the evolution of theology-第12章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



this　line　of　development　may　be　followed　out　until　it　attains

its　acme　in　the　State…theology　of　China　and　the　Kami…

theology　of　Japan。　Each　of　these　is　essentially　ancestor…

worship；　the　ancestors　being　reckoned　back　through　family

groups；　of　higher　and　higher　order；　sometimes　with　strict

reference　to　the　principle　of　agnation；　as　in　old　Rome；　and；　as

in　the　latter；　it　is　intimately　bound　up　with　the　whole

organisation　of　the　State。　There　are　no　idols；　inscribed　tablets

in　China；　and　strips　of　paper　lodged　in　a　peculiar　portable

shrine　in　Japan；　represent　the　souls　of　the　deceased；　or　the

special　seats　which　they　occupy　when　sacrifices　are　offered　by

their　descendants。　In　Japan　it　is　interesting　to　observe　that　a

national　KamiTen…zio…dai…zinis　worshipped　as　a　sort　of

Jahveh　by　the　nation　in　general；　and　（as　Lippert　has　observed）

it　is　singular　that　his　special　seat　is　a　portable　litter…like

shrine；　termed　the　Mikosi；　in　some　sort　analogous　to　the

Israelitic　ark。　In　China；　the　emperor　is　the　representative　of

the　primitive　ancestors；　and　stands；　as　it　were；　between　them

and　the　supreme　cosmic　deitiesHeaven　and　Earthwho　are

superadded　to　them；　and　who　answer　to　the　Tangaloa　and　the　Maui

of　the　Polynesians。



Sciotheism；　under　the　form　of　the　deification　of　ancestral

ghosts；　in　its　most　pronounced　form；　is　therefore　the　chief

element　in　the　theology　of　a　great　moiety；　possibly　of　more　than

half；　of　the　human　race。　I　think　this　must　be　taken　to　be　a

matter　of　factthough　various　opinions　may　be　held　as　to　how

this　ancestor…worship　came　about。　But　on　the　other　hand；　it　is

no　less　a　matter　of　fact　that　there　are　very　few　people　without

additional　gods；　who　cannot；　with　certainty；　be　accounted　for　as

deified　ancestors。



With　all　respect　for　the　distinguished　authorities　on　the　other

side；　I　cannot　find　good　reasons　for　accepting　the　theory　that

the　cosmic　deitieswho　are　superadded　to　deified　ancestors　even

in　China；　who　are　found　all　over　Polynesia；　in　Tangaloa　and

Maui；　and　in　old　Peru；　in　the　Sunare　the　product　either　of　the

〃search　after　the　infinite；〃　or　of　mistakes　arising　out　of　the

confusion　of　a　great　chief's　name　with　the　thing　signified　by

the　name。　But；　however　this　may　be；　I　think　it　is　again　merely

matter　of　fact　that；　among　a　large　portion　of　mankind；　ancestor…

worship　is　more　or　less　thrown　into　the　background　either　by

such　cosmic　deities；　or　by　tribal　gods　of　uncertain　origin；　who

have　been　raised　to　eminence　by　the　superiority　in　warfare；　or

otherwise；　of　their　worshippers。



Among　certain　nations；　the　polytheistic　theology；　thus

constituted；　has　become　modified　by　the　selection　of　some　one

cosmic　or　tribal　god；　as　the　only　god　to　whom　worship　is　due　on

the　part　of　that　nation　（though　it　is　by　no　means　denied　that

other　nations　have　a　right　to　worship　other　gods）；　and　thus

results　a　worship　of　one　Godmonolatry；　as　Wellhausen

calls　itwhich　is　very　different　from　genuine　monotheism。

In　ancestral　sciotheism；　and　in　this　monolatry；　the

ethical　code；　often　of　a　very　high　order；　comes　into　closer

relation　with　the　theological　creed。　Morality　is　taken　under　the

patronage　of　the　god　or　gods；　who　reward　all　morally　good

conduct　and　punish　all　morally　evil　conduct　in　this　world　or　the

next。　At　the　same　time；　however；　they　are　conceived　to　be

thoroughly　human；　and　they　visit　any　shadow　of　disrespect　to

themselves；　shown　by　disobedience　to　their　commands；　or　by

delay；　or　carelessness；　in　carrying　them　out；　as　severely　as　any

breach　of　the　moral　laws。　Piety　means　minute　attention　to　the

due　performance　of　all　sacred　rites；　and　covers　any　number　of

lapses　in　morality；　just　as　cruelty；　treachery；　murder；　and

adultery　did　not　bar　David's　claim　to　the　title　of　the　man　after

God's　own　heart　among　the　Israelites；　crimes　against　men　may　be

expiated；　but　blasphemy　against　the　gods　is　an　unpardonable　sin。

Men　forgive　all　injuries　but　those　which　touch　their　self…

esteem；　and　they　make　their　gods　after　their　own　likeness；　in

their　own　image　make　they　them。



It　is　in　the　category　of　monolatry　that　I　conceive　the　theology

of　the　old　Israelites　must　be　ranged。　They　were　polytheists；　in

so　far　as　they　admitted　the　existence　of　other　Elohim　of　divine

rank　beside　Jahveh；　they　differed　from　ordinary　polytheists；　in

so　far　as　they　believed　that　Jahveh　was　the　supreme　god　and　the

one　proper　object　of　their　own　national　worship。　But　it　will

doubtless　be　objected　that　I　have　been　building　up　a　fictitious

Israelitic　theology　on　the　foundation　of　the　recorded　habits　and

customs　of　the　people；　when　they　had　lapsed　from　the　ordinances

of　their　great　lawgiver　and　prophet　Moses；　and　that　my

conclusions　may　be　good　for　the　perverts　to　Canaanitish

theology；　but　not　for　the　true　observers　of　the　Sinaitic

legislation。　The　answer　to　the　objection　is　thatso　far　as　I

can　form　a　judgment　of　that　which　is　well　ascertained　in　the

history　of　Israelthere　is　very　little　ground　for　believing

that　we　know　much；　either　about　the　theological　and　social　value

of　the　influence　of　Moses；　or　about　what　happened　during　the

wanderings　in　the　Desert。



The　account　of　the　Exodus　and　of　the　occurrences　in　the　Sinaitic

peninsula；　in　fact；　all　the　history　of　Israel　before　the

invasion　of　Canaan；　is　full　of　wonderful　stories；　which　may　be

true；　in　so　far　as　they　are　conceivable　occurrences；　but　which

are　certainly　not　probable；　and　which　I；　for　one；　decline　to

accept　until　evidence；　which　deserves　that　name；　is　offered　of

their　historical　truth。　Up　to　this　time　I　know　of　none。

Furthermore；　I　see　no　answer　to　the　argument　that　one　has　no

right　to　pick　out　of　an　obviously　unhistorical　statement　the

assertions　which　happen　to　be　probable　and　to　discard　the　rest。

But　it　is　also　certain　that　a　primitively　veracious　tradition

may　be　smothered　under　subsequent　mythical　additions；　and　that

one　has　no　right　to　cast　away　the　former　along　with　the　latter。

Thus；　perhaps　the　fairest　way　of　stating　the　case　may　be

as　follows。



There　can　be　no　a　priori　objection　to　the　supposition

that　the　Israelites　were　delivered　from　their　Egyptian　bondage

by　a　leader　called　Moses；　and　that　he　exerted　a　great　influence

over　their　subsequent　organisation　in　the　Desert。　There　is　no

reason　to　doubt　that；　during　their　residence　in　the　land　of

Goshen；　the　Israelites　knew　nothing　of　Jahveh；　but；　as　their　own

prophets　declare　（see　Ezek。　xx。）；　were　polytheistic　idolaters；

sharing　in　the　worst　practices　of　their　neighbours。　As　to　their

conduct　in　other　respects；　nothing　is　known。　But　it　may　fairly

be　suspected　that　their　ethics　were　not　of　a　higher　order　than

those　of　Jacob；　their　progenitor；　in　which　case　they　might

derive　great　profit　from　contact　with　Egyptian　society；　which

held　honesty　and　truthfulness　in　the　highest　esteem。　Thanks　to

the　Egyptologers；　we　now　know；　with　all　requisite　certainty；　the

moral　standard　of　that　society　in　the　time；　and　long　before　the

time；　of　Moses。　It　can　be　determined　from　the　scrolls　buried

with　the　mummified　dead　and　from　the　inscriptions　on　the　tombs

and　memorial　statues　of　that　age。　For；　though　the　lying　of

epitaphs　is　proverbial；　so　far　as　their　subject　is　concerned；

they　gave　an　unmistakable　insight　into　that　which　the　writers

and　the　readers　of　them　think　praiseworthy。



In　the　famous　tombs　at　Beni　Hassan　there　is　a　record　of　the　life

of　Prince　Nakht；　who　served　Osertasen　II。；　a　Pharaoh　of　the

twelfth　dynasty　as　governor　of　a　province。　The　inscription

speaks　in　his　name：　〃I　was　a　benevolent　and　kindly　governor　who

loved　his　country。　。。。　Never　was　a　little　child　distressed　nor　a

widow　ill…treated　by　me。　I　have　never　repelled　a　workman　nor

hindered　a　shepherd。　I　gave　alike　to　the　widow　and　to　the

married　woman；　and　have　not　preferred　the　great　to　the　small　in

my　gifts。〃　And　we　have　the　high　authority　of　the　late　Dr。　Samuel

Birch　for　the　statement　that　th