A handbook of comparative religion

Front matter

A HANDBOOK

OF

Comparative Religion v BY

Preface

It might perhaps seem as if such a brief and incomplete discussion of the question of Comparative Religion, as is given in the following pages, would be superfluous. Many of the ablest scholars and specialists in the world have published of late years elaborate discussions of the subject, which have laid all students under lasting obligations. It is to be regretted, however, that to a very great extent, the general result of the presentation of the subject, so far as it has hitherto been made popularly accessible, has been to create a widely spread impression that the difference between the various religions of the world has formerly been greatly exaggerated; and that, in particular, the teaching hitherto current in the Church as to the exclusive position held by Christianity as the one only divinely revealed system of saving truth, is as erroneous as uncharitable.

It seems to be imagined by many, that just

as we OUght to have charity toward our fellow-

v vi Fit/act.

Christians in various sections of the Church of Christ, who hold on many points religious beliefs different from those which we have been educated to receive, inasmuch as in all that is essential to true religion and acceptance with God, we are truly at one ; even so ought we to regard those who are not even Christians in name, but followers of one or other of the great world-religions. It is strangely fancied that howsoever these may differ from us in many things, yet in all things which are essential to man's eternal well-being, they also are practically at one with Christians ; so that, if they but carefully live up to the precepts and observances prescribed in their several religions, it is thought that it is only charitable to suppose that their prospects for the life to come may be, on the whole, as good as our own.

The practical bearing of opinions of this kind is only too obvious. When the Lord Jesus Christ was about to ascend into heaven, He gave unto His disciples orders, in the clearest possible terms, to preach His gospel in all the world, to every creature ; and that with the object of making men who were disciples of Buddha or Confucius, or worshipers of Jupiter or other of the gods of Greece

Preface. vii

and Rome, disciples to Himself, and worshipers of the one God and Father, whom He declared that He had come into the world to reveal unto men. If, however, the view of the other religions of the world which we have just indicated, be correct, then it certainly seems much of an impertinence that men should undertake a proselytizing work of this kind; and it is only natural that people who cherish such a view of the non-Christian religions, should withhold from Christian missions both their service, their means, and their sympathy. As a matter of fact, I have observed, dining many years' residence in India, and an acquaintance more than usually extensive with missions and missionaries in every part of the world, that men and women who entertain so favorable views of the various ethnic religions, as all alike more or less perfect revelations of the mind and will of God, are very rarely found in the missionary ranks. But this is only what we should naturally expect.

If then the facts set forth in the following pages with regard to the most important of these religions in the world of to-day, shall prove helpful in enlightening any as to their actual teachings, or correct in any case the very radical and serious misconceptions <>n viii Preface.

this subject, which, we fear, are already beginning to show their effect in dulling the missionary zeal of many professed Christians, one great object of the writer will be attained.

It may not be amiss to remark that this book has been perforce written under great disadvantage, on account of the impossibility of access to many valuable sources of illustration such as abound in libraries in Great Britain and America ; for in such a small and out-of-the-way station as has been of late the author's home in India, such helps are practically not obtainable. I will only venture to hope that for this lack some slight compensation may be found in the writer's many years of residence and familiarity with the fife and language of the people, in 'such a great non- Christian land as India.

S. H. Kellogg.

A HANDBOOK

OF

COMPARATIVE RELIGION.

Chapter I. The Classification Of Religions

At first, to the casual observer, the various religions of mankind seem to present such a chaos of conflicting beliefs as to defy classification. Upon somewhat fuller and more exact knowledge, however, it becomes quite possible to bring all under a few distinct and comprehensive heads. First, we have the theistic religions, of which, at present, Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism, are the chief examples. In the second place, we have the pantheistic religions, of which the most important example is found in the popular religion of the Hindoos. Thirdly, paradoxical though it may seem, we have atheistic reli-

l gions. Such appears to be the Shinto religion of Japan, that of the Jains in India, but, most important by far, the religion of the Buddha, who, in the Buddhist Scriptures, is said to have declared of himself that nowhere among gods or men, did he see any one whom it would be "proper for him to honor." In the fourth place, we may name the prevailing ancestor worship which is specially characteristic of Confucianism. Originally, this would appear to have coexisted with a general theistic belief in Shang Te as the Supreme God ; but all agree that the worship of the Supreme God forms no part of the Chinese religion of to-day. 1

Lastlj r , Ave have a large number of religions, found for the most part among the uncultured races, which may be classified in a general way as " animistic." In -all religions of this class, the objects of popular worship are spirits of various grades of power and importance, good and evil, whom it is supposed to be important to propitiate in order to man's earthly well-being. In some of these, as in many of the religions of Africa, a Supreme God is dimly

1 Quite possibly Confucianism might be properly classified with Buddhism as an atheistic religion; but in the official worship by the emperor in Pekin, there is still a vague recognition of God under the name of Heaven.

The Classification of Religions. 3

recognized ; but He is not believed to have anything to do at present with human affairs, and the crude religion of the people therefore is not concerned with man's relations to Him.

Polytheism, as such, does not appear in this classification ; fo£ the reason that among different peoples, the popular polytheism is based on very diverse presuppositions. The polytheism of India, for instance, is grounded upon, and is popularly justified by, pantheistic assumptions ; while that of the Turanian aborigines of India, such as the Santals, the Gonds, and others, is animistic ; though among these savage peoples, the existence of one great God, above all the spirits and demons whom they worship, is commonly recognized. With Him, however, they believe that they have nothing to do. So, again, among the northern Buddhists, we have a type of practical polytheism which rests upon, and is a development from, the atheistic Buddhism. Similarly, nature worship, wherever it prevails, commonly rests upon either pantheistic or theistic presuppositions, or else is connected with animistic superstitions.

It should be remarked that in point of fact, these different types of religion above enumerated, are not in practice always sharply distinct. For example, while the popular 1 1 indooism of the masses of the population of India is correctly described as a pantheistic polytheism, yet many religious observances, more especially among the lower castes, are undoubtedly of an animistic type, and have arisen from the intercourse oj: the Aryan Hindoos with the aboriginal Turanian demon worshipers whom they found living in the land when first they entered it, and who still exist to the number of several millions, in the more remote and inaccessible parts of the country. So also, although no faith is more emphatically theistic than that of Islam, yet among certain Mohammedan sectaries, as, e. g., the Sufis, the conception of the Deity has become distinctly modified in the direction of a mystic pantheism. As it were quite impossible within the limits imposed upon the present work, to consider all the various religions of each type, ancient and modern, it has been necessary to confine the discussion to typical examples of each type, as existing in the world of to-day. If animistic religions have been but slightly treated, this is simply because they present us with no such elaborated system of religious thought as we find in the religious systems of the more cultivated races of the world ; so that there is comparatively little to be said as to the details of

The Classification of Reliyions. 5

the religious beliefs of those who hold them. But, as regards the practical purpose of the present book, this is of the less consequence, since Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and the other religions of China, which we have considered at length, together claim as their adherents the immense majority — probably not less than some 1,300,000,000 — of the human race.

With these prefatory observations, we may now proceed to inquire, What are the teachings of the chief world-religions of to-day on the fundamental questions of religion ? These are, firstly, the being, nature, and character, of God ; secondly, the relation of man to Him, especially as affected by the universal fact of sin ; thirdly, concerning the way of salvation ; fourthly, concerning the future of individuals and of the world ; and, finally, the question as to the duty of man to God and to his fellowman.

Chapter II. Fundamental Agreements

It is not without much reason that man has been defined as " a religious animal." If we define him as "a rational animal," as some have done, there is left room for discussion ; for it cannot well be denied that many actions of the higher animals seem to indicate not merely the operation of instinct, but also a process of true reasoning. But no one has ventured soberly to maintain that some animals are also religious. To speak of the religion of a monkey, a dog, or a horse, were only to excite a smile. Man only is religious ; and in the case of man, religion, in some form or other, often no doubt very vague and illdefined, is universal. It is yet to be proved that any tribe has ever been found so degraded as to be utterly destitute of religious ideas. The assertions to the contrary which have often been made, have repeatedly by further investigation been shown to be erroneous.

No doubt when we thus speak of religion as universal, we must use the word " religion " in

Fundamental Agreements. 7

a very broad sense; but however broad the sense in which we take it, it is still true that the possession of a religious faculty is one of the most distinctive characteristics of the human race.

In any comparison of the various religions wherein the religious nature of man manifests its activity, we shall do well first to note those elements which are common to all. All religions, from the highest to the lowest, assume the existence of a Power (or powers) superior to man, on which he is dependent, and which is able decisively to influence his destiny. It is also taken for granted in all religions that the relation between man and the superior Power or powers, is a necessary relation. Man feels instinctively that he is born into this relation, and that by no power or wisdom of his own is he able to free himself from it. As to the nature of the Power assumed, religions differ. Some regard the Power as one and only ; others assume a plurality of such powers. It is however important to observe that in most, if not all, cases where men worship gods many, there is discoverable in the background of the religious consciousness the dim outline of one sole Power, of which the many who are worshiped are either different manifestations, or to which they hold a position strictly subordinate.

More or less distinctly in all religions is the thought also expressed, that because of man's relation to this Supreme Power, certain things are obligatory on him, and other things must be avoided at the peril of suffering. It is true that among many peoples morality has become more or less dissevered from religion ; but it would probably be hard to find a people so far degraded that there remained not at least some vague sense of responsibility for one's actions ; and this is true, even although among many such the commonly accepted theory of religion logically precludes responsibility.

In all religions, again, is expressed the feeling that between man and the Supreme Power or powers, something is wrong; in other words, all religions more or less distinctly express or appeal to man's sense of sin. This is clear from various familiar facts ; but it is especially evidenced from the wide prevalence of religious offerings and sacrifices, designed to propitiate or conciliate the good will of the Being worshiped, to whom the offerer feels himself subordinate, and whose favor he believes to be necessary to his well-being. The significance of such religious observances is

Fundamental Agreements. 9

the greater, that in many instances they have maintained their place even although, as in the case of Mohammedanism, the authoritative Book declares any propitiation of the Deity to be impossible, or when, as in Hindooism, an inexorable logic, which is accepted practically by not a few, declares such ritual services to be folly unworthy of a man who has attained the supreme wisdom.

Again, more or less distinctly, religions generally assume that there is for man a state of being after death ; and that the consequences of wrongdoing or right-doing in this present life will follow a man after death. There is no doubt a very great difference in the way in which this life after death is conceived ; and indeed, in some instances, as notably in the primitive Buddhism, the orthodox teaching seems even to deny the existence of a soul which can live after the death of the body. And yet even in Buddhism one meets with much that seems inconsistent with this denial ; while the constant tendency of mankind in such cases is still to insist, despite the philosophers, on the reality of a state of future rewards and retributions. The profound significance of this fact needs but to be mentioned.

Finally, it is to be observed that the general acceptance, in religions the most diverse, of the fundamental beliefs which have been enumerated, gives the strongest a priori reason for inferring that to these beliefs correspond veritable spiritual realities in the unseen world. For these are beliefs which have been so universally accepted in all ages by men of both the highest and the lowest degree of culture, that we can hardly avoid the conclusion that they must be due to a certain instinct of man's nature. But where in the whole kingdom of life is there an instance of an instinct or appetency universal in any species, to which, nevertheless, nothing whatever in its environment corresponds ? Is it not then in the last degree improbable that man should exhibit a unique and solitary exception to a law which elsewhere appears to be universal ? and that, too, in regard to a matter which most vitally concerns his conduct and happiness, even in this present state of existence !

CHAPTEK III.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE WORLD-RELIGIONS CONCERNING GOD.

In any comparison of the various religions of mankind, fundamental to all else is the inquiry as to what they severally teach with regard to the existence and the nature of the Supreme Being.

Christianity assumes the existence of a God who is self-existent, and therefore eternal. All else exists only because He has willed its existence ; He alone exists necessarily, and therefore from eternity to eternity.

Secondly, the God of Christianity is a personal Being. By this we mean that He is eternally distinct and separate from all other beings, rational or irrational, personal or impersonal; that He is eternally and necessarily conscious of Himself as the eternal Ego; and, finally, that He is possessed of the power of free self-determination. In all His acting, He acts, not under any inner law of physical necessity, as when a tree produces a flower, but as we act ; namely, through an absolutely free and unfettered choice, alike of various ends and of the means to secure them.

Again, the God of Christianity is a moral Being, loving righteousness and hating iniquity. Hence His choosing is never like the arbitrary choice of a human despot, who chooses and decrees whatever he will, often through mere caprice and unjustly. His choices and decisions are always determined with reference to those eternal principles of righteousness, goodness, and truth, of which His own nature is the eternal and absolutely perfect expression.

Again, in all His attributes as such an intelligent, moral Agent, the God of Christianity is represented as absolutely without limitations. As to His Being, He is without beginning and without end, and He fills immensity with His presence. He is not merely more wise, more just, more good, more holy and loving than any other being, but He is infinitely wise, infinitely just, infinitely good, infinitely holy, and infinitely loving and merciful.

Hence, in consistency with all this, the God of Christianity is represented as Sole, Unique, and Supreme. There is no other like Him; there is no other associated with Him. In all

His boundless perfections, He is absolutely solitary and unique.

But the Church in all ages has generally understood the Holy Scriptures also to teach that in the unity of the Godhead there is a Trinity of Personality. The one and only God, indivisible in His essence, exists necessarily and eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For the Eternal Love there ever existed within the unity of His own Being and Essence, an eternal and infinitely worthy object of that Love, revealed to us as the " well-beloved Son " ; and there is also an eternal holy fellowship of the Father and the Son in a Third, even the Holy Ghost. And yet though the one God thus exists in persons three, nevertheless, according to the belief of the universal Church, the Three are not three Gods, but God is in His essence One eternally.

This is not the place to argue this ineffable mystery : our present object is merely to state, for the purpose of comparison with other religions what, as a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of Christians have for centuries understood to be the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures as to the nature of God.

From t he conception of God above set forth, it follows that such a Being must be the Oreator and the Moral Governor of the universe. If He is the only self-existent One, and is possessed with all the attributes assigned to Him, then evidently, if anything else exists, it must exist simply because it is God's will that it should exist. And again, if any creature, rational or irrational, act in any way, this must be because God, according to the nature of the case, either causes it to act, or, for whatsoever inscrutable reason, allows it so to act. In a word, the Christian doctrine on this subject is summed up in the words of the apostle Paul : " Of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things." 1

If we inquire more particularly as to what Christianity teaches as to the relation of God to the world, it is to be answered that He at once transcends the universe, and is also immanent therein. He transcends the universe, as the phrase is. That is, in time and in space He is before all, and beyond all, and independent of all. Hence He is by no means to be identified with the universe of matter or mind, as if these were the phenomena of which He is the eternal substrate. Before any of these were, He was.

But no less is it the doctrine of Christianity that God is immanent in all things. This aspect of the relation of God to the world, — of which the perversion is pantheism — has in earlier days been too much overlooked by theologians, but in our day is again much insisted on by Christian thinkers, and with abundant reason. For this is the constant teaching of those sacred writings which are the foundation of Christianity. No less than on God's transcendence to all, do thej^ also insist on His immanence in all things. " In Him we live, and move, and have our being \ " l " in Him," as the eternal Son, " all things consist." 2 The various activities of nature are constantly referred to God in terms which, as modern physical science unmistakably suggests, are not so much the language of poetry, as the sober and accurate phraseology of careful statement of fact. But in view of comparisons to be hereafter instituted, it is of importance to notice here that the Christian Scriptures do not allow us to infer from this immanence of God in all things, that He is therefore the sole real Agent in all the various activities of man. While spirit, soul, and body are all upheld in being by the incessant Operation of His almighty power, so that it is true that M in His hand our breath is, and His are all our ways ; " ! yet when a man acts, it is he himself who acts, and not God. He acts moreover under no necessity of external constraint, but in the fullest and most unhindered exercise of that freedom of personal choice without which indeed he could not be regarded as in any true sense a responsible moral agent.

Such, then, in brief, is the teaching of Christianity as to the being and nature of God, and His relation to the universe of matter and spirit which He has made.

Nearest of kin to Christianity among the ethnic religions, is Mohammedanism. Most strenuously, as all know, Islam insists on the spirituality, unity, and personality, of God. " There is no God but God," is the keynote of the theology of Islam. Yet even here we are met by a difference from Christianity most profound and far-reaching. For when the Mohammedan affirms with such energy the unity of God, he means thereby not merely to deny all polytheism, but also the doctrine of the trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead, as held by the immense majority of Christian people. Those who have labored among Mohammedans will agree that when the Mohammedan so insists on the unity of God, he has indeed in mind above all else, the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity. To affirm this, he declares, is to be guilty of the damnable sin of " shirk " y i. e., of affirming that God has a u sharik " or associate ; no less than if one affirmed the existence of the many gods of the polytheist.

Again, while Islam affirms, in opposition to pantheism, that God is a personal Being, it yet so represents — or rather, misrepresents — this truth, that the idea of personality is caricatured. For while it is true that personality is centered in will, and implies the perfect moral freedom of the agent ; yet the highest possible conception of personality does not imply a power to will arbitrarily, without reference to the nature of the person willing, or to reasons believed by him to be good and sufficient for willing as he does. Hence, while Christian theology attributes to God the power of free self-determination, it is ever careful to explain that this self-determination is not arbitrary, but that, on the contrary, God in all His choosing is determined by the highest reason and righteousness, and the most perfect goodness and love. Thus while the Holy Scriptures unmistakably teach that in the life to conn: God will punish many of the human race with extreme severity, yet they never represent this as proceeding from arbitrary caprice, but always as based on a moral reason ; namely, the free choice by such men of sin, and their incorrigible persistence in rebellion against the infinite Love.

In contrast with this, one of the most eminent and enlightened Mohammedan doctors of our day, regarding this matter has used the following startling language : " It is the prerogative of God, if Pie please, without repentance, to pardon all sins, except that of shirk ; or again, if He please, to visit His wrath upon the very smallest of all transgressions." ! In this we have self-determination no doubt, and therefore personality, but a will which is freed from the control of all considerations of reason and righteousness. 2

The contrast between Mohammedan and Christian teaching regarding God, comes out still more impressively when we consider the question of the divine attributes. Both alike insist indeed on the infinite wisdom, power, and

x 81r Sayad Ahmad Khan, in the Introduction to his Commentary on the Book of Genesis.

3 Compare the words of Kuenen: "It was not in the God of the Mutazilite, whose essence was righteousness, but in the God of Orthodoxy, the Almighty, subject to no other rule than His own caprice, that they recognized their own and Mohammed's Allah." Hibbert Lectures, 1882. p. 49.

goodness of God, but they stand in profound contrast regarding the relation and proportion of His attributes. In the foreground of the Mohammedan system, beyond question, stands the alraightiness of God. In the front of the Christian system of doctrine stands the infinite love of God. " God is love " is an apostolic summary of theology. Yet, according to the gospel, neither the power nor the love is ever exercised capriciously. When God puts forth His almighty power, this is ever to carry out the purposes of His infinite righteousness and love. In like manner, when God displays His love, it is ever in full accord with righteousness, and under the limitations imposed by the fact that He is as righteous as He is loving, and as holy as He is kind. Consequently, when He pardons, He pardons righteously, no less than when He condemns ; and is declared to be "just" even when He " justifies the ungodly. " ■ And although He is infinite in love and compassion, so that to save the guilty He is said to have given His only begotten Son ; ■ yet when men, in the unfettered exercise of their power of free choice, persist in impenitence and rebellion, they are not by the love of God, exercised in a way of weak and unholy

•Rom. 1!l.2fi. 'John ill. 16.

indulgence, saved from the just consequences and heavy penalties of their sin. Yet in it all, the Christian revelation ever holds forth God as the God of holy and infinite love. The keynote of both the Old and the Xew Testaments is that which we hear in the words of the prophet Ezekiel : "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked. . . . Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways ; for why will ye die ? " !

Most impressive and most sad is the contrast herein with the character of God as presented in the Quran and the Hadis. 2 It is quite true that here and there in the Quran we find representations of God which so far as they go, are true in thought and sublime in expression. A Christian can well join in the ascription of praise which we find in Sura 1 :

11 Praise be to God, Lord of all the worlds, The Compassionate, the Merciful, King on the Day of reckoning ! Thee only do we worship, and to Thee do we cry for help." 3

But although God is continually praised as " the Most Merciful," His mercy is not thought of as springing from His nature as eternal

*Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

2 The authorized Mohammedan Tradition.

3 See also a number of passages brought together by Mr. Bosworth Smith in his Mohammed and Mohammedanism, pp. 179-181.

Love, but as exercised in the most arbitrary caprice. The one attribute which in the Quran and all Mohammedan writings is ever placed in the foreground, is not God's love, but His power. The names of God are reckoned at ninety and nine, but the name " Father " is not among them. Sir William Muir has rightly said : " We may search the Quran in vain from beginning to end for any such declaration as this, ' The Lord is not willing that any should perish,' or ' Who will have all men to be saved.' " l On the contrary, again and again God is represented as misleading men and causing them to believe error.

Nor is this to be understood as merely meaning, as in the Christian Scriptures, that He abandons the incorrigible to their self-chosen ways of sin and error. On the contrary, God is represented as saving that He actually created those who are damned in order that hell might be full. Thus, e. g., we read : kW If thy Lord pleased, He had made all men of one religion; . . . but unto this hath He created them; for the word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled; Verily, I will fill hell altogether with genii and men." 2 And so again: a We ore-