soul is identified with the pollution of the body; falsehood is ranked with an involuntary contact with a dead body; presumption is to be cured like a fever. Light is not merely a symbol of holiness, but an integral part as much as chastity and integrity. The darkness of night and the cold of winter are as much manifestations of evil as are moral impurity and dishonesty. The religious law of the Persians is a mixture of material rules and moral ordinances. The ablution of the body is mixed up with the sanctification of the soul, and a fine field of wheat is as pleasing in the sight of Ormuz as is a purified heart. Conscience has not yet conquered its entire domain, but it is advancing towards it; for between the worship of Baal and the worship of Ormuz the distance is great and the progress is real."-P. 44.

The section of this book upon the Indian religion, constitutes in our opinion, the best portion of the entire work; the subject is a very difficult one to handle accurately, and De Pressensé has been at considerable pains to give his readers as correct a notion of its teaching, as his limited space allowed to do. The sketch opens with a geographical notice of the country. "The land where gold abounds, and where, under the shadow of gigantic trees, gigantic animals have their haunts." In the lands watered by the Indus, dwelt the people who sang many of the hymns of the Rig Veda, some 1,300 years before our era. They have a long history before they migrated to the valley of the Ganges. A simple people, bright and militant, they adored the swift winds and the two first rays of the morning, twin-brothers, they said, that they were, who traversed heaven on a rapid car, scattering fecundity and life as they went on. "Their hymns breathe a simple, joyous pantheism, fire, water, earth, heaven, the dawn, plants, rivers, holy libations-all are deified and celebrated in poetry, at once monotonous and brilliant, but singularly expressive and fresh." P. 46. Fire was deified by them as a winged thing, a trembling nursling, a golden bird 2 F

VOL. XXIV.

that rests upon our earth. Water was the pure and the loved, giving sweet dew, and filling our cups. When entering at a subsequent period the forests of the valley of the Ganges, with their thick foliage and domy roof which obscured so much of the sky, they pictured themselves as coming to worship the majesty of nature in a glorious temple of her own construction. Their religion, in its early form, bore the stamp of pantheism, but a simple, child-like pantheism, deifying what was admired or feared. Their personifications had in them something floating and indefinite—transparent symbols of the different aspects of the countries they passed through.-P. 47. De Pressensé, after a slight notice of the Rig Veda, the oldest of all their sacred poetry, details the leading features of Brahminism, as contained in the Laws of Nanou, of which he gives a brief analysis. The Sankya and the Mimansa are just glanced at, and then a short account of Buddhism follows, which is founded upon Bournouf's essay upon that religion, whose origin, he says, goes back to six centuries before CHRIST, itself being a legitimate offspring of Brahminism, its heir and conqueror-less a revolution than an evolution. It is a system of annihilation, and it lays down that as suffering exists, as it is the lot of all who come into the world, so we must rid ourselves of it, and this can only be done by that science which destroys sensation-a quietism rejecting all thought and all self-consciousness, which is named Nirvana. Thus it is spoken of, "The terrible night of error is dissipated from my soul; the sun of science is gone; the gates of suffering are closed. I have reached the opposite shore, the celestial shore of Nirvana." P. 55. The underlying dogma of the Brahmin was not annihilation, but emanation, all things were held to be imperfect, as being in a state of flux and reflux, while to every thing there was a certain centre of unity, an original essence, upon their nearness to which their relative perfection depended. Brahma, Seva and Vischnou or Krishna, were the three great powers in the Hindoo Trinity; the latter was man's saviour and succourer, to whose level he descended; he took many forms. Dr. de Pressensé is quite right in saying that "nothing can be more absurd than to compare his incarnation with that of CHRIST; they are by their multiplicity alone tinctured with the pantheistic idea; the human personality is destitute of reality since it is taken up and laid down as a veil or mask with which the divinity invested himself for a moment." P. 61. Amongst the apparent affinities that Hinduism has with Christianity, may be mentioned its monotheism ; its avaturas or incarnations, as those of Krishna, its statements of a trinity, as the trimuriti and others. But because these coincidences are apparent and not real, it does not follow that other connections, deep and important, cannot be perceived between the two systems. Professor Wilson wrote, "It is not difficult to detect through all their (the Hindoo) embellishments and corruptions, the tradition