« ZurückWeiter »
time, their temples have remained great even in their ruins, testifying the paramount influence of that feeling, which spared neither cost nor pains in the honour of their gods. The insti. tution of an order of priesthood likewise, which has been a part of the polity of all nations, and exists in full strength at the present day, is a circumstance of the same character. In our own times, also, do we not frequently meet with instances, of a very different character indeed from these, but no less strikingly manifesting the same truth-of men, reckless and impenitent throughout a whole life,—committed to profanity, if the expression may be allowed, by the most public and constraining declarations of impiety, yet from time to time falling under the influence of religious feeling, and braving reproach, and suffering in its defence? The monument of a profane writer, printed and published as an unbeliever, bending, after a time, before the Divinity, and avowing his conversion, is not a less striking evidence of the power of religion, than those ancient remains which have outlived the storms of three thousand years.
A kin to these appearances in regard to the Supreme Being are certain manifestations of feeling of a worldly kind, attendant, in all ages and countries, on exalted rank, a long line of ancestry, superior virtue, talent, or heroism, relics of antiquity, and places or buildings rendered historical by striking events which have occurred within their precincts.
All of these, it is known, become objects of a peculiar regard, which is not referable to any strict principle of reason, but rising frequently to the strength of a passion, displays a marked influence over the minds of individuals, and the constitution, enjoyments, and well-being of society. It is difficult, indeed, through the cool deductions of reason, to account either for the original institution, or for the permanence of an order of nobility (which yet has every where prevailed), in the face of much individual unworthiness of character, unless by reference to some original principle of human nature ; which, if
not devoted to a Supreme Being, seeks its gratification in inferior objects. The king's name is a tower of strength. Why? Because of the personal merits of kings ? Certainly
But men bow before the majesty of the order with an instinctive submission, which manifests itself in spite often, rather than because, of their personal qualities. How is it, too, that in all ages the many have submitted to the few, and, with a mass of brute force greatly beyond their rulers, have for ever given way before those to whom they were accustomed to defer, even when their cooler judgment might dictate another course? Why should a lictor, with his bundle of rods, be able singly to quell whole legions of Roman citizens ? What is there in a judge's mace, or the baton of a constable, which commands the respect of a mob of angry ruffians ? And why should reasonable beings be gratified and awed, as they have constantly been, by the trappings, pride, pomp, and circumstance of royalty, which, intrinsically, merit so little of their respect ? Whence, too, have proceeded that endless variety of glorious titles with which men have ever sought to decorate the objects of their homage, bespeaking too often a kind of insanity, rather than judgment and reflection ? Here, for example, are a few of the titles bestowed on princes in different countries by their admiring people, which our common philosophy finds it so hard to explain :
“ The Chiefs of the Natches are regarded as the children of “ the Sun; and they bear the name of their father. The King “ of Aquiterva calls himself the Great Lion; and for this reason “ lions are there so much respected, that it is not lawful to kill "them, but at certain royal huntings. The King of Monomo
tapa is surrounded by musicians and poets, who call him Lord “ of the Sun and Moon, Great Magician, and Great Thief. “ The King of Araccan is called Emperor of Araccan, Posses“sor of the White Elephants and the Two Ear-rings, Legiti“ mate Heir of Pegul and Brama, Lord of the Twelve Provinces “ of Bengal, and the Twelve Kings who place their heads under “ his feet. The King of Ava is called God. When he writes
to a foreign sovereign he calls himself the King of Kings, “ whom all others should obey, as he is the cause of the pre“servation of all animals, the regulator of the seasons, the abso“ lute master of the ebb and flow of the sea, brother to the Sun, “and King of the four-and-twenty Umbrellas. These umbrellas “ are always carried before him. The titles of the King of “Achem are Sovereign of the Universe, whose body is luminous
as the sun, whom God created to be as accomplished as the “ moon at her plenitude, whose eye glitters like the northern “ star, a King as spiritual as a ball is round, who, when he rises, “shades all his people, from under whose feet a sweet odour is “ wafted, &c. The Kandyan Sovereign is called Dewo (God). “ In a deed of gift, he praclaims himself the protector of reli“ gion, whose fame is infinite, and of surpassing excellence, ex
ceeding the moon, the unexpanded jessamin-buds, the stars,
&c., whose feet are as fragrant to the noses of other Kings as “ flowers to bees; our most noble patron and god by custom, &c.
Descending from public life, and these more magnificent expressions of the principle, and pursuing it in its more contracted spheres of action, how does it happen that 500 young men in an academy are kept in awe by the voice of one individual, their master? And, apart from the affection of kindred, whence does filial deference arise, and afterwards continue to manifest itself even in the very last stages of life, when fathers and sons,—both become old men,-might be expected to lose that sentiment of unequal station, which once might be appropriate because it was useful ? How often, too, do we see individuals governed and carried along by others inferior to them greatly in every estimable quality, for whom some peculiar endowment has excited a respect made habitual by time; and, in the married life, how usual is it to find a woman, qualified and entitled to be the leader of her husband, yet sinking under a feeling of deference, which makes him the object of her unresisting obedience.
But it is unnecessary to pursue further this train of inquiry. It must be admitted, that in all these instances the actual possession of power, excellence, beauty, or talent, contributes largely to the influence which has been described; and, accordingly, it must be kept in view, that not even in religious worship is the simple feeling to be found alone and uncombined with other sentiments; for it is accompanied, if not heightened, by a sense of the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. In all its other manifestations, likewise, there necessarily is much of a foreign sentiment. The actual power, for example, of an earthly sovereign, the sense of benefits, and the dread of injury received from him, the external ensigns of his rank, the shouts of loving subjects,mall have their appropriate feelings with which the other is united. But it is the business of philosophy to apply its chemistry to such things; and, analyzing their elements, to disclose the principles which guide their varied and perplexed phenomena in life.
Making every allowance, accordingly, for the peculiar influence of other qualities, it seems abundantly plain, that something exists in human nature as a cause for these things, which in itself is of the nature of an independent sentiment;-a nucleus, to which an almost endless variety of other matter may adhere ;-a stock, on which may be engrafted almost all the other qualities of our human nature, but which, in itself, is of the quality of an elevated sentiment, giving them new energy ;-in its legitimate use tending greatly towards the peace of societies and families, and in its abuse leading to tyranny and arbitrary power. The instances in history are numerous where this principle, whatever it may be, has manifested itself. The respect expressed by David in sacred history towards Saul, “ the Lord's anointed," partook much of this sentiment. Coriolanus, in adventuring alone among a host of enemies, into their own city, owed his success not to bodily energy, but to the power of his name, which surrounded him with unknown terrors. The rebellion of the Roman slaves, quelled by the appearance of their masters brandishing the domestic whip, owed its termination to the awe thus inspired, and to no physical power. It is unnecessary, however, to multiply instances of a truth which must be familiar to all minds.
Such, then, being the phenomena, relative equally to God and to human society, exhibited even on a slight and rapid
view of our species, let us inquire what account of their origin is given in the prevailing philosophy of mind. It may surely be expected, that, holding so conspicuous a place in the history of man, they will not be overlooked by those who profess to explain his most secret mechanism. We surely shall find them traced up from their sources, into all their most practical applications in life.
If Phrenology, however, has been the means of exposing the deficiencies of the prevailing system in other departments of the mind, it will not forfeit this distinction, should it carry us through the phenomena of religious belief and political submission; for it will immediately appear that the common philosophy either does not at all attempt, or altogether comes short of the task. With regard to the latter manifestation of the principle, it does not appear that any attempt at all has been made to explain the facts on a special power
in the mind, though much has been written upon government and legislation. We must, therefore, content ourselves with an inquiry into the views of philosophers regarding the former, and see whether they have been more successful in analyzing the principles of religious belief. On this subject, philosophy has received a high testimony from Lord Bacon, who has said, that “ a little philosophy makes “ men atheists; a great deal reconciles them to religion;" and here, as elsewhere, that great writer shews his profound wisdom. It will not, indeed, be found, that the common philosophy has had this effect. In our days, on the contrary, the very terms philosopher and infidel have nearly become exchangeable terms. This is easily accounted for. We have seen the failure even of the most abominable superstitions to eradicate the principle of religion from the heart; and all the world knows its power and excellence when really felt and practised—both circumstances unequivocally proving its deep-seated hold in human nature. But, with all this evidence to its truth and value, what is the estimate of these taken by philosophy ? where does it place the foundation of the principle ?