L The doctrine that sacrifices were originally the offsp!ing_ of human ignorance reflected on the Deity, is fairly summed up in the following extract from Mr. Conway's article to which I have alluded: 1 "Side by side," Mr. Conway writes, "in all ages and races, have struggled with each other the principle of ret.aliation and that of. for~ giveness. In religion the vindictive principle has euphemistic names; it is called-~ and justice. The other principle, that of remission, has had to exist by sufferance, and in nea.rly all religions has been recognized only in subordinate alliance with its ant.agonist. AI1 eye for a.n eye, a. tooth for a tooth, blood for blood, is primitive law. Projected into heaven, magnified into the Divine majesty, it becomes the principle that a Deity cannot be just, and yet a Justifier of offenders. • Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.' Since finite man is naturally assumed to be incapable of directly satisfying an in.finite law, all religions, based on the idea of a Divine Lawgiver, are employed in devising schemes by which commutations may be secured and vicarious satisfactions of Divine law obtained. No Deity inferred from the always relentless forces of nature has ever been supposed able to forgive the smallest sin until it was exactly atoned for. For this reason, the Divine mercifulness has generally become a separate personification. The story of the • pound of flesh' ls one of the earliest fables concerning these conflicting principles.'' Thus, then, if I understand this line of reasoning clearly, we are brought to the theory that all religions have been the imputations of human feelings and experience11 to the Deity. AIJ.d whether the Deity exist as the Great Unknown or be merely a • Nlneuen(h Century, May, 1880, p. 830. AN ESSAY ON SACRIFICE. iii
1igrnent or man's brain, Mr. Conway's argument remains the same. According to thii, theory, as the principle of retaliation o.nd that of forgiveness have struggled for ascendency ln man's more.I development, so in parallel lines have the god or gods, real or imaginary, been vindict.ive or forgiving. In this way, the history of the religions of mankind is merely the history of man's moral growth reflected on another sphere-- where we see the survive.I of the moral fittest, human mercy, as a purely human force, gradually supplanting human vindictiveness. And thus Divine law, or justice, is translated by human vindictiveness; and the offering of sacrifices, animal or other, is a. human scheme by which "commutations may be secured and vicarious satisfactions obtained" to propitiate, or appease, the supposed Divine vindictiveness. Mr. Conway illustrates and supports his theory by reference to Brahmanic, Bud- dhistic, and Semitic examples. "The following legend," he writes, "was related to me by a Hindu, as one he had been told in his childhood. The chief of the Indian triad, lndra, pursued. the god Agni. Agni changed himself to a dove in order to escape; but lndra changed himsdf to a hawk, to continue the pursuit. The dove took refuge with Vishnu, second person of the triad, the Hindu saviour. Indra, flying up, demanded the dove ; Vishnu, con- cealing it in his bosom, refused to give up the dove. Indra then took an oath that, if the dove were not surrendered, he would tear from Vishnu's breast an amount of flesh equal to the body of the dove. Vishnu still refused to surrender the bird, but bared his breast. The divine hawk tore from it the exact quantity, and the drops of blood- the blood of a saviour-as they Cell to the ground, wrote the scriptures of the Vedas. "We may see," Mr. Con way goes on to remark, "in the fable reflection of a sacrificial age; an age in which the will and word of a god became inexorable fate, but also the dawning conception of a divineness in the mitigation of the law, which ultimately adds saving deities to those which cannot be appeased." Versions of this story are traced in some of the Hindu writings; and advancing to the discussion of Buddhism, Mr. Conway says, "With Buduha the principle of remission supersedes that of sacrifice. His argument against the Brahmanic sacrifice of life was strong. When they pointed to these predatory laws of nature in proof of their faith that the gods approved the infliction of pain and death, he asked them why they did not sacrifice their own children . why they did not offer to the gods the most valuable lives. The fact was that they were outgrowing direct human sacrifices-preserving self-mortifications-and animals were slain in commutation of costlier offerings." The Semitic story adduced •is, of' course, that of Abraham and Isaac. "In the case of Abraham and Isaac," Mr. Conway writes, "the demand is not remitted, but commuted. The ram is accepted instead of Isaac. But even so much concession could hardly be recognized by the Hebrew priest- hood as an allowable variation from a direct demand of Jahve, and so the command is said to have been given by Elohim, its modification by Jahve. The cautious transfor- mation is somewhat in the spirit of the disguises of the Aryan deities, who may partially revoke as gods the orders they gave as hawks. It woulJ indicate a more advanced idea. if we found Jahve remitting a claim of his own instead of one made by Elohim." Thus too the Jewish religion and the Christian religion are brought nnder the same category with Hinduism and Buddhism, and are me.de to illustrate the same human principles. The idea, possibility, probability, or claims of revelation are untouched. I do not enter the arena of controversy to discuss with Mr. Conway the character and revelation of Jehovah; that would be quite beside the mark in this commentary. But standing on the platform of Holy Scripture, I wish thence to consider some portions of his theory, Now, while Jew and Christian have sufficient reason for believing that certairi h AN ESSAY ON SACRIFICE.