its origin, and therefore beyond the reach of doubt. It was not to be looked on as the work of men, but only as seen by inspired poets. It was supposed to date from all eternity, and to be so prehistoric in character that when unfortunately the names of real kings and real cities occurred in some of the Vedic hymns, as they do, they had to be explained away as meaning something quite different.

Historical traces in the Veda.

We find, for instance, in the Rig-veda III. 53, 14, the following verse:

Kím te krinvanti Kîkateshu gấvah, ná âsíram duhré ná tapanti gharmám,

A nah bhara Prámagandasya védah, Naikasàkhám maghavan randhaya nah.

This means:

What are thy cows doing among the Kikațas ? They yield no
milk, they heat no kettle;

Bring us the wealth of Pramaganda, subdue, O Maghavan,
Naikasâkha!

These Kîkatas are evidently a tribe which did not worship Indra and which Indra is asked to subdue. The name does not occur again in the Rig-veda, but it is said to have been the old name of Magadha or Behar on the Ganges, the future birthplace of Buddhism. According to others the northern part of Behar was properly called Magadha, while the southern portion only was called Kikata1. Whatever they were, they must have been a real race, Pramaganda must have been a real king, and Naikasâkha, even if it meant originally, as Ludwig thinks, of low birth, must have referred to some real historical character. But all this is denied by orthodox theologians. If

J. Bird, Historical Researches, p. 2.

6

it were so, they say, the Veda would not be nitya, eternal, or as we say, prehistoric. It has been said,' they argue, that the Veda has not a divine, but a human origin, and that in the same way as the Mahabharata was composed by Vyâsa, the Râmâyana by Valmîki, the Raghuvamsa by Kalidâsa, so the Kâthaka, Kauthuma, and Taittirîyaka, which are portions of the Veda, were composed by Katha, Kuthuma, and Tittiri. And even if these names were only meant to signify that the families of Katha, Kuthuma, and Tittiri were in traditionary possession of these portions of the Veda, yet the fact that historical and real persons are mentioned in the Veda would by itself be sufficient to prove that the Veda cannot be considered as prehistoric. Now there are passages, like: "Babara, the descendant of Pravahana wished;" "Kusurubindu, the descendant of Uddâlaka wished," etc. The Veda therefore must have had a beginning like all other existing things.' So far the opponent who denies the eternity of the Veda.

All this, however, is stoutly denied by Gaimini, the representative of the most orthodox philosophy in India. The Veda,' he says, 'was the word before the beginning; it existed before all other words, such as Katha, Kuthuma, Tittiri, etc., so that titles of certain parts of the Veda, such as Kâthaka, Kauthuma, Taittirîyaka, etc. contain merely the names of those who handed down the Veda by tradition. As to such names as Babara, the son of Pravahana, they must not be taken as the names of historical persons; but Babara is really another name of Vâyu, the wind, who makes a sound like babara, and whose nature it

is to drive things forward, hence called pravahana (provehere). In the same manner all other historical and geographical names should be explained, etymologically, not historically.'

This is only a small specimen of what forensic theology can achieve, and could achieve long before our own time. It enables us to see both what was originally intended by such words as God-given, Godinspired, Sruti, what has been heard, Revelation, what has been unfolded, and what was made of these words afterwards. It was the sense of an over-powering truth which led to the admission of a revelation. But while in the beginning truth made revelation, it soon came to pass that revelation was supposed to make truth. When we see this happening in every part of the world, when we can watch the psychological process which leads in the most natural way to a belief in supernatural inspiration, it will hardly be said that an historical study of religion may be useful to the antiquarian, but cannot help us to solve the burning questions of the day. But this is not what I am pleading forat present. At present I want to prove no more than that an historical study of the religions of the world possesses this one great advantage, that it familiarises us with the old problems of the philosophy of religion, and fits us for a more fearless treatment of them in their modern form.

The old Problems in their simpler Form.

And by showing us the various phases through which many of these problems have passed before they assumed their present form, it teaches us another and most important lesson, namely, that in attempting to solve these problems we must not attempt to solve

them in their modern form only, and with all the perplexities which they present to us in their often obscure metaphysical phraseology, but that we must trace them back, as far as we can, to their first beginnings and to their simplest form.

It is with these religious problems as it is with the problems of language. Who could account for language, if he only knew the language of to-day? If we knew none of the antecedents of English, as it now exists in its 250,000 words, many of them with different meanings, many of them again having one and the same meaning, even the wisest of us could say no more than what Plato said in the Cratylus, namely that language could not possibly have been invented by man 1. And now that we know by what simple process language was, if not invented, at all events produced and elaborated by man, does it lower language, because it was not invented by the gods, or does it lower man because he was not presented by the gods with a language ready made? I believe not, and I hold the same with regard to religion. If we see with what natural feelings and simple sentiments religion began, and then follow its course till it reaches that perfect, or at all events that complete state in which we find it in later times, we shall hardly think that we degrade religion by accepting it as the most precious product of the human mind, nor shall we consider man as robbed of his dignity, be

Rousseau makes the same confession. 'Quant à moi,' he writes, 'effrayé des difficultés qui se multiplient, et convaincu de l'impossi bilité presque démontrée que les langues aient pu naître et s'établir par des moyens purement humains, je laisse à qui voudra d'entreprendre la discussion de ce difficile problème.' See De Bonald, Recherches Philosophiques, p. 117.

cause on the day of his birth the gods did not descend from heaven to present him with a religion ready made or reduced to settled creeds and finished articles of faith, but left him to grow and to learn to stand on his own legs, and to fight his own battle in the struggle for truth.