Canon / Scripture Lists

The second opinion as to the authorship is found in no writer of any name. It occurs only in two places: a poem falsely ascribed to Tertullian, and a fragment published by Muratori, on the Canon, the authorship of which is unknown, and the original language of which is still a matter of dispute. The fragment says, “The Pastor was written very lately in our times, in the city of Rome, by Hermas, while Bishop Pius, his brother, sat in the chair of the church of the city of Rome.”

It is not without significance, that in no passage of the holy canonical books there can be found either divine precept or permission to take away our own life, whether for the sake of entering on the enjoyment of immortality, or of shunning, or ridding ourselves of anything whatever. Nay, the law, rightly interpreted, even prohibits suicide, where it says, "Thou shalt not kill." This is proved specially by the omission of the words "thy neighbour," which are inserted when false witness is forbidden: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Nor yet should any one on this account suppose he has not broken this commandment if he has borne false witness only against himself. For the love of our neighbour is regulated by the love of ourselves, as it is written, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." If, then, he who makes false statements about himself is not less guilty of bearing false witness than if he had made them to the injury of his neighbour; although in the commandment prohibiting false witness only his neighbour is mentioned, and persons taking no pains to understand it might suppose that a man was allowed to be a false witness to his own hurt;

This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient, first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves. For if we attain the knowledge of present objects by the testimony of our own senses, whether internal or external, then, regarding objects remote from our own senses, we need others to bring their testimony, since we cannot know them by our own, and we credit the persons to whom the objects have been or are sensibly present. Accordingly, as in the case of visible objects which we have not seen, we trust those who have, (and likewise with all sensible objects,) so in the case of things which are perceived by the mind and spirit, i.e. which are remote from our own interior sense, it behoves us to trust those who have seen them set in that incorporeal light, or abidingly contemplate them.

But some are moved by the fact that we have read that the fruit of the connection between those who are called angels of God and the women they loved were not men like our own breed, but giants; just as if there were not born even in our own time (as I have mentioned above) men of much greater size than the ordinary stature. Was there not at Rome a few years ago, when the destruction of the city now accomplished by the Goths was drawing near, a woman, with her father and mother, who by her gigantic size overtopped all others? Surprising crowds from all quarters came to see her, and that which struck them most was the circumstance that neither of her parents were quite up to the tallest ordinary stature. Giants therefore might well be born, even before the sons of God, who are also called angels of God, formed a connection with the daughters of men, or of those living according to men, that is to say, before the sons of Seth formed a connection with the daughters of Cain. For thus speaks even the canonical Scripture itself in the book in which we read of this; its words are: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair [good]; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh:

Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission. So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men, are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine;

just as many writings are produced by heretics under the names both of other prophets, and, more recently, under the names of the apostles, all of which, after careful examination, have been set apart from canonical authority under the title of Apocrypha. There is therefore no doubt that, according to the Hebrew and Christian canonical Scriptures, there were many giants before the deluge, and that these were citizens of the earthly society of men, and that the sons of God, who were according to the flesh the sons of Seth, sunk into this community when they forsook righteousness. Nor need we wonder that giants should be born even from these. For all of their children were not giants; but there were more then than in the remaining periods since the deluge. And it pleased the Creator to produce them, that it might thus be demonstrated that neither beauty, nor yet size and strength, are of much moment to the wise man, whose blessedness lies in spiritual and immortal blessings, in far better and more enduring gifts, in the good things that are the peculiar property of the good, and are not shared by good and bad alike. It is this which another prophet confirms when he says, "These were the giants, famous from the beginning, that were of so great stature, and so expert in war. Those did not the Lord choose, neither gave He the way of knowledge unto them;

It is difficult to discover from Scripture, whether, after the deluge, traces of the holy city are continuous, or are so interrupted by intervening seasons of godlessness, that not a single worshipper of the one true God was found among men; because from Noah, who, with his wife, three sons, and as many daughters-in-law, achieved deliverance in the ark from the destruction of the deluge, down to Abraham, we do not find in the canonical books that the piety of any one is celebrated by express divine testimony, unless it be in the case of Noah, who commends with a prophetic benediction his two sons Shem and Japheth, while he beheld and foresaw what was long afterwards to happen. It was also by this prophetic spirit that, when his middle son--that is, the son who was younger than the first and older than the last born--had sinned against him, he cursed him not in his own person, but in his son's (his own grandson's), in the words, "Cursed be the lad Canaan; a servant shall he be unto his brethren." Now Canaan was born of Ham, who, so far from covering his sleeping father's nakedness, had divulged it. For the same reason also he subjoins the blessing on his two other sons, the oldest and youngest, saying, "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

But this pertains to both, that the city of God is called Jerusalem, and that it is prophesied the house of God shall be in it; and this prophecy seems to be fulfilled when king Solomon builds that most noble temple. For these things both happened in the earthly Jerusalem, as history shows, and were types of the heavenly Jerusalem. And this kind of prophecy, as it were compacted and commingled of both the others in the ancient canonical books, containing historical narratives, is of very great significance, and has exercised and exercises greatly the wits of those who search holy writ. For example, what we read of historically as predicted and fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, we must also inquire the allegorical meaning of, as it is to be fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to faith. And so much is this the case, that some have thought there is nothing in these books either foretold and effected, or effected although not foretold, that does not insinuate something else which is to be referred by figurative signification to the city of God on high, and to her children who are pilgrims in this life. But if this be so, then the utterances of the prophets, or rather the whole of those Scriptures that are reckoned under the title of the Old Testament, will be not of three, but of two different kinds.

David therefore reigned in the earthly Jerusalem, a son of the heavenly Jerusalem, much praised by the divine testimony; for even his faults are overcome by great piety, through the most salutary humility of his repentance, that he is altogether one of those of whom he himself says, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." After him Solomon his son reigned over the same whole people, who, as was said before, began to reign while his father was still alive. This man, after good beginnings, made a bad end. For indeed "prosperity, which wears out the minds of the wise," hurt him more than that wisdom profited him, which even yet is and shall hereafter be renowned, and was then praised far and wide. He also is found to have prophesied in his books, of which three are received as of canonical authority, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But it has been customary to ascribe to Solomon other two, of which one is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, on account of some resemblance of style,--but the more learned have no doubt that they are not his; yet of old the Church, especially the Western, received them into authority,--in the one of which, called the Wisdom of Solomon, the passion of Christ is most openly prophesied. For indeed His impious murderers are quoted as saying, "Let us lie in wait for the righteous, for he is unpleasant to us, and contrary to our works;

As Thou wast sanctified in us before them, so be Thou sanctified in them before us, and let them acknowledge Thee, according as we also have acknowledged Thee; for there is not a God beside Thee, O Lord." We see this prophecy in the form of a wish and prayer fulfilled through Jesus Christ. But the things which are not written in the canon of the Jews cannot be quoted against their contradictions with so great validity.

But as regards those three books which it is evident are Solomon's, and held canonical by the Jews, to show what of this kind may be found in them pertaining to Christ and the Church demands a laborious discussion, which, if now entered on, would lengthen this work unduly. Yet what we read in the Proverbs of impious men saying, "Let us unrighteously hide in the earth the righteous man; yea, let us swallow him up alive as hell, and let us take away his memory from the earth: let us seize his precious possession," is not so obscure that it may not be understood, without laborious exposition, of Christ and His possession the Church. Indeed, the gospel parable about the wicked husbandmen shows that our Lord Jesus Himself said something like it: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours." In like manner also that passage in this same book, on which we have already touched when we were speaking of the barren woman who hath born seven, must soon after it was uttered have come to be understood of only Christ and the Church by those who knew that Christ was the Wisdom of God. "Wisdom hath builded her an house, and hath set up seven pillars; she hath sacrificed her victims, she hath mingled her wine in the bowl; she hath also furnished her table. She hath sent her servants summoning to the bowl with excellent proclamation, saying, Who is simple, let him turn aside to me.

But in that whole time after they returned from Babylon, after Malachi, Haggai, and Zechariah, who then prophesied, and Ezra, they had no prophets down to the time of the Saviour's advent except another Zechariah, the father of John, and Elisabeth his wife, when the nativity of Christ was already close at hand; and when He was already born, Simeon the aged, and Anna a widow, and now very old; and, last of all, John himself, who, being a young man, did not predict that Christ, now a young man, was to come, but by prophetic knowledge pointed Him out although unknown; for which reason the Lord Himself says, "The law and the prophets were until John." But the prophesying of these five is made known to us in the gospel, where the virgin mother of our Lord herself is also found to have prophesied before John. But this prophecy of theirs the wicked Jews do not receive; but those innumerable persons received it who from them believed the gospel. For then truly Israel was divided in two, by that division which was foretold by Samuel the prophet to king Saul as immutable. But even the reprobate Jews hold Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra as the last received into canonical authority.

For there are also writings of these, as of others, who being but a very few in the great multitude of prophets, have written those books which have obtained canonical authority, of whose predictions it seems good to me to put in this work some which pertain to Christ and His Church; and this, by the Lord's help, shall be done more conveniently in the following book, that we may not further burden this one, which is already too long.

At this time, Cyrus king of Persia, who also ruled the Chaldeans and Assyrians, having somewhat relaxed the captivity of the Jews, made fifty thousand of them return in order to rebuild the temple. They only began the first foundations and built the altar; but, owing to hostile invasions, they were unable to go on, and the work was put off to the time of Darius. During the same time also those things were done which are written in the book of Judith, which, indeed, the Jews are said not to have received into the canon of the Scriptures. Under Darius king of Persia, then, on the completion of the seventy years predicted by Jeremiah the prophet, the captivity of the Jews was brought to an end, and they were restored to liberty. Tarquin then reigned as the seventh king of the Romans. On his expulsion, they also began to be free from the rule of their kings. Down to this time the people of Israel had prophets; but, although they were numerous, the canonical writings of only a few of them have been preserved among the Jews and among us. In closing the previous book, I promised to set down something in this one about them, and I shall now do so.

The date of three of the minor prophets, Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, is neither mentioned by themselves nor given in the chronicles of Eusebius and Jerome. For although they put Obadiah with Micah, yet when Micah prophesied does not appear from that part of their writings in which the dates are noted. And this, I think, has happened through their error in negligently copying the works of others. But we could not find the two others now mentioned in the copies of the chronicles which we have; yet because they are contained in the canon, we ought not to pass them by.

After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious over all. For by consulting the Gospel we learn that Christ is the Truth. From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils.

So that only those theological poets, Orpheus, Linus, and Musæus, and, it may be, some others among the Greeks, are found earlier in date than the Hebrew prophets whose writings we hold as authoritative. But not even these preceded in time our true divine, Moses, who authentically preached the one true God, and whose writings are first in the authoritative canon; and therefore the Greeks, in whose tongue the literature of this age chiefly appears, have no ground for boasting of their wisdom, in which our religion, wherein is true wisdom, is not evidently more ancient at least, if not superior. Yet it must be confessed that before Moses there had already been, not indeed among the Greeks, but among barbarous nations, as in Egypt, some doctrine which might be called their wisdom, else it would not have been written in the holy books that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, as he was, when, being born there, and adopted and nursed by Pharaoh's daughter, he was also liberally educated. Yet not even the wisdom of the Egyptians could be antecedent in time to the wisdom of our prophets, because even Abraham was a prophet. And what wisdom could there be in Egypt before Isis had given them letters, whom they thought fit to worship as a goddess after her death? Now Isis is declared to have been the daughter of Inachus, who first began to reign in Argos when the grandsons of Abraham are known to have been already born.

If I may recall far more ancient times, our patriarch Noah was certainly even before that great deluge, and I might not undeservedly call him a prophet, forasmuch as the ark he made, in which he escaped with his family, was itself a prophecy of our times. What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Does not the canonical epistle of the Apostle Jude declare that he prophesied? But the writings of these men could not be held as authoritative either among the Jews or us, on account of their too great antiquity, which made it seem needful to regard them with suspicion, lest false things should be set forth instead of true. For some writings which are said to be theirs are quoted by those who, according to their own humour, loosely believe what they please. But the purity of the canon has not admitted these writings, not because the authority of these men who pleased God is rejected, but because they are not believed to be theirs. Nor ought it to appear strange if writings for which so great antiquity is claimed are held in suspicion, seeing that in the very history of the kings of Judah and Israel containing their acts, which we believe to belong to the canonical Scripture, very many things are mentioned which are not explained there, but are said to be found in other books which the prophets wrote, the very names of these prophets being sometimes given, and yet they are not found in the canon which the people of God received.

Now I confess the reason of this is hidden from me; only I think that even those men, to whom certainly the Holy Spirit revealed those things which ought to be held as of religious authority, might write some things as men by historical diligence, and others as prophets by divine inspiration; and these things were so distinct, that it was judged that the former should be ascribed to themselves, but the latter to God speaking through them: and so the one pertained to the abundance of knowledge, the other to the authority of religion. In that authority the canon is guarded. So that, if any writings outside of it are now brought forward under the name of the ancient prophets, they cannot serve even as an aid to knowledge, because it is uncertain whether they are genuine; and on this account they are not trusted, especially those of them in which some things are found that are even contrary to the truth of the canonical books, so that it is quite apparent they do not belong to them.

But let us omit further examination of history, and return to the philosophers from whom we digressed to these things. They seem to have laboured in their studies for no other end than to find out how to live in a way proper for laying hold of blessedness. Why, then, have the disciples dissented from their masters, and the fellow-disciples from one another, except because as men they have sought after these things by human sense and human reasonings? Now, although there might be among them a desire of glory, so that each wished to be thought wiser and more acute than another, and in no way addicted to the judgment of others, but the inventor of his own dogma and opinion, yet I may grant that there were some, or even very many of them, whose love of truth severed them from their teachers or fellow-disciples, that they might strive for what they thought was the truth, whether it was so or not. But what can human misery do, or how or where can it reach forth, so as to attain blessedness, if divine authority does not lead it? Finally, let our authors, among whom the canon of the sacred books is fixed and bounded, be far from disagreeing in any respect. It is not without good reason, then, that not merely a few people prating in the schools and gymnasia in captious disputations, but so many and great people, both learned and unlearned, in countries and cities, have believed that God spoke to them or by them, i.e.

the canonical writers, when they wrote these books. There ought, indeed, to be but few of them, lest on account of their multitude what ought to be religiously esteemed should grow cheap; and yet not so few that their agreement should not be wonderful. For among the multitude of philosophers, who in their works have left behind them the monuments of their dogmas, no one will easily find any who agree in all their opinions. But to show this is too long a task for this work.

But what author of any sect is so approved in this demon-worshipping city, that the rest who have differed from or opposed him in opinion have been disapproved? The Epicureans asserted that human affairs were not under the providence of the gods; and the Stoics, holding the opposite opinion, agreed that they were ruled and defended by favourable and tutelary gods. Yet were not both sects famous among the Athenians? I wonder, then, why Anaxagoras was accused of a crime for saying that the sun was a burning stone, and denying that it was a god at all; while in the same city Epicurus flourished gloriously and lived securely, although he not only did not believe that the sun or any star was a god, but contended that neither Jupiter nor any of the gods dwelt in the world at all, so that the prayers and supplications of men might reach them! Were not both Aristippus and Antisthenes there, two noble philosophers and both Socratic? yet they placed the chief end of life within bounds so diverse and contradictory, that the first made the delight of the body the chief good, while the other asserted that man was made happy mainly by the virtue of the mind. The one also said that the wise man should flee from the republic; the other, that he should administer its affairs. Yet did not each gather disciples to follow his own sect?

Indeed, in the conspicuous and well-known porch, in gymnasia, in gardens, in places public and private, they openly strove in bands each for his own opinion, some asserting there was one world, others innumerable worlds; some that this world had a beginning, others that it had not; some that it would perish, others that it would exist always; some that it was governed by the divine mind, others by chance and accident; some that souls are immortal, others that they are mortal,--and of those who asserted their immortality, some said they transmigrated through beasts, others that it was by no means so, while of those who asserted their mortality, some said they perished immediately after the body, others that they survived either a little while or a longer time, but not always; some fixing supreme good in the body, some in the mind, some in both; others adding to the mind and body external good things; some thinking that the bodily senses ought to be trusted always, some not always, others never. Now what people, senate, power, or public dignity of the impious city has ever taken care to judge between all these and other well-nigh innumerable dissensions of the philosophers, approving and accepting some, and disapproving and rejecting others?

Has it not held in its bosom at random, without any judgment, and confusedly, so many controversies of men at variance, not about fields, houses, or anything of a pecuniary nature, but about those things which make life either miserable or happy? Even if some true things were said in it, yet falsehoods were uttered with the same licence; so that such a city has not amiss received the title of the mystic Babylon. For Babylon means confusion, as we remember we have already explained. Nor does it matter to the devil, its king, how they wrangle among themselves in contradictory errors, since all alike deservedly belong to him on account of their great and varied impiety.

But that nation, that people, that city, that republic, these Israelites, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, by no means confounded with similar licence false prophets with the true prophets; but, agreeing together, and differing in nothing, acknowledged and upheld the authentic authors of their sacred books. These were their philosophers, these were their sages, divines, prophets, and teachers of probity and piety. Whoever was wise and lived according to them was wise and lived not according to men, but according to God who hath spoken by them. If sacrilege is forbidden there, God hath forbidden it. If it is said, "Honour thy father and thy mother," God hath commanded it. If it is said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal," and other similar commandments, not human lips but the divine oracles have enounced them.

Whatever truth certain philosophers, amid their false opinions, were able to see, and strove by laborious discussions to persuade men of,--such as that God has made this world, and Himself most providently governs it, or of the nobility of the virtues, of the love of country, of fidelity in friendship, of good works and everything pertaining to virtuous manners, although they knew not to what end and what rule all these things were to be referred,--all these, by words prophetic, that is, divine, although spoken by men, were commended to the people in that city, and not inculcated by contention in arguments, so that he who should know them might be afraid of contemning, not the wit of men, but the oracle of God.

Wherefore if we read of any foreigner--that is, one neither born of Israel nor received by that people into the canon of the sacred books--having prophesied something about Christ, if it has come or shall come to our knowledge, we can refer to it over and above; not that this is necessary, even if wanting, but because it is not incongruous to believe that even in other nations there may have been men to whom this mystery was revealed, and who were also impelled to proclaim it, whether they were partakers of the same grace or had no experience of it, but were taught by bad angels, who, as we know, even confessed the present Christ, whom the Jews did not acknowledge. Nor do I think the Jews themselves dare contend that no one has belonged to God except the Israelites, since the increase of Israel began on the rejection of his elder brother. For in very deed there was no other people who were specially called the people of God; but they cannot deny that there have been certain men even of other nations who belonged, not by earthly but heavenly fellowship, to the true Israelites, the citizens of the country that is above.

Because, if they deny this, they can be most easily confuted by the case of the holy and wonderful man Job, who was neither a native nor a proselyte, that is, a stranger joining the people of Israel, but, being bred of the Idumean race, arose there and died there too, and who is so praised by the divine oracle, that no man of his times is put on a level with him as regards justice and piety. And although we do not find his date in the chronicles, yet from his book, which for its merit the Israelites have received as of canonical authority, we gather that he was in the third generation after Israel. And I doubt not it was divinely provided, that from this one case we might know that among other nations also there might be men pertaining to the spiritual Jerusalem who have lived according to God and have pleased Him. And it is not to be supposed that this was granted to any one, unless the one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, was divinely revealed to him; who was pre-announced to the saints of old as yet to come in the flesh, even as He is announced to us as having come, that the selfsame faith through Him may lead all to God who are predestinated to be the city of God, the house of God, and the temple of God. But whatever prophecies concerning the grace of God through Christ Jesus are quoted, they may be thought to have been forged by the Christians.

Truly Jesus Himself shall extinguish by His presence that last persecution which is to be made by Antichrist. For so it is written, that "He shall slay him with the breath of His mouth, and empty him with the brightness of His presence." It is customary to ask, When shall that be? But this is quite unreasonable. For had it been profitable for us to know this, by whom could it better have been told than by God Himself, the Master, when the disciples questioned Him? For they were not silent when with Him, but inquired of Him, saying, "Lord, wilt Thou at this time present the kingdom to Israel, or when?" But He said, "It is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in His own power." When they got that answer, they had not at all questioned Him about the hour, or day, or year, but about the time. In vain, then, do we attempt to compute definitely the years that may remain to this world, when we may hear from the mouth of the Truth that it is not for us to know this. Yet some have said that four hundred, some five hundred, others a thousand years, may be completed from the ascension of the Lord up to His final coming. But to point out how each of them supports his own opinion would take too long, and is not necessary; for indeed they use human conjectures, and bring forward nothing certain from the authority of the canonical Scriptures.

As regards the uncertainty about everything which Varro alleges to be the differentiating characteristic of the New Academy, the city of God thoroughly detests such doubt as madness. Regarding matters which it apprehends by the mind and reason it has most absolute certainty, although its knowledge is limited because of the corruptible body pressing down the mind, for, as the apostle says, "We know in part." It believes also the evidence of the senses which the mind uses by aid of the body; for [if one who trusts his senses is sometimes deceived], he is more wretchedly deceived who fancies he should never trust them. It believes also the Holy Scriptures, old and new, which we call canonical, and which are the source of the faith by which the just lives, and by which we walk without doubting whilst we are absent from the Lord. So long as this faith remains inviolate and firm, we may without blame entertain doubts regarding some things which we have neither perceived by sense nor by reason, and which have not been revealed to us by the canonical Scriptures, nor come to our knowledge through witnesses whom it is absurd to disbelieve.

Solomon, the wisest king of Israel, who reigned in Jerusalem, thus commences the book called Ecclesiastes, which the Jews number among their canonical Scriptures: "Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he hath taken under the sun?" And after going on to enumerate, with this as his text, the calamities and delusions of this life, and the shifting nature of the present time, in which there is nothing substantial, nothing lasting, he bewails, among the other vanities that are under the sun, this also, that though wisdom excelleth folly as light excelleth darkness, and though the eyes of the wise man are in his head, while the fool walketh in darkness, yet one event happeneth to them all, that is to say, in this life under the sun, unquestionably alluding to those evils which we see befall good and bad men alike. He says, further, that the good suffer the ills of life as if they were evil-doers, and the bad enjoy the good of life as if they were good. "There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked: again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous.

The prophet Malachi or Malachias, who is also called Angel, and is by some (for Jerome tells us that this is the opinion of the Hebrews) identified with Ezra the priest, others of whose writings have been received into the canon, predicts the last judgment, saying, "Behold, He cometh, saith the Lord Almighty; and who shall abide the day of His entrance?... for I am the Lord your God, and I change not." From these words it more evidently appears that some shall in the last judgment suffer some kind of purgatorial punishments; for what else can be understood by the word, "Who shall abide the day of His entrance, or who shall be able to look upon Him? for He enters as a moulder's fire, and as the herb of fullers: and He shall sit fusing and purifying as if over gold and silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and pour them out like gold and silver?" Similarly Isaiah says, "The Lord shall wash the filthiness of the sons and daughters of Zion, and shall cleanse away the blood from their midst, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning." Unless perhaps we should say that they are cleansed from filthiness and in a manner clarified, when the wicked are separated from them by penal judgment, so that the elimination and damnation of the one party is the purgation of the others, because they shall henceforth live free from the contamination of such men.

And yet, when it pleased Him who with sovereignty and supreme power regulates all He has created, a star conspicuous among the rest by its size and splendour changed its colour, size, form, and, most wonderful of all, the order and law of its course! Certainly that phenomenon disturbed the canons of the astronomers, if there were any then, by which they tabulate, as by unerring computation, the past and future movements of the stars, so as to take upon them to affirm that this which happened to the morning star (Venus) never happened before nor since. But we read in the divine books that even the sun itself stood still when a holy man, Joshua the son of Nun, had begged this from God until victory should finish the battle he had begun; and that it even went back, that the promise of fifteen years added to the life of king Hezekiah might be sealed by this additional prodigy. But these miracles, which were vouchsafed to the merits of holy men, even when our adversaries believe them, they attribute to magical arts; so Virgil, in the lines I quoted above, ascribes to magic the power to

For these most trustworthy books of ours contain in one narrative both the miracles that were wrought and the creed which they were wrought to confirm. The miracles were published that they might produce faith, and the faith which they produced brought them into greater prominence. For they are read in congregations that they may be believed, and yet they would not be so read unless they were believed. For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by His sacraments or by the prayers or relics of His saints; but they are not so brilliant and conspicuous as to cause them to be published with such glory as accompanied the former miracles. For the canon of the sacred writings, which behoved to be closed, causes those to be everywhere recited, and to sink into the memory of all the congregations; but these modern miracles are scarcely known even to the whole population in the midst of which they are wrought, and at the best are confined to one spot. For frequently they are known only to a very few persons, while all the rest are ignorant of them, especially if the state is a large one; and when they are reported to other persons in other localities, there is no sufficient authority to give them prompt and unwavering credence, although they are reported to the faithful by the faithful.

It will be objected, that we here in England are not now directed by the popes lawes; and so by consequence our witches not troubled or convented by the inquisitors Hæreticæ pravitatis. I answer, that in times past here in England, as in other nations, this order of discipline hath beene in force and use; although now some part of old rigor be qualified by two severall statutes made in the fift of Elizabeth, and xxxiii of Henrie the eight. Nevertheles the estimation of the omnipotencie of their words and charmes seemeth in those statutes to be somewhat mainteined, as a matter hitherto generallie received; and not yet so looked into, as that it is refuted and decided. But how wiselie so ever the Parlement house hath dealt therin, or how mercifullie soever the prince beholdeth the cause: if a poore old woman, supposed to be a witch, be by the civill or canon lawe convented; I doubt, some canon will be found in force, not onelie to give scope to the tormentor, but also to the hangman, to exercise their offices upon hir. And most certaine it is, that in what point soever anie of these extremities, which I shall rehearse unto you, be mitigated, it is thorough the goodnesse of the Queenes Majestie, and hir excellent magistrates placed among us. For as touching the opinion of our writers therein in our age;

And bicause it may appeare unto the world what trecherous and faithlesse dealing, what extreame and intolerable tyrannie, what grosse and fond absurdities, what unnaturall & uncivil discourtisie, what cancred and spitefull malice, what outragious and barbarous crueltie, what lewd and false packing, what cunning and craftie intercepting, what bald and peevish interpretations, what abhominable and divelish inventions, and what flat and plaine knaverie is practised against these old women; I will set downe the whole order of the inquisition, to the everlasting, inexcusable, and apparent shame of all witchmoongers. Neither will I insert anie private or doubtfull dealings of theirs; or such as they can either denie to be usuall, or justlie cavill at; but such as are published and renewed in all ages, since the commensement of poperie, established by lawes, practised by inquisitors, privileged by princes, commended by doctors, confirmed by popes, councels, decrees, and canons; and finallie be left of all witchmoongers; to wit, by such as attribute to old women, and such like creatures, the power of the Creator.

Item, if three witnesses doo but saie, Such a woman is a witch; then is it a cleere case that she is to be executed with death. Which matter Bodin saith is not onelie certeine by the canon and civill lawes, but by the opinion of pope Innocent, the wisest pope (as he saith) that ever was.

For as Augustine and Isidore, with the rest of the sounder divines saie, that these prestigious things, which are wrought by witches are fantasticall: so doo the sounder decrees of councels and canons agree, that in that case, there is no place for criminall action. And the lawe saith, that The confession of such persons as are illuded, must needs be erronious, and therefore is not to be admitted: for, Confessio debet tenere verum & possibile. But these things are opposite both to lawe and nature, and therfore it followeth not; Bicause these witches confesse so, Ergo it is so. For the confession differeth from the act, or from the possibilitie of the act. And whatsoever is contrarie to nature faileth in his principles, and therefore is naturallie impossible.

And indeede they find lawe, and provide meanes thereby to mainteine this their bloudie humor. For it is written in their popish canons, that As for these kind of heretikes, how much soever they repent and returne to the faith, they may not be reteined alive, or kept in perpetuall prison; but be put to extreame death. Yea, M. Mal. writeth, that A witches sinne is the sinne against the Holie-ghost; to wit, irremissible: yea further, that it is greater than the sinne of the angels that fell. In which respect I wonder, that Moses delivered not three tables to the children of Israell; or at the leastwise, that he exhibited not commandements for it. It is not credible that the greatest should be included in the lesse, &c.

Item, that there was one Bajanus a Jew, being the sonne of Simeon, which could, when he list, turne himselfe into a woolfe; and by that meanes could escape the force and danger of a whole armie of men. Which thing (saith Bodin) is woonderfull: but yet (saith he) it is much more marvelous, that men will not beleeve it. For manie poets affirme it; yea, and if you looke well into the matter (saith he) you shall find it easie to doo. Item, he saith, that as naturall woolves persecute beasts; so doo these magicall woolves devoure men, women, and children. And yet God saith to the people (I trowe) and not to the cattell of Israell; If you observe not my commandements, I will send among you the beasts of the feeld, which shall devoure both you and your cattell. Item, I will send the teeth of beasts upon you. Where is Bodins distinction now become? He never saith, I will send witches in the likenes of wolves, &c: to devoure you or your cattell. Nevertheles, Bodin saith it is a cleare case: for the matter was disputed upon before pope Leo the seventh, and by him all these matters were judged possible: and at that time (saith he) were the transformations of Lucian and Apuleius made canonicall.

These examples and reasons might put us in doubt, that everie asse, woolfe, or cat that we see, were a man, a woman, or a child. I marvell that no man useth this distinction in the definition of a man. But to what end should one dispute against these creations, and recreations; when Bodin washeth away all our arguments with one word, confessing that none can create any thing but God; acknowledging also the force of the canons, and imbracing the opinions of such divines, as write against him in this behalfe? Yea he dooth now (contrarie to himselfe elsewhere) affirme, that the divell cannot alter his forme. And lo, this is his distinction, Non essentialis forma (id est ratio) sed figura solùm permutatur: The essentiall forme (to wit, reason) is not changed, but the shape or figure. And thereby he prooveth it easie enough to create men or beasts with life, so as they remaine without reason. Howbeit, I thinke it is an easier matter, to turne Bodins reason into the reason of an asse, than his bodie into the shape of a sheepe: which he saith is an easie matter; bicause Lots wife was turned into a stone by the divell. Whereby he sheweth his grosse ignorance. As though God that commanded Lot upon paine of death not to looke backe, who also destroied the citie of Sodome at that instant, had not also turned hir into a salt stone.

Generall councels, and the popes canons, which Bodin so regardeth, doo condemne and pronounce his opinions in this behalfe to be absurd; and the residue of the witchmongers, with himselfe in the number, to be woorsse than infidels. And these are the verie words of the canons, which else-where I have more largelie repeated; Whosoever beleeveth, that anie creature can be made or changed into better or woorsse, or transformed into anie other shape, or into anie other similitude, by anie other than by God himselfe the creator of all things, without all doubt is an infidell, and woorsse than a pagan. And therewithall this reason is rendered, to wit: bicause they attribute that to a creature, which onelie belongeth to God the creator of all things.

But M. Mal. and his friends denie, that there were any witches in Jobs time: yea the witchmongers are content to saie, that there were none found to exercise this art in Christs time, from his birth to his death, even by the space of thirtie three yeares. If there had beene anie (saie they) they should have beene there spoken of. As touching the authoritie of the booke of Job, there is no question but that it is verie canonicall and authentike. Howbeit, manie writers, both of the Jewes and others, are of opinion, that Moses was the author of this booke; and that he did set it as a looking glasse before the people: to the intent the children of Abraham (of whose race he himselfe came) might knowe, that God shewed favour to others that were not of the same line, and be ashamed of their wickednesse: seeing an uncircumcised Painime had so well demeaned himselfe. Upon which argument Calvine (though he had written upon the same) saith, that Forsomuch as it is uncerteine, whether it were Res gesta or Exempli gratia, we must leave it in suspense. Nevertheles (saith he) let us take that which is out of all doubt; namelie, that the Holy-ghost hath indited the booke, to the end that the Jewes should knowe that God hath had a people alwaies to serve him throughout the world, even of such as were no Jewes, nor segregated from other nations.

In like manner I saie you may see, that by the prohibition of divinations by augurie, and of soothsaiengs, &c, who are witches, and can indeed doo nothing but lie and cousen the people, the lawe of God condemneth them not, for that they can worke miracles, but bicause they saie they can doo that which perteineth to God, and for cousenage, &c. Concerning other points of witchcraft conteined therein, and bicause some cannot otherwise be satisfied, I will alledge under one sentence, the decretals, the mind of S. Augustine, the councell Aurelian, and the determination of Paris, to wit: Who so observeth, or giveth heed unto soothsaiengs, divinations, witchcraft, &c, or doth give credit to anie such, he renounceth christianitie, and shalbe counted a pagane, & an enemie to God; yea and he erreth both in faith and philosophie. And the reason is therewithall expressed in the canon, to wit; Bicause hereby is attributed to a creature, that which perteineth to God onelie and alone. So as, under this one sentence (Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner or a witch to live) is forbidden both murther and witchcraft; the murther consisting in poison; the witchcraft in cousenage or blasphemie.

But put the case, that one in our common wealth should step up and saie he were a prophet (as manie frentike persons doo) who would beleeve him, or not thinke rather that he were a lewd person? See the statutes Elizab. 5. whether there be not lawes made against them, condemning their arrogancie and cousenage: see also the canon lawes to the same effect.

But you shall read in the Legend a fable, an oracle I would saie, more authentike. For many will say that this was a prophane storie, and not so canonicall as those which are verefied by the popes authoritie: and thus it is written. A woman in hir travell sent hir sister to Diana, which was the divell in an idoll (as all those oracles are said to be) and willed hir to make hir praiers, or rather a request, to knowe of hir safe deliverie: which thing she did. But the divell answered; Why praiest thou to me? I cannot helpe thee, but go praie to Andrew the apostle, and he may helpe thy sister, &c. Lo, this was not onelie a gentle, but a godlie divell, pittieng the womans case, who revealing his owne disabilitie, enabled S. Andrew more. I knowe some protestants will saie, that the divell, to mainteine idolatrie, &c: referred the maid to S. Andrew. But what answer will the papists make, who thinke it great pietie to praie unto saints, and so by consequence honest courtesie in the divell, to send hir to S. Andrew, who wold not faile to serve hir turne, &c.

Also this charme is found in the canon of the masse, Hæc sacrosancta commixtio corporis & sanguinis domini nostri Jesu Christi fiat mihi, omnibúsque sumentibus, salus mentis & corporis, & ad vitam promerendam, & capessendam, præparatio salutaris: that is, Let this holie mixture of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ, be unto me, and unto all receivers thereof, health of mind and bodie, and to the deserving and receiving of life an healthfull preparative.

Item, the Duke of Alba his horsse was consecrated, or canonized, in the lowe countries, at the solemne masse; wherein the popes bull, and also his charme was published (which I will hereafter recite) he in the meane time sitting as Vice-roy with his consecrated standard in his hand, till masse was done.

Scotus, Hostiensis, Gofridus, and all the old canonists agree, that it is lawfull to take awaie witchcraft by witchcraft, Et vana vanis contundere. And Scotus saith, It were follie to forbeare to encounter witchcraft by witchcraft; for (saith he) there can be none inconvenience therein; bicause the overthrower of witchcraft assenteth not to the works of the divell. And therefore he saith further, that it is meritorious so to extinguish and overthrow the divels workes. As though he should saie; It maketh no matter, though S. Paule saie; Non facies malum, ut indè veniat bonum, Thou shalt not doo evill, that good maie come thereof. Humbertus saith, that witchcraft maie be taken awaie by that meanes whereby it was brought. But Gofredus inveieth sore against the oppugners thereof. Pope Nicholas the fift gave indulgence and leave to bishop Miraties (who was so bewitched in his privities, that he could not use the gift of venerie) to seeke remedie at witches hands. And this was the clause of his dispensation, Ut ex duobus malis fugiatur majus, that of two evils, the greater should be avoided. And so a witch, by taking his doublet, cured him, and killed the other witch: as the storie saith, which is to be seene in M. Mal. and diverse other writers.

What woondering and admiration was there at Brandon the juggler, who painted on a wall the picture of a dove, and seeing a pigeon sitting on the top of a house, said to the king; Lo now your Grace shall see what a juggler can doo, if he be his craftes maister; and then pricked the picture with a knife so hard and so often, and with so effectuall words, as the pigeon fell downe from the top of the house starke dead. I need not write anie further circumstance to shew how the matter was taken, what woondering was thereat, how he was prohibited to use that feat anie further, least he should emploie it in anie other kind of murther; as though he, whose picture so ever he had pricked, must needs have died, and so the life of all men in the hands of a juggler: as is now supposed to be in the hands and willes of witches. This storie is, untill the daie of the writing hereof, in fresh remembrance, & of the most part beleeved as canonicall, as are all the fables of witches: but when you are taught the feate or sleight (the secrecie and sorcerie of the matter being bewraied, and discovered) you will thinke it a mockerie, and a simple illusion. To interpret unto you the revelation of this mysterie;

and sometimes with death, when the other are to be pardoned doing the same offense: bicause (say they) the witches make a league with the divell, & so doo not conjurors. Now if conjurors make no league by their owne confession, and divels indeed know not our cogitations (as I have sufficientlie prooved) then would I weet of our witchmongers the reason, (if I read the conjuration and performe the ceremonie) why the divell will not come at my call? But oh absurd credulitie! Even in this point manie wise & learned men have beene & are abused: wheras, if they would make experience, or dulie expend the cause, they might be soone resolved; specially when the whole art and circumstance is so contrarie to Gods word, as it must be false, if the other be true. So as you may understand, that the papists do not onlie by their doctrine, in bookes & sermons teach & publish conjurations, & the order thereof, whereby they may induce men to bestowe, or rather cast awaie their monie upon masses and suffrages for their soules; but they make it also a parcell of their sacrament of orders (of the which number a conjuror is one) and insert manie formes of conjurations into their divine service, and not onelie into their pontificals, but into their masse bookes; yea into the verie canon of the masse.

What can be made but a conjuration of these words also, which are written in the canon, or rather in the saccaring of masse? This holie commixtion of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ, let it be made to me, and to all the receivers thereof, health of mind and bodie, and a wholesome preparative for the deserving and receiving of everlasting life, through our Lord Jesus, Amen.

Here I may aptlie insert another miracle of importance, that happened within the compasse of a childes remembrance, which may induce anie resonable bodie to conceive, that these supernaturall actions are but fables & cousenages. There was one, whom for some respects I name not, that was taken blind, deafe, & dumbe; so as no physician could helpe him. That man (forsooth) though he was (as is said) both blind, dumbe & deafe, yet could he read anie canonicall scriptures; but as for apocrypha, he could read none: wherein a Gods name consisted the miracle. But a leafe of apocrypha being extraordinarilie inserted among the canonicall scriptures, he read the same as authentike: wherein his knaverie was bewraied. Another had a divell, that answered men to all questions, marie hir divell could understand no Latine, and so was she (and by such meanes all the rest may be) bewraied. Indeed our witching writers saie, that certeine divels speake onelie the language of that countrie where they are resiant, as French, or English, &c.

Furthermore, in my conceipt, nothing prooveth more apparentlie that witchcraft is cousenage, and that witches instruments are but ridiculous bables, and altogither void of effect; than when learned and godlie divines, in their serious writings, produce experiments as wrought by witches, and by divels at witches commandements: which they expound by miracles, although indeed meere trifles. Whereof they conceive amisse, being overtaken with credulitie.

Had they not hee idols and shee idols, some for men, some for women, some for beasts, and some for fowles, &c? Doo you not thinke that S. Martine might be opposed to Bacchus? If S. Martine be too weake we have S. Urbane, S. Clement, and manie other to assist him. Was Venus and Meretrix an advocate for whoores among the Gentiles? Behold, there were in the Romish church to encounter with them, S. Aphra, S. Aphrodite, and S. Maudline. But insomuch as long Meg was as verie a whoore as the best of them, she had wrong that she was not also canonized, and put in as good credit as they: for she was a gentlewoman borne; whereunto the pope hath great respect in canonizing of his saints. For (as I have said) he canonizeth the rich for saints, and burneth the poore for witches. But I doubt not, Magdalen, and manie other godlie women are verie saints in heaven, and should have beene so, though the pope had never canonized them: but he dooth them wrong, to make them the patronesses of harlots and strong strumpets.

For mad men, and such as are possessed with divels, S. Romane was excellent, & frier Ruffine was also pretilie skilfull in that art. For botches and biles, Cosmus and Damian; S. Clare for the eies, S. Apolline for teeth, S. Job for the pox. And for sore brests S. Agatha was as good as Ruminus. Whosoever served Servatius well, should be sure to loose nothing: if Servatius failed in his office, S. Vinden could supplie the matter with his cunning; for he could cause all things that were lost to be restored againe. But here laie a strawe for a while, and I will shew you the names of some, which exceed these verie far, and might have beene canonized for archsaints; all the other saints or idols being in comparison of them but bunglers, and bench-whistlers. And with your leave, when all other saints had given over the matter, and the saints utterlie forsaken of their servitors, they repaired to these that I shall name unto you, with the good consent of the pope, who is the fautor, or rather the patrone of all the saints, divels, and idols living or dead, and of all the gods save one. And whereas none other saint could cure above one disease, in so much as it was idolatrie, follie I should have said, to go to Job for anie other maladie than the pox; nothing commeth amisse to these.

Some say that Semele bare thee to Zeus the lord of thunder in Dracanon, and some in windy Icarus, and some in Naxos, thou seed of Zeus, Eiraphiotes; and others by the deep-swelling river Alpheius, and others, O Prince, say that thou wert born in Thebes. Falsely speak they all: for the Father of Gods and men begat thee far away from men, while white-armed Hera knew it not. There is a hill called Nyse, a lofty hill, flowering into woodland, far away from Phoenicia, near the streams of AEgyptus. . . .

Nothing is unknown to thee in the three worlds, so thou art conversant with the canons of morality. O Keshava of the Vrishni clan, thou knowest my vow that whoever among men would tell me, 'Partha, give thy Gandiva to some one braver than you,' I shall at once put an end to his life. Bhima has also made a promise that whoever would call him 'tularak', would be slaughtered by him there and then. Now the King has repeatedly used those very words to me in thy presence, O hero, viz., 'Give thy bow.' If I slay him, O Keshava, I will not be able to live in this world for even a moment. Having intended again the slaughter of the king through folly and the loss of my mental faculties, I have been polluted by sin. It behoveth thee today, O foremost of all righteous persons, to give me such counsel that my vow, known throughout the world, may become true while at the same time both myself and the eldest son of Pandu may live."'"

Among the six kinds of citadels indicated in the scriptures, indeed among every kind of citadel, that which consists of (the ready service and the love of the) subjects is the most impregnable. Therefore, the king who is possessed of wisdom should always show compassion towards the four orders of his subjects. The king who is of righteous soul and truthful speech succeeds in gratifying his subjects. Thou must not, however, O son always behave with forgiveness towards everybody, for the king that is mild is regarded as the worst of his kind like an elephant that is reft of fierceness. In the scriptures composed by Vrihaspati, a Sloka was in days of old applicable to the present matter. Hear it, O king as I recite it. 'If the king happens to be always forgiving, the lowest of persons prevails over him, even as the driver who sits on the head of the elephant he guides.' The king, therefore, should not always be mild. Nor should he always be fierce. He should be like the vernal Sun, neither cold nor so hot as to produce perspiration. By the direct evidence of the senses, by conjecture, by comparisons, and by the canons of the scriptures.

“I’m free from prejudice; accept a free man’s oath. Against one free man, crowds of slaves possess no truth. By law, in canon of Islām, the word of slaves No value has, as evidence;--the chain depraves. Ten thousand slaves may witness bear in court of law; Their testimony weighs not in the scales one straw. The slave to passion bondsman is, in sight of God. He’s lower than the captive ’neath taskmaster’s rod. A slave may be enfranchised by his owner’s word; Lust’s victim, though freeborn, dies bound with strongest cord. The slave to passion cannot loose his heavy chain. God’s mercy, special grace, can set him free again. He’s fallen into a pit, unfathomed, bottomless. His own sin this. Compulsion ’tis not, fate, nor cess. Into a pit he’s cast himself, for which my mind Cannot imagine sounding-line, its depth to find.

The king had the curiosity of making him another visit, and found the hermit much altered from what he first saw of him. His face had become fair and ruddy, and his body plump and jolly; and he was reclining at his ease on cushions of brocade, and had the Houri-like damsel lolling by his side, and the fairy-formed youth holding a fly-flap of peacock's feathers in his hand, and standing by him in attendance. The king congratulated him upon his portly appearance, and they entered together upon a variety of topics, till his majesty concluded by observing, "In this world I have an affection for these two orders of mankind, the learned and the recluse." A philosophic vizir, and man of much worldly experience, happened to be present. He said: "O sire! such is the canon of affection that you should confer a benefit on each. Give money to the learned man, that he may teach others; and give nothing to the hermit, that he may remain an anchorite.--A zahid, or hermit, stands in need of neither diram nor dinar; when an anchorite takes either, look out for another.--Whoever is virtuously disposed, and holds a mystical communication with God, is sufficient of a hermit without requiring the bread of charity, or the crumbs of mendicity. The tapering finger of the lovely, and her soul-deluding ear-lobe, are decoration enough without a turquoise ring or ear-jewel. Tell that piously-disposed and serene-minded dervish that he needs not the bread of consecration or scraping of beggary; tell that handsome and fair-faced matron that she does not require paint, coloring, or jewelry.--When I have of my own, and covet what is another's, if they esteem me not a hermit they treat me as I merit."

SECOND LECTURE. ON TROUBLES ^ O long-lived (G^ambfisvimin) 1 I (Sudharman)have heard the following Discourse* from the Venerable (Mahivira) : Here®, forsooth, the Venerable Ascetic Mahivira of the K^jyapa G6tra has declared twenty-two troubles which a monk must learn and know, bear and conquer, in order not to be vanquished by them when he lives the life of a wandering mendicant. ^ I. e. a liberated or perfected soul. ® Ti bSmi = iti bravtmi. These words serve to mark the end of every chapter in all canonical books; compare the Latin dixi. * Parisaha, that which may cause trouble to an ascetic, and which must be cheerfully borne. * The commentator (DSvSndra) says that when hlahavira spoke, he was understood by all creatures, whatever was their language. He quotes the following verse: dS^’d dSvtw naid nari/n rabaraj' ^Spi j&barivr 1 tirya»^o pi ita tairarK^nm§nir6 bhagavadgira^r ll The gods, men, •Sabaras, and animals took the language of the Lord for their own. Cf. Acts ii. ri, ® I. e. in our creed or religion. This is generally the meaning of the word iha, here, opening a sentence. LECTURE ir. These, then, are the twenty-two troubles declared by the Venerable Ascetic Mahdvlra, which a monk must learn and know, bear and conquer, in order not to be vanquished by them when he lives the life of a wandering mendicant : 1. digzn^/ik (^gupsi)-parlsah&, hunger; 2.

And of these men one man is Icing, who is strong like the great Himavat, Malaya, Mandara, and Mah^ndra mountains, (&c., all down to) who governs his kingdom in which all riots and mutinies have been suppressed^ And this king had an assembly of Ugras® and sons of Ugras, Bhdgas ® and sons of Bh 6 gas, Aiksh- vdkas and sons of Aikshvikas, GMXrts and sons of Giikx.ns, Kauravas and sons of Kauravas, warriors and sons of warriors, Br 4 hma«as and sons of Brdhmawas, lal/^/iayis and sons of Li^^avis, com- manders and sons of commanders, generals and sons of generals. (13) . n, rr And of these men some one® is full of laitn. Forsooth, the *Srama?zas or Br&hmawas made up their mind to go to him. Being professors of some religion (they thought) ‘We shall teach him our religion.' (And they said): ‘Know this, dear sir, that we explain and teach this religion well. (14) ‘Upwards from the soles of the feet, downwards ' This is one of the varaaka or typical descriptions which are so frequent in the canonical books. The full text Aupapatika Sfitra, ed. Leumann, § n, P- 26 f. the ma y meanings the word varaaka may have, *inasterpi«e se one in which it must be taken here. »If"y vara akas are, par y at least, composed in a curious metre which I have na metron, see Indische Studien, vol. xvii, pp. 389 ® Concerning the Ugras and Bhdgas compare note 2 on p. yr- * Apparently the king is meant.

with atm an, the first may denote the highest at man as in the Yoga philosophy, or the paramatman as in the VgdSnta. but is bound up in water : so all things. (&c.. all as above). (26) ‘ And the twelve Angas, the Canon of the Gawins \ which has been taught, produced, and declared by the ^ramawas, the Nirgranthas, viz. the Ay&SrShga (all down to) the Dnsh/iv 4 da, is wrong, not true, not a representation of the truth ; but this (our doctrine) is correct, is true, is a representation of the truth.’ The (heretics in question) make this assertion, they uphold this* assertion, they (try to) establish this assertion. Therefore the)^ cannot get out of the misery produced by this (error), even as a bird cannot get out of its cage. (27) These (heretics) cannot inform you, (&c., see §§ 16- 19, all down to) they stick, as it were, in pleasures and amusements. Thus I have treated of the third man (who believes that) the Self is the cause of everything. (28) Now I shall treat of the fourth man who believes that Fate is the cause of everything. Here in the East, (&c., see §§ 12 , 13 , all down to) teach this religion well. (29) ‘ There are two (kinds of) men. One man admits action, another man does not admit action. Both men, he who admits action, and he who does not admit action, are alike, their case is the same, because they are actuated by the same force". (30) * Gawipi</aga. ® Viz.

This fourfold sense is gradually disclosed to the initiated in the mysteries of the Kabbalah by the application of definite hermeneutical rules, which chiefly affect the letters composing the words. The most prominent of these canons are—

6. The letters of words are changed by way of anagram and new words are obtained. This canon is called ‏תמורה‎ or ‏חילוף אותיות‎, permutation, and the commutation is effected according to fixed rules. Thus the alphabet is bent exactly in the middle, and one half is put over the other, and by changing alternately the first letter or the first two letters at the beginning of the second line, twenty-two commutations are produced ex. gr.:—

Besides these canons the Kabbalah also sees a recondite sense in the form of the letters, as well as in the ornaments which adorn them.

The use made by some well-meaning Christians of the above-named Kabbalistic canons of interpretation, in controversies with Jews, to prove that the doctrines of Christianity are concealed under the letter of the Old Testament, will now be deprecated by every one who has any regard for the laws of language. As a literary curiosity, however, we shall give one or two specimens. No less a person than the celebrated Reuchlin would have it that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be found in the first verse of Genesis. He submits, if the Hebrew word ‏ברא‎, which is translated created, be examined, and if each of the three letters composing this word be taken as the initial of a separate word, we obtain the expressions ‏בן רוח אב‎ Son, Spirit, Father, according to Rule 2 (p. 131). Upon the same principle this erudite scholar deduces the first two persons in the Trinity from the words—“the stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner” (Ps. cxviii, 22), by dividing the three letters composing the word ‏אבן‎ stone, into ‏אב בן‎ Father, Son (Comp. De Verbo Mirifico, Basel, 1494). In more recent times we find it maintained that the ‘righteousness’ spoken of in Daniel ix, 24, means the Anointed of Jehovah, because the original phrase, ‏צדק עלמים‎ is by Gematria, = numerical value, (which is Rule 1, given above, p. 131), the same as ‏משיח יהוה‎.

=Other Deifications=.--Even in the case of the deification of living and dead Mikados there is much room for suspicion of foreign influence. Of the deification of other men I find no clear evidence in the older records. It is probable, however, that some of the numerous obscure deities mentioned in the Kojiki and Nihongi are deified men. A number of the legendary and historical personages named in these works were deified at a subsequent period. Others have been added from time to time. The case of the God of Suha has a special interest. Here the God's living descendant, real or supposed, is regarded as a God, and a cave (probably a tomb) occupies the place of the shrine. A fuller account of this cult is given below.[25] The high-priest of the Great Shrine of Idzumo is called an iki-gami, or living deity. Not only good but bad men might be deified or canonized, as in the case of the archrebel Masakado, the robber Kumasaka Chohan, and in our own day, Nishitaro Buntarō, the murderer of Mori, the Minister for Education.

For the true Sage, beyond the limits of an external world, they exist, but are not recognised. By the true Sage, within the limits of an external world, they are recognised, but are not assigned. And so, with regard to the wisdom of the ancients, as embodied in the canon of Spring and Autumn,

Confucius' history of his native State. Now one of the canonical books of China.

and to test these by ordinary canons leaves one far wide of the mark."

These words are quoted (with variants) from the Shu Ching or Canon of History. They refer to individuals who had misconducted themselves in carrying out the new régime.

"Certainly," said Confucius; and he thereupon went to see Lao Tzŭ. The latter would not hear of the proposal; so Confucius began to expound the doctrines of his twelve canons, in order to convince Lao Tzŭ.

Confucius said to Lao Tzŭ, "I arranged the Six Canons of Poetry, History, Rites, Music, Changes, and Spring and Autumn. I spent much time over them, and I am well acquainted with their purport. I used them in admonishing seventy-two rulers, by discourses on the wisdom of ancient sovereigns and illustrations from the lives of Chou and Shao. Yet not one ruler has in any way adopted my suggestions. Alas that man should be so difficult to persuade, and wisdom so difficult to illustrate."

"It is well for you, Sir," replied Lao Tzŭ, "that you did not come across any real ruler of mankind. Your Six Canons are but the worn-out foot-prints of ancient Sages. And what are foot-prints? Why, the words you now utter are as it were foot-prints. Foot-prints are made by the shoe: they are not the shoe itself.

This saying is attributed, in uncanonical works, to Confucius. But if any one was "Master" to Chuang Tzŭ, it would of course be Lao Tzŭ.

The Prince was greatly pleased and smiled. But when Hsü Wu Kuei went out, Nü Shang asked him, saying, "What can you have been saying to his Highness? Whenever I address him, it is either in a pacific sense, based upon the Canons of Poetry, History, Rites, and Music; or in a belligerent sense, based upon the Golden Roster or the Six Plans of Battle.

When some Confucianists were opening a grave in accordance with their Canons of Poetry and Rites, the master shouted out, "Day is breaking. How are you getting on with the work?"

"Now you occupy yourself with charity and duty to one's neighbour. You examine into the distinction of like and unlike, the changes of motion and rest, the canons of giving and receiving, the emotions of love and hate, and the restraint of joy and anger. Yet you cannot avoid the calamities you speak of.

How it enlightened the polity of past ages is evidenced in the records which historians have preserved to us. Its presence in the Canons of Poetry, History, Rites, and Music, has been made clear by many scholars of Chou and Lu. It informs the Canon of Poetry with its vigour, the Canon of History with its usefulness, the Canon of Rites with its adaptability, the Canon of Music with its harmonising influence, the Canon of Changes with its mysterious Principles, and the Spring and Autumn with its discriminations. Spread over the whole world, it is focussed in the Middle Kingdom, and the learning of all schools renders constant homage to its power.

the followers of the five princes, Mihists of the south, such as K'u Huo, Chi Ch'ih, and Têng Ling,--all these studied the canon of Mih Tzŭ, but their disagreements and agreements were not identical. They called each other schismatics, and quarrelled over the "hard and white," the "like and unlike," and argued over questions of "odd and even." Chü Tzŭ was their Sage, and they wanted to canonise him as a saint, that they might carry on his doctrines into after ages. Even now these differences are not settled.

If we turn to China, we find that the religion of Confucius is founded on the Five King and the Four Shu books—in themselves of considerable extent and surrounded by voluminous Commentaries, without which even the most learned scholars would not venture to fathom the depth of their sacred canon.(9)

What, again, do the scholars say of Buddhist literature? Do they possess it in its completeness? Assuredly not. Notwithstanding the 325 volumes of the Kanjur and Tanjur of the Northern Buddhists, each volume, we are told, “weighing from four to five pounds,” nothing, in truth, is known of real Lamaïsm. Yet the sacred canon is said in the Saddharmâlankâra(12) to contain 29,368,000 letters, or, exclusive of treatises and commentaries, five or six times the amount of the matter contained in the Bible, which, as Professor Max Müller states, rejoices in only 3,567,180 letters. Notwithstanding, then, these 325 volumes (in reality there are 333, the Kanjur comprising 108, and Tanjur 225 volumes), “the translators, instead of supplying us with correct versions, have interwoven them with their own commentaries, for the purpose of justifying the dogmas of their several schools.”(13) Moreover, “according to a tradition preserved by the Buddhist schools, both of the South and of the North, the sacred Buddhist Canon comprised originally 80,000 or 84,000 tracts, but most of them were lost, so that there remained but 6,000”—as the Professor tells his audience. Lost, as usual—for Europeans. But who can be quite sure that they are likewise lost for Buddhists and Brâhmans?

preserved in the temples of Greece and Italy.” For this is what all the Eastern Initiates and Pandits have been proclaiming to the world from time to time. And while a prominent Singhalese priest assured the writer that it was well known that the most important tracts, belonging to the Buddhist sacred canon, were stored away in countries and places inaccessible to the European Pandits, the late Svâmi Dayanand Sarasvatî, the greatest Sanskritist of his day in India, assured some members of the Theosophical Society of the same fact with regard to ancient Brâhmanical works. When told that Professor Max Müller had declared to the audiences of his Lectures that the theory “that there was a primeval preternatural revelation granted to the fathers of the human race, finds but few supporters at present”—the holy and learned man laughed. His answer was suggestive. “If Mr. ‘Moksh Mooller’ [as he pronounced the name], were a Brâhman, and came with me, I might take him to a gupa cave [a secret crypt] near Okhee Math, in the Himâlayas, where he would soon find out that what crossed the Kâlapani [the black waters of the ocean] from India to Europe were only the bits of rejected copies of some passages from our sacred books. There was a ‘primeval revelation,’ and it still exists; nor will it ever be lost to the world, but will reäppear; though the Mlechchhas will of course have to wait.”

They also inhabit seven regions disposed like a stair, for its steps mount and descend the scale of spirit and matter.(319) With Pagans and Christians, with Hindûs and Chaldeans, with Greek as with Roman Catholics—the texts varying slightly in their interpretations—they all were the Genii of the seven planets, and of the seven planetary spheres of our septenary Chain, of which Earth is the lowest. This connects the “Stellar” and “Lunar” Spirits with the higher planetary Angels, and the Saptarshis, the Seven Rishis of the Stars, of the Hindûs—as subordinate Angels, or Messengers, to these Rishis, their emanations, on the descending scale. Such, in the opinion of the philosophical Gnostics, were the God and the Archangels now worshipped by the Christians! The “Fallen Angels” and the legend of the “War in Heaven” are thus purely pagan in their origin, and come from India, viá Persia and Chaldea. The only reference to them in the Christian canon is found in Revelation xii, as quoted a few pages back.

Let those who doubt this statement, explain, on any other equally reasonable grounds, the mystery of the extraordinary knowledge possessed by the Ancients—who, some pretend, developed from lower and animal‐like savages, the “cave‐men” of the palæolithic age! Let them turn, for instance, to such works as those of Vitruvius Pollio of the Augustan age, on architecture, in which all the rules of proportion are those anciently taught at Initiations, if they would acquaint themselves with this truly divine art, and understand the deep esoteric significance hidden in every rule and law of proportion. No man descended from a palæolithic cave‐ dweller could ever evolve such a science unaided, even in millenniums of thought and intellectual evolution. It is the pupils of those incarnated Rishis and Devas of the Third Root Race who handed on their knowledge, from one generation to another, to Egypt and to Greece with her now lost canon of proportion; just as the disciples of the Initiates of the Fourth, the Atlanteans, handed it over to their Cyclopes, the “Sons of Cycles” or of the “Infinite,” from whom the name passed to the still later generations of Gnostic priests.

Whether the early Fathers of the Church knew the esoteric meaning of the Hebrew Testament, or whether only a few of them were aware of it, while the others remained ignorant of the secret, is for posterity to decide. One thing, at any rate, is certain. As the Esotericism of the New Testament agrees perfectly with that of the Hebrew Mosaic Books; and since, at the same time, a number of purely Egyptian symbols and Pagan dogmas in general—the Trinity, for example—have been copied by, and incorporated into, the Synoptics and St. John, it becomes evident that the identity of those symbols was known to the writers of the New Testament, whoever they may have been. They must have been also aware of the priority of the Egyptian Esotericism, since they have adopted several symbols which typify purely Egyptian conceptions and beliefs, in their outward and inward meaning, and which are not to be found in the Jewish Canon. One of these is the water‐lily in the hands of the Archangel, in the early representations of his appearance to the Virgin Mary; and these symbolical images are preserved to this day in the iconography of the Greek and Roman Churches. Thus Water, Fire and the Cross, as well as the Dove, the Lamb and other Sacred Animals, with all their combinations, esoterically yield an identical meaning, and must have been accepted as an improvement upon Judaism pure and simple.

Though the Jewish canon and Christianism have made the Sun to become the “Lord God” and “Jehovah” in the Bible, yet the same Bible is full of indiscreet traces of the androgyne Deity, which was Jehovah, the Sun, and Astoreth, the Moon in its female aspect, and quite free from the present metaphorical element given to it. God is a “consuming fire,” appears in, and “is encompassed by fire.” It was not only in vision that Ezekiel saw the Jews “worshipping the Sun.”(640) The Baal of the Israelites—the Shemesh of the Moabites and the Moloch of the Ammonites—was the identical “Sun‐Jehovah,” and he is till now the “King of the Host of Heaven,” the Sun, as much as Astoreth was the “Queen of Heaven,” or the Moon. The “Sun of Righteousness” has only now become a metaphorical expression. But the religion of every ancient nation had been primarily based upon the Occult manifestations of a purely abstract Force or Principle now called “God.” The very establishment of such worship shows, in its details and rites, that the philosophers who evolved such systems of Nature, subjective and objective, possessed profound knowledge, and were acquainted with many facts of a scientific nature. For besides being purely Occult, the rites of Lunar worship were based, as just shown, upon a knowledge of Physiology—quite a modern science with us—Psychology, sacred Mathematics, Geometry and Metrology, in their right applications to symbols and figures, which are but glyphs recording observed natural and scientific facts; in short upon a most minute and profound knowledge of Nature.

This is doubly true in regard to scientific opinions upon hypotheses offered for consideration—the prejudice and preconceptions of “authorities,” so called, often deciding upon questions of the most vital importance for history. There are several such predetermined opinions held by our learned Orientalists, and few are more unjust or illogical than the general error with regard to the antiquity of the Zodiac. Thanks to the hobby of some German Orientalists, English and American Sanskritists have accepted Professor Weber’s opinion that the peoples of India had no idea or knowledge of the Zodiac prior to the Macedonian invasion, and that it is from the Greeks that the ancient Hindûs imported it into their country. We are further told, by several other “authorities,” that no Eastern nation knew of the Zodiac before the Hellenes kindly acquainted their neighbours with their invention. And this, in the face of the Book of Job, which is declared, even by themselves, to be the oldest in the Hebrew canon, and certainly prior to Moses; a book which speaks of the making of “Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades [Osh, Kesil, and Kimah] and the chambers of the South”(1109); of Scorpio and the Mazaruth—the twelve signs(1110); words which, if they mean anything, imply knowledge of the Zodiac even among the nomadic Arabian tribes. The Book of Job is alleged to have preceded Homer and Hesiod by at least one thousand years—the two Greek poets having themselves flourished some eight centuries before the Christian era (!!).

617 Surely the words of the old Initiate into the primitive Mysteries of Christianity, “Know ye not ye are the Temple of God” (1 Corinth, iii. 16), could not be applied in this sense to men; though the meaning was, undeniably, so stated, in the minds of the Hebrew compilers of the Old Testament. And here is the abyss that lies between the symbolism of the New Testament and the Jewish canon. This gulf would have remained, and have ever widened, had not Christianity, especially and most glaringly the Latin Church, thrown a bridge over it. Modern Popery has now spanned it entirely, by its dogma of the two immaculate conceptions, and the anthropomorphic and, at the same time idolatrous, character it has conferred upon the Mother of its God.

718 He may be laughed at by the Protestants; but the Roman Catholics have no right to mock him, without becoming guilty of blasphemy and sacrilege. For it is over 200 years since Confucius was canonized as a Saint in China by the Roman Catholics, who have thereby obtained many converts among the ignorant Confucianists.

798 Stallo’s above‐cited work, Concepts of Modern Physics, a volume which has called forth the liveliest protests and criticisms, is recommended to anyone inclined to doubt this statement. “The professed antagonism of science to metaphysical speculation,” he writes, “has led the majority of scientific specialists to assume that the methods and results of empirical research are wholly independent of the control of the laws of thought. They either silently ignore, or openly repudiate, the simplest canons of logic, including the laws of non‐contradiction, and ... resent with the utmost vehemence every application of the rule of consistency to their hypotheses and theories ... and they regard an examination (of them) ... in the light of these laws as an impertinent intrusion of ‘à priori principles and methods’ into the domains of empirical science. Persons of this cast of mind find no difficulty in holding that atoms are absolutely inert, and at the same time asserting that these atoms are perfectly elastic; or in maintaining that the physical universe, in its last analysis, resolves itself into ‘dead’ matter and motion, and yet denying that all physical energy is in reality kinetic; or in proclaiming that all phenomenal differences in the objective world are ultimately due to the various motions of absolutely simple material units, and, nevertheless, repudiating the proposition that these units are equal.” (p. xix.) The blindness of eminent Physicists to some of the most obvious consequences of their own theories is marvellous. “When Prof. Tait, in conjunction with Prof.

I offer my sacrifice and homage to thee, the Fire, as a good offering, and an offering with our hail of salvation, even as an offering of praise with benedictions, to thee, the Fire, O Ahura Mazda's son! Meet for sacrifice art thou, and worthy of our homage. And as meet for sacrifice, and thus worthy of our homage, mayest thou be in the houses of men who worship Mazda. Salvation be to this man who worships thee in verity and truth, with wood in hand, and Baresma ready, with flesh in hand, and holding too the mortar. And mayest thou be ever fed with wood as the prescription orders. Yea, mayest thou have thy perfume justly, and thy sacred butter without fail, and thine andirons regularly placed. Be of full-age as to thy nourishment, of the canon's age as to the measure of thy food, O Fire, Ahura Mazda's son! Be now aflame within this house; be ever without fail in flame; be all a-shine within this house; be on thy growth within this house; for long time be thou thus to the furtherance of the heroic renovation, to the completion of all progress, yea, even till the good heroic millennial time when that renovation shall have become complete. Give me, O Fire, Ahura Mazda's son!

I offer my sacrifice and homage to thee, the Fire, as a good offering, and an offering with our hail interpolation. s Citation from the Gathas, Y. XLV, 6. of salvation, even as an offering of praise with benedic¬ tions, to thee, the Fire, O Ahura Mazda’s son! Meet for sacrifice art thou, and worthy of (our) homage. And as meet for sacrifice, and thus worthy of our homage, may’st thou be in the houses of men (who worship Mazda). Salvation be to this man who worships thee in verity and truth, with wood in hand, and Baresman ready, with flesh in hand, and holding too the mortar. 2. And may’st thou be (ever) fed with wood as the prescription orders. Yea, may’st thou have thy perfume justly, and thy sacred butter without fail, and thine andirons regu¬ larly placed. Be of full-age as to thy nourishment, of the canon’s age as to the measure of thy food, O Fire, Ahura Mazda’s son! 3. Be now aflame 1 within this house; be ever without fail in flame; be all ashine within this house; be on thy growth 2 within this house; for long time be thou thus to the further¬ ance of the heroic (renovation), to the completion of (all) progress, yea, even till the good heroic (millennial) time when that renovation shall have become com¬ plete. 4. Give me, O Fire, Ahura Mazda’s son!