The Origin and Development of Religion

§ II. Monotheism at the Beginning of Religious Development

Monotheism was the primitive religion of the human race.

1. The first book of the Old Testament, known as Genesis, is a trustworthy record of the primitive traditions of mankind.⁵⁸58For a succinct proof of the authenticity and genuineness of the Book of Genesis as well as of other books of the Bible, we must refer the reader to Vol. II of this Handbook. See also H. Pope, The Catholic Student’s “Aids” to the Bible, new ed., Vols. I and II, The Old Testament, London, 1926 sq. This record proves that religion was originally Monotheistic, inasmuch as our First Parents and their immediate descendants believed in one God, the sole Creator of heaven and earth.⁵⁹59Gen. I, 1 sqq. The form Elohim does not prove that man’s idea of God was at first pluralistic, since this term, whenever it is used to designate the one true God, is always combined with the singular of the verb, and there is not in this early historical record the slightest trace of any Polytheistic beliefs or practices.

2. The science of comparative religion has fully established the fact that the idea of God among the Indo-Germanic and Semitic nations of antiquity was singular and not plural. These groups employed each the same name for the supreme deity, while the names they gave the minor deities differed. This proves the original identity of the supreme God. Consequently, the Indo-Germanic and the Semitic nations at the beginning of their history not only worshipped one and the same supreme God, but this supreme God was the only God in whom they believed. The Indo-Germanic names for the supreme deity were: The Vedic Dyaus-pitar, which corresponds to the Greek Ζεὺς πατήρ; the Latin Jupiter (Diespiter); the Old-German Tyr and Zio, and the Gothic Tius. The generic names deva, deus, and the Baltic deives, also have an intimate connection with the name of the most ancient Vedic deity. The common root of all these words is the Sanskrit dyu, dev or div, which, as a verb, means to shed light and, as a noun, signifies heaven.

There is a similar connection between the Semitic names of the deity. The ancient Hebrews and the Phœnicians called their highest and only God El; the Arabs employ the word Allah (compounded from the article al and ilah); the Syrians at first used El, later Alloho; the Babylonians and Assyrians, Ilu. The root form is the same in all Semitic dialects and signifies the strong or powerful one.

The agreement of these names alone would not be conclusive evidence that either the Indo-Germans or the Semites worshipped only one God before their separation. But it is justifiable to conclude from this agreement that these nations originally worshipped one and the same supreme Being. For the striking agreement of the names which they applied to this Being cannot possibly be the result of a purely accidental formation of the respective words simultaneously among the different tribes, but must have its origin in a common source. The only satisfactory explanation is that the nations in question retained both the name and the cult of their supreme God when they left their common home and broke up in search of new habitations.⁶⁰60Cfr. F. Max Müller, The Science of Language, London, 1899, Vol. II, pp. 524 sqq.; Th. H. Robinson, An Outline Introduction to the History of Religions, London, 1926, p. 147.

“If one and the same word with its regular phonetic variations,” says Giesswein, “is met with among several nations of the same linguistic family, now widely separated (so that borrowing cannot be assumed, which, be it incidentally observed may, as a rule, be easily recognized by means of the irregular shifting of the consonants), it may justly be concluded that these words constitute a portion of the common heritage, i. e., that their corresponding fundamental type existed before the respective nations separated from their common stock; if, in addition to this, the meaning is identical in all, we may suppose that the object or notion signified by them at present was known already to the Urvolk (namely, the still undivided primitive people before their separation).”⁶¹61A. Giesswein, Die Hauptprobleme der Sprachwissenschaft, Freiburg i. B., 1892, pp. 222 sq.

In view of the further fact that there was no agreement among the Indo-Germanic and Semitic nations regarding the names of their minor deities, we may go a step farther and say: Had these nations before their separation worshipped other deities besides the supreme God, some traces of this worship would surely have remained. Since this is not the case, however, we are forced to conclude that the supreme God, whose names we have enumerated above, was the only God worshipped by the Indo-Germans and the Semites; in other words, these nations were Monotheistic before they drifted apart.

3. In nearly all the pagan religions there are found relics of Monotheistic concepts in the belief in one God, and the farther back we trace the development of religion, the closer the idea of the supreme God approaches Monotheism. The concept of God grows in perfection and purity as the number of gods decreases. The simplest and only possible explanation of this remarkable fact is that the process of development began with Monotheism. Consequently all religions were originally Monotheistic.

1. The Indo-Germanic Religions

A. The most ancient deity of the Hindus was Dyaus-pitar. “Out of the ruins of a decadent religious world there reaches over into the Rigveda the grand and solitary Dyaus, also called ‘Father Asura’ or ‘the Asura,’ i. e., Lord in the pregnant sense of the word, or simply ‘the Father.’ … As men became accustomed to transfer his name to the visible heaven (firmament), … the memory of his personal fatherhood and sole supreme dominion became extinct.”⁶²62E. Hardy, Vedisch-brahmanische Periode der Religion des alten Indiens, Münster i. W., 1893, p. 23. After him Varuna ruled over the pantheon. He is the omniscient creator of nature and of the moral order. He punishes sin, but is merciful to the penitent who begs for forgiveness.⁶³63See, e. g., the touching prayer of the singer Vashista: “Forgive the crimes our fathers have committed; forgive what we ourselves have done; take my sins from me, O Lord, and do not permit me to suffer for the sins of others.” (Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, Vol. II, 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1905, pp. 18 sq.) Varuna, whose ethical character appears in a favorable light, is succeeded by Indra, a powerful war-god, sole king of the world. These two gods, Indra and Varuna, stand in a certain opposition to each other. “The one [Indra] slays the enemy in battle, the other [Varuna] always protects the laws.”⁶⁴64Rig Veda, VII, 83, 9; apud Hardy, Vedisch-brahmanische Periode der Religion des alten Indiens, p. 58. Cfr. H. Oldenberg, Die Religion des Veda, Berlin, 1894. The Hymns of the Rig Veda have been translated into English by Griffith, 2 vols., Benares. Indra judges the good and the bad, but he is not gifted with the sublime wisdom of Varuna.⁶⁵65D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 4th ed., Tübingen, 1925, Vol. II, pp. 24 sqq.

The Vedic period of religious development among the Indo-Germanic nations is followed by Brahminism, which is essentially Pantheistic. Brahma is regarded as the cause and foundation of the world. He alone is “without a second,” the only reality. He is the innermost essence of man, his very self. Whatever exists, exists in and through the Brahma; whatever is known, is known through the Brahma. “He who perceives anything in anything else but self, has given up everything; this self is everything.”⁶⁶66E. Hardy, op. cit., p. 219; cfr. Chas. F. Aiken, s. v. “Brahminism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, pp. 730 sqq.

The conglomeration of religious beliefs and practices which became predominant in India at a later period and is designated by the generic term Hinduism, is really a corrupted Brahminism, in which Indra and Brahma are displaced by Vishnu and Siva. Vishnu assumes various forms,—fish, turtle, bear, etc.,—and these metamorphoses plainly indicate that he lacks the dignity of the Vedic gods. Kindness and benevolence are the characteristic traits of Vishnu, whereas Siva is mainly a god of destruction, feared by men because of his cruelty, and if he is sometimes called “the merciful,” this appellation is plainly to be interpreted as a euphemism. Thus the religion of the Hindus, which in its beginnings was so closely related to Monotheism, in the course of centuries sank deeper and deeper into the mire of Polytheism.⁶⁷67 See Supplementary Note 1, p. 122.

B. The Zendavesta (Avesta = knowledge; zend = tradition) is the collection of sacred books of the Parsis, or Zoroastrians, held by them to be divinely inspired. It describes the religion of Zoroaster (Zarathustra), the prophet of ancient Iran, who was probably a contemporary of Ezechiel (5th century B. C.). This religion is a decided dualism. Ahura Mazdāh (literally, “Wisdom of Ahura”; in the hieroglyphic inscriptions Aurmazd, later Ormuzd), the “wise spirit,” surpasses all Hindu deities in the perfection of his nature and operation. His spirituality manifests itself theoretically in perfect knowledge or correct discrimination between good and bad and ethically in absolute purity and justice, which attributes are indissolubly united in him. His royal dominion, the preservation and governance of all nature, including man, is based on the fact that he is the creator of all things. His great task is to preserve the world from evil. This task he fulfills by constantly pouring out divine energy for the purification of mankind. He cooperates with man in combating evil.⁶⁸68E. Hardy, Vedisch-brahmanische Periode der Religion des alten Indiens, pp. 188 sq. With this exalted conception of the nature of the Deity the utterances of Persian monarchs handed down to us in the Old Testament are in full agreement. (Cfr. Dan. VI, 25–27; 2 Par. XXXVI, 23; Est. XVI, 16). On the Avesta see A. F. J. Remy in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, pp. 1151 sqq.; W. S. Lilly, Ancient Religion and Modern Thought, pp. 123 sqq. On Zarathustra and his teaching cfr. W. Jackson, Zoroaster, the Prophet of Ancient Iran, New York, 1897; Edv. Lehmann, Zarathustra, en Bog om Persernes gamle tro, 2 vols. Copenhagen, 1899–1902; J. H. Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism, London, 1913; V. Henry, Le Parsisme, Paris, 1905; M. N. Dhalla, Zoroastrian Theology, London, 1915; R. Pettazoni, La Religione di Zarathustra, I, Bologna, 1920; Chr. Bartholomae, Zarathustra, Leben und Lehre, Heidelberg, 1924; C. de Harlez, Les Origines du Zoroastrisme, Paris, 1878 sq.

The last sentence indicates the antagonism between Ahura Mazdāh (Ormuzd) and Ahriman (Angro Mainyu, evil spirit; Ormuzd: spenta Mainyu, holy spirit), the opposition between the principle of goodness and the principle of evil. Ahriman, like Ormuzd, is a spiritual power; his task is to combat goodness, purity, and perfection; he is the source of all evil; he strives to rule the world and to triumph over Ormuzd.

But though Ahriman is the creator of evil, as Ormuzd is the creator of goodness, the former is not by any means equal to the latter in knowledge and power. In a contract which he makes with Ormuzd, Ahriman is deceived, and in the end destroyed with all his works and followers. This fact indicates a considerable weakening of the original dualism. Besides, there are Greek, Armenian, Arabic, and later Persian testimonies to the effect that these two hostile gods were preceded by a higher being, who created both Ormuzd and Ahriman, which shows that the original Persian concept of the Deity was Monotheistic.⁶⁹69Cfr. Isaias, Ch. xlv; Chantepie de la Saussaye, Religionsgeschichte, Vol. III, p. 213 (this reference is to the second edition; in the third the passage has been omitted).—On the theology of the Avesta, see L. C. Casartelli in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, pp. 154–156; cfr. Hovelacque, L’Avesta, Zoroastre et le Mazdaisme, Paris, 1880; A. Carnoy, “The Religion of the Avesta” in Lectures on the History of Religions, C. T. S., London, 1910. Robinson notes (An Outline Introduction to the History of Religions, p. 153) that there seems to have been in recent years a distinct tendency to revert to the teaching of Zarathustra himself. “The higher criticism of the Zend-Avesta has done much to make this possible, and it may well be that in Zoroastrianism we shall in the next few generations have one of the purest forms of Monotheism that the world has known.” In its modern form the religion of the Parsis has learned something from Christianity. (Cfr. M. Haug, Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsis, 3rd ed., Bombay, 1884, quoted by S. Lilly, Ancient Religion and Modern Thought, 2nd ed., London, 1885, p. 127). That this earlier belief is not reflected in the cult of the Avesta, is no reason why the ancient tradition should be rejected. It was but natural that a god whose memory had almost faded away, should no longer be worshipped by the people.

An important figure in the more recent portions of the Avesta is Mithra, who is described as a great god, worthy of sacrifice, but a creature of, and subordinate to, Ahura Mazdāh. Mithra is “a much more concrete, living and livelier god, and more intimately connected with nature than all the Ahuric deities put together.”⁷⁰70Chantepie de la Saussaye, op. cit., Vol. III, 2nd ed., p. 196. Conceived originally as the precursor of the sun, Mithra was later identified with that luminous body and worshipped as sun-god. Mithraism in course of time became a regular religious cult and spread from Persia all over the Roman Empire, as far as Britain.⁷¹71L. C. Casartelli in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 155; cfr. F. Cumont, Textes et Monuments relatifs aux Mystères de Mithra, Bruxelles, 1896–99; C. C. Martindale, S. J., “The Religion of Mithra” in Lectures on the History of Religions, London, 1910; Chantepie de la Saussaye, Religionsgeschichte, 4th ed., Tübingen, 1925, Vol. II, pp. 225 sqq.

C. The beginnings of the religion of ancient Greece are wrapped in obscurity. The first deity that appears in vague outline on the horizon of the pre-Homeric age is Uranos, of whom we know nothing except that he was worshipped as the god of the heavens. The leader of the Homeric pantheon is Zeus, the “Father of gods and men,” who can be traced far back into Indo-Germanic antiquity. He boasts of his superiority to all the other gods and presides over Olympus like an earthly monarch over his kingdom.⁷²72Iliad, VIII, 5–27; II, 204; cfr. J. Huby, S. J., “The Religion of Ancient Greece” in Lectures on the History of Religions, Vol. II, pp. 10 sqq.; Chantepie de la Saussaye, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 281 sqq. The Orphic mysteries, which are of very ancient origin, and strongly influenced Greek philosophic thought, declare of Zeus that “he is the beginning and the middle, and all things move in him.”⁷³73Ζεύς ἀρχή, Ζεύς μέσσα, Διὸς ἐκ πάντα πέλονται.

F. Max Müller says that in spite of the haze which mythology has thrown around the name of Zeus, it is easy to see that the ancient Grecians originally regarded him as the supreme God, the true God, nay, at times even as their only god.⁷⁴74The Science of Language, London, 1899, Vol. II, pp. 545, 548 sqq., 551. The most complete collection of materials for the study of the ancient Greek religion in the days of Homer is C. F. von Nägelsbach’s Homerische Theologie, 3rd ed., Nuremberg, 1884; a useful recent survey of the subject in G. Finsler’s Homer, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Leipsic, 1918, pp. 220 sqq. See also J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 3rd ed., Cambridge, 1903; O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, Munich, 1906.

In the post-Homeric period, when the Greek nation began to decline, Olympian Zeus relinquished his scepter to other gods, some of whom were lower earth-gods of a malignant disposition.⁷⁵75Chantepie de la Saussaye, op. cit. (4th ed.), Vol. II, pp. 347 sqq.; E. R. Hull, S. J., Archaic Religions, Bombay, 1913, pp. 155 sq. The Greek religion is fitly characterized by the last mentioned author as “an incoherent jumble of poetical and mythological elements, never harmonized into a consistent theology. Various sporadic developments took place; new elements were introduced from other countries, and old ones modified to suit the changes of current taste. It seems hard to say whether there was any decadence or not. The earliest that we know of the Greek religion presents something so low, so unworthy, so foolish that there seems hardly any room for a retrograde movement, except in two ways—an increasing complexity of foolishness, or a loss of sincerity among the worshippers; both of which certainly did take place. Greek philosophy (we read of a later period) from its first rise broke with the sacred traditions and constructed its systems without concern for the preservation of religion. Unlike the civilizations of the East, in which powerful schools of theology, as in Babylon or Heliopolis, kept renovating and putting new life into religious thought, mythology in Greece gained nothing from philosophical reflection. Such thinkers as refrained from attacking it held themselves aloof from it; and religion, from lack of some quickening principle, necessarily became a dry formalism, a mere collection of rites void of meaning. As Cumont well expresses it: ‘Never had so cultured a people so childish a religion.’” (Ibid.)

D. The mythology of the Romans is closely intertwined with that of the Greeks. Jupiter (Diespiter) Optimus Maximus is the highest lord of heaven and earth, who “rules the fates of men and gods, the ocean, the land, and the worlds at all times.”⁷⁶76Horace, Odes, I, 12. Both gods and men owe him their existence and are subject to his rule.⁷⁷77Virgil, Æneid, I, 65, 254. The variety of tasks assigned to him appears from his many names. The supreme dominion of Jupiter is more clearly apparent than that of Zeus. But Jupiter is not the most ancient of the Italian deities. Long before him Janus and Diana were highly venerated in that country. Janus, it is said, was the first to introduce religious worship into Italy.⁷⁸78Döllinger, The Gentile and the Jew, tr. by N. Darnell, Vol. II, p. 39. In an ancient hymn he is invoked as “the god of gods.”⁷⁹79“Divum deus.” He and Vesta form the Alpha and Omega of the roster of divinities cited in the ancient formularies of solemn prayer.⁸⁰80E. Aust, Religion der Römer, Münster i. W., 1899, p. 117; C. C. Martindale, S. J., “The Religion of Early Rome” in Lectures on the History of Religions, Vol. II, London, 1910. The name of Jupiter (from the root dyu), also used in the form Januspater, harks back to the original home of the Indo-Germanic nations, the center from which all the Aryan languages proceeded in their world-wide expansion.⁸¹81F. Max Müller, The Science of Language, Vol. II, p. 485.

In process of time the number of gods constantly increased, and it has been truly said that “perhaps nowhere else has the multiplication of divinities been carried to such extremes as among the Romans; every condition, every act, every part of every act, every class of objects, had its special protectors among the gods.”⁸²82Chantepie de la Saussaye, Religionsgeschichte, 3rd ed., Vol. II, p. 414. Hull (Archaic Religions, pp. 161 sq.) observes that the ancient Roman deities, though vague, unpicturesque, and homely, were at least decent. The amours of the gods and immoralities connected with their worship, were a later importation from Greece, Syria, and Egypt—partly as an effect, partly as a cause of degeneration. On the religious beliefs and practices of the ancient Romans see also L. Deubner, in the fourth edition of Chantepie de la Saussaye’s Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, Vol. II, pp. 418–505; G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer, 2nd ed., Munich, 1912; E. Aust, Die Religion der Römer, Münster, 1899 (a popular synopsis of Wissowa); W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, London, 1911; IDEM, The Roman Festivals, London, 1899; F. Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, Chicago, 1911; J. Geffcken, Der Ausgang des griechisch-römischen Heidentums, Heidelberg, 1920.

However, the consciousness that the divine nature must be one, accompanied by a desire for a purer cult, never vanished entirely. Terentius Varro (116 B. C.), the most eminent contemporary authority on the religion of ancient Rome, says that men should worship only one God.⁸³83Antiquitates, cited by St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, IV, 31 (P. L., XLI, 137 sq.). For more than 170 years, he adds, the Romans adored their gods without the aid of pictorial representations, and if this custom had maintained itself, their religious cult would have remained purer than it was. Clement of Alexandria⁸⁴84Stromata, I, 15 (P. G., VIII, 777). traces this purer cult to King Numa Pompilius (d. 715 B. C.), who is said to have instructed his people that, according to an ancient and secret tradition, man could know the highest being only through his intellect. Another witness to the fact that the religion of imperial Rome showed traces of a primitive Monotheism, is Tertullian, who observes that the pagan Romans, when they were in trouble, lifted their eyes, not to the Capitol, but to Heaven, and invoked, not their gods, but the one true God.⁸⁵85Apol., c. 17 (P. L., I, 376 sq.).

E. Of the most ancient deities of the Teutons we have but little reliable knowledge. The primitive Runic inscriptions contain only the name of the Nordic god Tyr, and in connection therewith the more or less differently formed, but substantially synonymous divine appellations of the other tribes, which show the root dyu and thus enable us to recognize a common Aryan origin. Tyr had to be invoked twice whenever the runes indicating victory in battle were incised into a sword;⁸⁶86J. Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, Vol. I, 4th ed., Gütersloh, 1875, p. 166.—from which fact we may conclude that this god was the most ancient and most highly venerated among all those worshipped by the Germanic nations.

In the mythology of the Scandinavians, Wuotan (of which the Nordic form is Odin) was the highest among the gods. He was credited with creative, formative, all-penetrating power; he endowed the fields with fertility, invested all things with form and beauty, and bestowed favors and graces upon men.⁸⁷87Grimm, op. cit., p. 110. Wuotan resides in heaven, but sees and hears everything that happens on earth.⁸⁸88Ibid., p. 112. He is the supreme lawgiver and the custodian of the moral order.⁸⁹89Völuspa, 44 sq.; cfr. Chr. Pesch, S. J., Der Gottesbegriff in den heidnischen Religionen des Altertums, Freiburg, 1885, p. 74. At the time when the Edda was composed, Tyr was venerated only as the god of battle and is referred to as the son of Odin, though in some respects the two are on a par. For instance, both are invoked for protection and victory in battle. The correct interpretation of the somewhat confused mythology of the Nordic Edda probably is that Wuotan was originally a local deity, who was gradually deprived of his dominant position by Tyr, which fact in course of time led to the belief that Wuotan was Tyr’s father.

Besides Wuotan and Tyr the ancient Teutons worshipped a number of other deities, e. g., Donar (Thor), the god of thunder; Baldr, the god of light; Hel, the goddess of death; Narthus, the goddess of the earth. But Wuotan was always regarded as the first, to whom the others were subject, “as children to their father.”⁹⁰90J. Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, Vol. III, 4th ed., p. 48. On the religion of the ancient Teutons see, besides Grimm, E. H. Meyer, Germanische Mythologie, Berlin, 1891; W. Golther, Handbuch der germanischen Mythologie, Leipsic, 1895; P. D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, The Religion of the Teutons, Boston and London, 1902; R. M. Meyer, Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte, Leipsic, 1910; K. Helm, Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte, Heidelberg, 1913; V. Grönbech, “Die Germanen,” in Chantepie de la Saussaye’s Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 4th ed., Tübingen, 1925, Vol. II, pp. 540–600; A. Anwander, Die Religionen der Menschheit, pp. 116 sqq. How deeply belief in the identity of the supreme deity was rooted in the religious convictions of the Germanic tribes appears from their expectation that after the great conflagration that was to devastate the world, Baldr would inaugurate a new era.

F. The Slavs and Lithuanians, according to A. Brückner, who has written the section dealing with the ancient religious beliefs of these nations for the latest (4th) edition of Chantepie de la Saussaye’s standard Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, venerated the old Aryan god Deives after the manner of Zeus Dodonaios, as god of storm and of thunder, and dedicated to him the oak trees, whence his name Perkunas (he who resides in the oak). Later they lost the name Deivos entirely and called their supreme being Bog. Bog was a sun-god, who occupied a central position in the Slavic pantheon. Brückner quotes Helmold of Bosau (13th century) as saying: “Among all the divine forces to whom they (the Slavs) assign heather and forest, sorrow and joy, they do not deny that one God in heaven thrones over all the rest”; but he thinks that the belief referred to was influenced by Christian doctrines.⁹¹91Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 4th ed., Tübingen, 1925, Vol. II, pp. 506, 514, 519. The religious beliefs of the Lithuanians are not yet cleared up. In the time of St. Adalbert they kindled sacred fires in honor of Perkunas and had a priesthood who offered sacrifices to that god.⁹²92Ibid., p. 533. On the sources for the religious beliefs of the Slavs and Lithuanians, which are scarce and not very reliable, see Brückner, ibid., pp. 507–509 and 525. Such recent monographs as exist, are practically worthless, except Ant. Mierzysnki, Mythologiae Lituanicae Monumenta, 2 vols., Warsaw, 1892 and 1896, a collection of source materials up to the middle of the 15th century. (Ibid., p. 525).

2. The Semitic Religions

A. The Religion of the Babylonians.—The name Ilu, which the Assyrians and Babylonians gave to their principal god, indicates that he was identical with the Hebrew El.

The name Ilu is found in Babylonian inscriptions dating as far back as 2,500 B. C. It occurs frequently in proper names, such as Ilu-amranni (God, look at me), Ilu-turam (God, harken to me again), Ilûma-Ilu (God is God). The name of the capital city, Babel, in its original form contains the word Ilu, Bab-Ilu, i. e., portal of God.⁹³93F. Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel, 2nd ed., Leipsic, 1903, p. 73. F. Delitzsch undoubtedly went too far when he concluded from this wide-spread use of the name Ilu “that these Northern Semitic tribes … about 2,500 B. C. … conceived and venerated God as one spiritual being.”⁹⁴94Babel und Bibel, 2nd ed., p. 72. Cfr. P. Keil, Babel- und Bibelfrage, Treves, 1903, pp. 19 sqq. There is no proof that Ilu was worshipped as the one supreme god of the Babylonians, though we may legitimately conclude that his memory survived for a long time in the consciousness of the people.

The leading place among the gods of Babylonia at the beginning of recorded history belonged to the triad Anu, Bel,⁹⁵95Bel is the older lection; at present the name is read Ellil or En-lil. Cfr. H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testamente, Tübingen, 1909, p. 3, n. 3. and Ea. However, these three deities were not worshipped as equals. Anu, god of the sky, is the highest, whom all the other gods obey. But his power is already beginning to wane, and he is mentioned but rarely in the liturgical documents that have come down to us. True, the other gods show him great reverence, and he is ranked above them; but his influence upon earthly affairs is exercised entirely through the medium of others. Bel (En-lil=god of the earth) has also withdrawn, and in the nether regions Ea, god of the ocean, has assumed the reins of government. His cult is most frequently in evidence. At the side of these three great gods an important place is held by the goddess Ishtar, also called Nin-makh, i. e., “Great Lady,” who is generally added to the triad after Ea.⁹⁶96F. Jeremias in Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 498 sqq.

In the age of Hammurapi (about 2,300 B. C.) it is asserted that Marduk, the son of Ea, originally a sun-god and protector of Babylon, was venerated as the supreme god of the Babylonians. Hammurapi himself says that he brought about the final triumph of Marduk. At a later period the Babylonian pantheon was artificially enlarged until every vestige of Monotheism was lost and Polytheism reigned supreme.

B. The Religion of the Assyrians.—The religion of the ancient Assyrians differed from that of the Babylonians only in this respect, that their national deity, Asshûr, stood at the head of the great triad. Asshûr is worshipped by the Assyrians as king of the gods and creator of heaven and earth; his throne is high up in the sky. He is “the prince of the gods,” “the omniscient one who fixeth destinies,” etc.⁹⁷97A. Condamin, S. J., “The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria” in Lectures on the History of Religions, Vol. I, p. 4; E. R. Hull, S. J., Archaic Religions, pp. 108 sqq.; Jeremias, l. c. (see note 96), pp. 536 sqq. The quoted phrases are from an ancient hymn translated by F. Scheil.

But the idea of one God, which existed in an almost pure form among the early Assyrians, gradually became obscured as the number of deities multiplied and superstition, star-worship, and sorcery grew apace.⁹⁸98Condamin, l. c., p. 18. On the religion of the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians see H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, Leipsic, 1893–1901; Zimmern, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion, Leipsic, 1901; A. Ungnad, Die Religion der Babylonier und Assyrer, Jena, 1921; Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, Oxford, 1912; M. Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898 (enlarged German edition under the title, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, Giessen, 1902–12); P. Dhorme, La Religion Assyro-Babylonienne, Paris, 1910; J. Jeremias, Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur, Leipsic, 1913; J. Hehn, Die biblische und die babylonische Gottesidee, Leipsic, 1913 (this work was placed on the Roman Index of Forbidden Books).

C. The Religion of the Phœnicians.—The name of the chief god of the Phœnicians, El, reveals the primitive connection of their religion with the Monotheism of the Hebrews. El does not occur as often in the documents and inscriptions that have come down to us as Baal (Lord) and Melek (King); but there can be no reasonable doubt that El enjoyed a certain prestige among the gods of ancient Phœnicia, since Philo reports that El was the supreme god of Byblos, though he had no temple and no established cult.

The common denominator of the different local deities is Baal, the great lord of heaven, from whom both good and evil was believed to emanate. But the name Baal did not always designate the same deity. It was a generic term, as its combination with the names of various cities shows. There were many Baals or Baalim. The Baal of one city was not identical with that of another. But the lack of proper names for these different deities and their common name Baal, which means “lord,” sufficiently indicates that the religion of the Phœnicians was originally Monotheistic or at least Henotheistic.

At a later period Melkarth, that is, “King of the City” (i. e., Tyre), is most frequently mentioned. This fact is attributable to the preeminent position which the city of Tyre occupied at that time. Occasionally Melkarth is simply called “Baal of Tyre.” Melkarth, it may be noted, is one of those numerous forms of the name Melek (identical with the Biblical Moloch), which was variously compounded with the names of cities, gods, and persons. Melek was worshipped as the sun-god.

The two female companions of Baal and Melek, Baalat and Milkat, are merely the infamous Ashtart (Astarte) under another name. Her worship was later connected with the cult of Adonis, in honor of Adon, the god of the spring sun.

We must also mention the seven or eight Kabirim (“mighty ones”) who, according to Philo, were regarded as the protectors of shipping. They have not yet been traced in ancient inscriptions, and were probably, like so many others, added to the original list of Phœnician deities at a later period.

Among the Phœnicians, as among other nations, the number of gods constantly increased and, as a consequence, the true idea of God became obscured and the people finally lost sight of the Monotheistic origin of their religious worship.⁹⁹99Fr. Jeremias in Chantepie de la Saussaye’s Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 4th ed., Tübingen, 1925, Vol. I, pp. 629–647. Cfr. E. Meyer’s article on Phœnician deities in Roscher’s Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, and the article “Phœnicia” by the same writer in Cheyne-Black’s Encyclopædia Biblica, London, 1902; Max Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, die Bibel und Homer, Berlin, 1893; W. Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun, Leipsic, 1911; J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough. A Study in Magic and Religion, Part IV: Adonis, Attis, Osiris, London, 1914; J. Leipoldt, Sterbende und auferstehende Götter, Leipsic, 1923.

D. The Religion of the Syrians.—It is difficult to trace the development of the religion of ancient Syria, because that country was “the confluence and the sink of nations,” constantly exposed to foreign influences, and no contemporary sources of information are available. It is important to note, however, that the inscriptions of Sendshirli (eighth century), besides Hadad, whom later writers call the highest god of the Syrians, also mention El, whose rôle is indicated by the proper name of Sassariel, i. e., “El is the king of kings.” This seems to indicate that El, the Jehovah of the Hebrews, was at an earlier period acknowledged and worshipped also in Syria. His name has been preserved among the people in the form “Alloho.”¹⁰⁰100On “The Religion of Ancient Syria” cfr. G. S. Hitchcock in Lectures on the History of Religions, Vol. I, London, 1910.

E. The Religion of the Arabs.—The pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped, as their highest god, Allah (’Ilâh=god; ’Allâh [=’al-’Ilâh]=the God, i. e., the one, true God). The most important among the minor deities were Manat, Allat, and Aluzza, whom tradition designates as daughters of Allah.¹⁰¹101Chantepie De la Saussaye, op. cit., Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 648 sqq.; E. Power, S. J., in Lectures on the History of Religions, Vol. IV, “The Religion of the Koran”; Th. H. Robinson, An Outline Introduction to the History of Religions, London, 1926, pp. 183 sqq.; Th. P. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, 2nd ed., London, 1896; J. Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Edinburgh, 1908–1921 s. v.; A. von Kremer, Geschichte der herrschenden Ideen des Islams, Leipsic, 1868; Carra de Vaux, Les Penseurs de l’Islam, 4 vols., Paris, 1921–23; I. Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, 2 vols., Halle, 1889 sq.; C. H. Becker, Islamstudien, Vol. I, Berlin, 1924; D. B. MacDonald, Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence, and Constitutional Theory, London, 1903; Idem, The Religious Attitude and Life in Islam, Chicago, 1909; IDEM, Aspects of Islam, New York, 1911; T. W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, 2nd ed., London, 1913; A. Mez, Die Renaissance des Islams, Heidelberg, 1922; E. Sell, The Faith of Islam, London, 1880; M. Hartmann, Der Islam, Leipsic, 1909; D. G. Hogarth, Arabia, Oxford, 1922; I. Guidi, L’Arabie Antéislamique, Paris, 1921; W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 2nd ed., London, 1894; H. Lammens, S. J., Le Berceau de l’Islam, Rome, 1914; IDEM, L’Islam, Croyances et Institutions, Beyrouth, 1926; H. Hirschfeld, Jüdische Elemente im Koran, Berlin, 1878; D. S. Margoliouth, The Relations between Arabs and Israelites prior to the Rise of Islam, London, 1924; Alois Musil, Arabia Petraea, 3 vols., Vienna, 1897 sq.; W. Muir, The Life of Mohammad, rev. ed. by T. H. Weir, Edinburgh, 1912; Th. Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorâns, 2nd ed., by Fr. Schwally, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1909, 1919; D. Nielsen, N. Rhodokanakis, and Fr. Hommel, Handbuch der arabischen Altertumskunde, Vol. I, Die Altarabische Kultur, Kopenhagen, 1927. Dr. Nielsen, treating at length of the religious life of ancient Arabia, says that Il, Ilâh, al Ilâhu, Allâh, was the great national lunar deity and adds: “The possibility cannot be denied that Il once was what he later became, a spiritual, personal god, having nothing to do with any nature cult.”—The best translations of the Koran into English are those by J. M. Rodwell, 2nd ed., London, 1876 (which gives the sures in chronological order) and by E. H. Palmer in the Sacred Books of the East, London, 1880.

The central sanctuary of the supreme god, whose essence was conceived as the plenitude of divinity, was the Kaaba at Mecca. The worship that was practiced there was common to all the tribes of the Arab nation; it prevented the various local deities from gaining a foothold and later made it possible for Muhammad (Mohammed) to raise Allah, whose name and cult had never entirely concealed his Monotheistic origin, to the rank of the one and only god of the Arabs.

F. The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians.—Scholars are at variance as to the nature and development of the religion of ancient Egypt. De Rougé, Pierret, Le Page Renouf, and Lieblein held that the original cult of the Egyptians was Monotheistic and that “the later phases of religious development were much cruder than the earlier ones and interspersed with magic elements.”¹⁰²102Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 3rd ed., Vol. I, p. 191. To this contention it has been objected that the most ancient usages in connection with the handling of the dead were tainted with magic superstitions and that the sources for the early history of Egyptian religious worship do not flow as freely as those for its later phases. However, the former of these two facts merely proves that pure Monotheism no longer flourished in Egypt at the dawn of history, though we must not forget that most of the documents that are quoted to illustrate the prevalence of superstition among the ancient Egyptians date from a later age.¹⁰³103Ibid. The second fact, namely, that the ancient sources are deficient, is no argument, since the paucity of sources might be alleged in favor of either view. The testimonies that have been lost may have established the purity of the ancient religious worship just as likely as the contrary. That the number of gods worshipped in Egypt increased constantly in course of time, is admitted by those who hold that it is impossible to form an adequate notion of the earliest form of the Egyptian religion.¹⁰⁴104A. Wiedemann, Religion der alten Ägypter, Münster i. W., 1890, pp. 2 sq.; IDEM, in Hastings’ Dictionary, extra vol., 1904, pp. 176–197; A. Mallon, in Lectures on the History of Religions, Vol. I; Steindorff, Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, London, 1905.

The Egyptian mythology, which in part at least reaches back to the fourth millennium B. C., shows some traces of Monotheism. The chief figure in the pantheon was the sun-god Râ, who was worshipped more generally than any other deity. His cult was not a purely local one, though the sun under some other name was worshipped here and there also as a local deity. Râ’s dominion over gods and men dates from the earliest period of history. The phrase, “since the time of Râ,” was frequently used to indicate remote antiquity. Râ retained a certain precedence even at a later period, after Osiris had usurped his place as pattern-exemplar of the Egyptian kings. For while the latter governed men only, Râ ruled at a time when gods and men were still united under one scepter. When, about 200 B. C., at Thebes, Râ and Amon were amalgamated into one deity, called Amon-Râ, Amon lost his former prestige as the god of fertility or god of the dead and, with Râ, became the sun-god. To Amon-Râ was dedicated the gigantic temple of Karnak, upon which every generation spent new labor and which grew worthy to be considered one of the seven wonders of the world. Many of the hymns sung in honor of Râ have an almost purely Monotheistic trend. He is exalted as “singular in his forms amid the gods, the beautiful progenitor of the divine nine, the highest of all the gods, the lord of truth and father of the gods, the fashioner of man, the creator of brute beasts, the master of all that exists, … who is kind-hearted towards those that invoke him.”¹⁰⁵105A. Wiedemann, Religion der alten Ägypter, pp. 64 sq. He says of himself:—

This, as Fr. Hull notes, “is exalted theology, and a corrective of much that is inferior elsewhere. For instance, it asserts the one Supreme God, creator of all things—even the ocean and chaos and darkness out of which he is said to have emerged. The other gods are manifestly treated as inferior beings, and therefore creatures of limited capacity, not to be confused with himself. In short, primitive Egypt at its best stands forth as a witness to a simple theism, expressed naïvely here and there in human terms and images, but otherwise not to be found fault with.”¹⁰⁶106E. R. Hull, S. J., Archaic Religions, pp. 114 sq.; cfr. Wiedemann, op. cit.; Chr. Pesch, S. J., Der Gottesbegriff in den heidnischen Religionen des Altertums, pp. 115 sqq. Of all the ancient religions, that of Egypt seems to be the most complex. (Cfr. Th. H. Robinson, An Outline Introduction to the History of Religions, London, 1926, p. 71). The sources in S. Birch, Records of the Past, Vols. II, IV, VI, VIII, XII (London, 1873–1881) and A. H. Sayce, Vols. II to VI of the new series, London, 1888–1892; J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vols. I–V (1906–1907); Ad. Ermann, Die Literatur der Aegypter, Leipsic, 1923; IDEM, Die ägyptische Religion, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1909; G. Maspero, Les Contes Populaires de l’Égypte Ancienne, 4th ed., 1911; G. Roeder, Urkunden zur Religion des alten Aegypten, übersetzt und eingeleitet, Jena, 1915; Th. Hoppner, Fontes Historiae Religionis Aegyptiacae, Bonn, 1922 sqq.; P. Lacau, Textes Religieux Égyptiens, Paris, 1910; R. Lepsius, Das Totenbuch der Aegypter, Leipsic, 1842; E. A. W. Budge, The Chapters of Coming Forth by Day, or the Theban Recension of the Book of the Dead, 3 vols., London, 1910; IDEM, The Book of the Dead, 2 vols., London, 1913; IDEM, Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life, London, 1899; Th. G. Allen, Horus in the Pyramid Texts, Chicago, 1916; P. Boylan, Thoth, the Hermes of Egypt, London, 1922.

The Egyptian religion of later times is inseparably associated with animal-worship of a degrading kind. But this arose only in the last period, i. e., from the 7th century B. C. downwards. Previous to this nothing similar can be detected.

If from our present coign of vantage we survey the course of development taken by religion in Egypt, we find that it approaches Monotheism in more than one respect, but recedes from pure Monotheism in proportion as it recedes from its own beginnings.

We part from the Semitic tribes with the conviction that all of them preserved definite traces of Monotheism in their religious beliefs and practices. Ernest Renan sought the explanation of this remarkable fact in what he termed the “Monotheistic instinct” of the Semites and the “Monotheistic character of the desert.”¹⁰⁷107“Le desert est monothéiste”; cfr. Histoire Générale et Système Comparé des Langues Sémitiques, Paris, 1855. But this is an arbitrary assumption not borne out by facts. The Semitic tribes were driven with almost irresistible force into Polytheism. Even the Hebrew people, the only ancient nation that preserved its Monotheism pure, showed a strong tendency towards Polytheism, and it was owing only to the repeated and powerful intervention of the prophets that Monotheism survived among the Chosen People. Hence it would be more correct to speak of a Polytheistic than of a Monotheistic instinct among the Semitic nations.

Nor is it true that the desert is Monotheistic in character. On the contrary, Monotheism has nowhere survived in the desert. The descendants of Ishmael,—who was a faithful adherent of Jehovah when he went to live in the desert,—all without exception became Polytheists, and the Israelites made their first attempt to repudiate Jehovah when they set up the golden calf in the desert.

3. The Religion of the Chinese

All we know about the religious beliefs of ancient China, whose inhabitants probably came straight from the banks of the Euphrates about 3000 B. C., is contained in the sources preserved for us by Confucius (Kong-tse=teacher of the Kong race), who lived in the seventh century B. C. His statements can be accepted without hesitation, since he was a highly conservative reformer, who had but one aim, namely, “to restore the former state of felicity on the basis of the existing conditions and of the remnants that had been preserved from ancient times.”¹⁰⁸108R. Dvořák, Chinas Religionen, Vol. I, Confucius und seine Lehre, Münster i. W., 1895, p. 217; L. Wieger, S. J., “The Religion of China” in Lectures on the History of Religions, Vol. I, pp. 11 sqq. T. H. Robinson, An Outline Introduction to the History of Religions, London, 1926, p. 52, says: “… Confucius himself, for all practical purposes, left religion on one side, content to recognize traditional duties and perform conventional rites, while he devoted his main thinking to the establishment of a really high order of practical life.” Though Confucius never expressly mentions God or Heaven, he was not an atheist. His standpoint is that of an orthodox Chinese, whose religious views coincide with those commonly held by the people of his day.¹⁰⁹109Dvořák, l. c. He regarded Thian (Heaven) as the supreme being, who governs the destinies of men, rules over life and death, and bestows earthly possessions and dignities. A crime against Thian is the worst that can be committed, because when man turns away from Heaven, he has no one to whom he can pray. The whole universe is animated by manes (spirits), which are the executive organs of the supreme master and serve as intermediaries between him and the human race.¹¹⁰110Ibid., pp. 218 sqq. On Confucianism see Chs. F. Aiken in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, pp. 223–228; J. J. M. De Groot, The Religious Systems of China, 3 vols., Leyden, 1892–1912; IDEM, The Religion of the Chinese, New York, 1910; J. Edkins, Religion in China, London, 1884; J. Legge, The Religions of China, New York, 1881; R. K. Douglas, Confucianism and Tâoism, London, 1900; C. de Harlez, Les Religions de la Chine, Leipsic, 1891; E. H. Parker, China and Religion, London, 1905; L. Wieger, S. J., Histoire des Croyances Religieuses et des Opinions Philosophiques en Chine, Paris, 1922; M. Granet, La Religion des Chinois, Paris, 1922; W. Grube, Religion und Kultus der Chinesen, Leipsic, 1910; O. Franke, “Die Chinesen,” in Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 4th ed., Vol. I, pp. 193 sqq. This theory of the Supreme Being led Legge, Faber, Happel, and other scholars to list the religion of ancient China among the Monotheistic religions of antiquity, especially since an even purer notion of God is found in the teachings of Lao-Tse, who lived a short time before Confucius. The theology of Lao-tse, in the opinion of a recent writer, is probably the highest achievement of its kind, not merely in China, but in the whole cultured world of the pre-Christian era, eastern as well as western.¹¹¹111Dvořák, Chinas Religionen, Vol. II, p. 141; Wieger, l. c., p. 12. His fundamental notions, as the parallel passages between his teaching and that of Confucius show, are typically Chinese.¹¹²112Dvořák, l. c. Confucius himself describes Lao-tse as a scholar who “is well-informed with regard to the old and also knows the new,” and it was for this reason that he chose him for his teacher.¹¹³113Dvořák, op. cit., p. 6; Robinson, Outline, pp. 139 sqq.

Lao-tse calls the supreme being Tâo (Intellect, Logos, the Absolute, Eternal). Hence his religion is termed Tâoism. While every other kind of being is born from non-being (i. e., created out of nothing), Tâo has no cause, but exists by himself, is eternal, spiritual, omnipresent, the creator of Heaven and earth. In him are contained the archetypes of all things. He preserves and protects all his creatures and is the sole cause of their perfection and sanctification. Already in ancient times, according to Lao-tse, Tâo was “the most highly regarded under heaven,” because he allowed himself to be found by those who sought forgiveness of their sins.¹¹⁴114Dvořák, op. cit., pp. 36 sqq. On Tâoism see, besides the works cited, A. Réville, La Religion Chinoise, Paris, 1889; J. Legge, The Texts of Tâoism, in Sacred Books of the East, Vol. III, 1879, Vol. XVI, 1882, and Vols. XXVII–XXVIII, 1885; J. J. M. de Groot, On the Origin of the Tâoist Church, in Transactions of the Third International Congress of the History of Religions, Oxford, 1908; W. Grube, Tâoistischer Schöpfungsmythus, Berlin, 1896; L. Wieger, S. J., Tâoisme, Paris, 1911–13. Unfortunately, this pure concept of God did not long survive. Under the Chou dynasty, 1122 to 213 B. C., a process of gradual degeneration set in. Religion was overloaded with divination, astrology, sorcery, the infiltration of aboriginal fetish worship, the importation of foreign ideas from Zoroastrianism and Brahminism. The sublime ruler was viewed under many aspects, and these came to be personified, so as to result in a sort of incipient polytheism. This looks like an endeavor to break down the monopoly of the emperor, by dividing God into parts and worshipping him piecemeal. There also grew up an inferior conception of the transcendent beings, who became vulgarized, began to eat and drink like men, and put on animal forms. Besides the benevolent manes of their own ancestors, mischievous spirits or demons are introduced, probably from India. Fear of ghosts, and especially the dread of hunger in the life beyond the grave, takes possession of the popular mind. Another sign of Indian influence is the introduction of sati, or the burning of relations, animals, etc., on the pyre of the dead. Servants even committed suicide in order to act as messengers between the living and the dead.¹¹⁵115Hull, Archaic Religions, Bombay, 1913, pp. 137 sq.; Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 4th ed., Vol. II, pp. 220 sqq.; W. S. Lilly, Ancient Religion and Modern Thought, 2nd ed., London, 1885, pp. 109 sqq. On the similarity in principle between Buddhism and Tâoism, see J. Edkins, Chinese Buddhism, London, 1880, p. 373.

Later on, about A. D. 65, Buddhism was introduced into China and became the leading religion, while the Tâoism of Lao-tse was prohibited on account of the revolutionary tendencies of its followers, and Confucianism was forgotten because of the dryness of its doctrines. Attempts were made in later centuries to revive these two religions, and with some success. But the popular notion that Confucianism is the religion of China is altogether a mistake. The official religion (down to the recent declaration of the republic) always retained its primitive form. Buddhism became the religion of the people, who, as we have seen, were professedly debarred from the true Chinese religion by the Emperor’s monopoly. Shintoism (a modified form of Tâoism) and Confucianism became the religion of certain of the select classes merely. The system of Chuhsi, a sort of materialistic monism singularly akin to that of Haeckel, has for the last thousand years been the official philosophy of the learned.¹¹⁶116Hull, op. cit., p. 138; Chantepie de la Saussaye, op. cit., p. 229 sqq. A fine specimen of the Confucian doctrine is The Great Plan (Shû King, Pt. V, Bk. IV, pp. 139 sqq.), of which an English translation may be seen in W. S. Lilly, Ancient Religion and Modern Thought, 2nd ed., London, 1885, pp. 116–121. On Buddhism in China see further: E. Eitel, Three Lectures on Buddhism, Hongkong, 1871; S. Beal, Buddhism in China, London, 1884; H. Hackmann, Buddhism as a Religion, London, 1910; R. F. Johnston, Buddhist China, London, 1913; J. J. M. de Groot, Der Thûpa, das heiligste Heiligtum des Buddhismus in China, Berlin, 1919.—On the canon of the Chinese Buddhists, Tripitaka, see O. Franke in Chantepie de la Saussaye’s Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 4th ed., Vol. I, pp. 240 sqq.—On the Lamaism of Tibet, IDEM, ibid., pp. 247–255; C. F. Koeppen, Die lamaische Hierarchie und Kirche, Berlin, 1859; E. Schlagintweit, Buddhism in Tibet, London, 1863; L. A. Waddell, The Buddhism of Tibet, London, 1895.

The Chinese, therefore, have had the same experience as the Indo-Germanic and Semitic nations: they gradually sank from a high plane of Monotheistic thought and life to the level of Polytheistic superstitions and abuses.