BURNOUT'S " SCIENCE OF RELIGIONS."* 'Dais is an admirable translation
of M. Burnouf's learned essay, and if the lady who made it fails occasionally to select the best words, her few and venial errors never affect the meaning of his sentences. A preface has been written for her translation by Mr. Rapson, a Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and there can be no doubt that he is right in saying that M. Burnouf's conclusions, whether accepted or not, contain much that is instructive and suggestive of thought." He sketches very briefly in this preface that distinguished Orientalist's view of the vexed question of the Science of Religions ; and that view, as students who are interested in the question already know, is that Christianity, in its origin, is not a purely Semitic religion—the legitimate off- spring and successor of Judaism—but " essentially an Aryan religion." With the kernel of this question we are quite unable to cope within our present limits. And all that we propose to do is to attempt to show that this essay, quite apart from the validity of its conclusions, is well worth reading. We owe some apology to our more learned readers for an attempt which they may not unjustly regard as superfluous ; but we are writing, here and now, for the general reader, and while duly admiring the tone and conduct of M. Burnouf's argumentation, we are inclined to think that his scientific inductions, however carefully drawn and however moderately worded, are far from being so demonstrably correct as scientific inductions ought to he.
Comparative philology has, indeed, taught us many things, and it is likely to continue to teach us more. But, under favour of the host of acute and industrious scholars who have cultivated and are still cultivating comparative philology, it has not yet established its claim to be considered a true science. And its subject-matter is possibly of a kind that precludes it from ever becoming one. As an illustration, history will serve our purpose, for history, though it has been described as philo- sophy teaching by example, is by its nature irreducible to a science. As yet, at all events, the world has seen no philosophy of history that can be called in any strict sense scientific, and to the learned land in which philosophies of history most flourish, we owe a phrase which condemns them with grim significance. For it is said by a very able German historian, Johannes Scherr, that men like Bismarck blow philosophies of history into space in no time, if we may so paraphrase,—" die sorg- sam aufgebauten Kartenhauser der Geschictephilosophaster zerblasen." And it is possible that the "refined system of metaphysics founded on a thorough grasp of physical facts," which M. Burnouf admiringly regards as the source of the religious systems of India and Persia, was blown to pieces by the teachings of Christ. Be this as it may, there is clearly room for more than two opinions about the effect of this author's view of the origin of those teachings. We cannot suspect him of insincerity, but he ignores too lightly the chasm which separates metaphysics from common-sense. It is right, however, on this cardinal point of his system, to let M. Burnouf speak for himself :— " I have endeavoured," he says, "to throw some light upon the greatest and to this day the obscurest of histories, the problem of our religious origins. I have only drawn a few parallels, whose analogy cannot but strike the dullest observer. If these parallels which I draw roughly between Christian symbols and those to be found in the Veda are not chimerical, we may consider the problem to be approaching its solution ; and if that solution be the true one, we have been called upon to witness the gigantic growth of Christ's person and mission. I repeat emphatically once more, that the Divine majesty of Christ does not lose but gain intensity under these new lights and con- siderations. For if the Founder of Christianity is regarded as the embodiment, under the name of Christ, of a theory which existed before all history, Christ henceforth assumes in history a new and unexpected importance. The truth of His words as given in the Gospel is forcibly brought home to us : ' Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was I am;' and henceforth the scattered religious unity of Aryan races is once more linked together. And if it be true, as many of our present scholars aver, that the traditions of Genesis are themselves only a sapling of the great Asiatic trunk, this re-established unity not only comprises Aryan peoples, but also Semites. The Greeks, the Latins, and the people of the North of Europe, having likewise obtained their ancient religions from the sources whence the Vida sprang, are all con- nected with the entire West by this theory. What is there outside the pale of this unity ? Is it the extreme East ? No ; for Buddhism long ago converted it, and Buddhism likewise issued from India. Therefore, the centre from which all great religions of the earth • The Science of Religions. By Emile Burnoof. Translated by Julie Liebe. London: Ewan Sonnenschein, Lowrey, and Co. 1888.1 have radiated is the theory of Agni of which Jesus Christ was the most perfect incarnation."
So far, so good, apparently ; but common-sense will not easily be brought to pay much heed to the refinements of metaphysicians. In matters which admit of scientific treat- ment, common-sense accepts the conclusions which men of science concur in reaching, though it is often practically unable to understand the processes by which those conclusions are reached. It accepts, for instance, the statement that the circle cannot be squared ; but metaphysics is a matter which eludes scientific treatment. And no further proof of this is needed than the way in which Aristotle treated Plato's meta- physical theories. Intellectually, " the master of those who know " was quite Plato's equal, and there are men now living who are intellectually M. Burnouf's equals, and who would steadily reject his view that psychology has nothing in common with metaphysics, because " the latter is composed of a separate order of lofty conceptions, whose object is not arbitrary, abstract, or ideal, but real and infinite, and con- cordant with the sacred theory." These words recall the jungle in which Coleridge is said to have lost himself, and come rather strangely from a man who speaks with strong contempt of Schelling and Hegel for " losing sight of real facts," and for " attempting to solve general "—or, as common-sense would say, insoluble—" problems by an immature method." And, in truth, when we read "the conclusion of the whole matter," in M. Barnouf's own words, we feel that his Science of Religions is " writ in water." For " the true key-note of the universe," for which science, lie says, is now searching, will indubitably be found, he thinks, " in the unity of substance " (or, as he elsewhere calls it, " of Being "), " in the universality of life and its indissoluble union with thought, and in the impersonality of reason." He is so courteous in the use of language him- self, that we dislike greeting these sounding phrases as " words, words, words." But, in the last resort, what else are they? Does "the universality of life" imply that life is the same in an irrational, conscienceless ape as it is in a man endowed ab extra, as Christians at least believe, with reason and a conscience P Grammatically of course, life is predicated of the one as it is of the other, in a sense that may be called identical; but then, so far as grammar is concerned, life is similarly predicated of vegetables. And these living beings, we are asked to believe, are one and all of them "animated by one eternal being." For to the complexion of this pantheism M. Burnouf is brought, under protest, it would seem, but not unwillingly, by the reflex action of a refined system of meta- physics wrought out by his Aryan ancestors. And there we must leave him, for his " impersonal reason " is beyond our ken, and his theory that thought is indissolubly united with life may be nothin'fr more than a mental kaleidoscope for fancy to play with. " Cogito ergo sum " is scarcely a pregnant truism, but a truism it is, and man with his large discourse of reason may be forgiven for saying, " Sum ergo cogito." It does not follow that he has any warrant for saying of flea or pea, "Eat ergo cogitat." But it would be idle to harp on this well- thrummed string any longer. So we will call attention to one or two of those frequent flashes of sagacity which adorn M. Burnouf's pages, irreconcilable as they seem to be with the premisses and conclusion of his main thesis. We have seen how he magnifies, from his ewn point of view, the importance of Christ as the incarnation of an Aryan theory. This, how- ever, is the way in which he elsewhere deals with Christian doctrine :- " Its one and only source," he says, " is the preaching of Jesus ; it teaches Christians that Christ was the Son of God and God Himself, but at the same time admits His human extraction, and His traditional descent, both on His father's and mother's side, from the house of David. Therefore we do not trace to His parentage His title of Christ, which had already been bestowed on Cyrus, but to his Divine and direct emanation, to his exemption from the primary laws of human generation. It is the Divinity of the Master which breaks every bond between His doctrine, and that of the Jews or any other nation ; it precludes all possibility of a man considering himself a Christian without believing in the Divinity of Christ, or of a man believing in the Divinity and being of another religion. The obstacles, then, which stand between Christianity and other worship are quite insuperable."
It is not for us to complain, if the author's " Science" seems to him to have overcome, or to be inevitably bound to overcome,
obstacles which he styles insuperable. And we may refer to his exposition of the illusory nature of missions as a fair corollary to the view which he holds of the essential nature of Christian doctrine. His contention, however, that religion
has no connection with morals, is a contention that will find no acceptance from men who believe that religions theories, apart from their influence on the conduct of life, may be relegated to any limbo without a sigh except of relief. M. Burnouf contemplates with serenity and assurance the coming doom of all sacerdotal systems, but he has no doubt that the foundation of religion, being ideal and not earthly, is exempt from extinction. In support of this, he appeals to the truth of our Saviour's assertion that his kingdom was not of this world. But the force of this appeal is not strengthened by the sentence which immediately follows it, and declares that "the truth of religion will live for ever, for it is the faithful reflection, or rather the spontaneous emanation of Nature's phenomena and Nature's laws." For, with all due respect to M. Burnouf, it may be said, not quite unreasonably, that " spontaneous emanations " of this kind hardly belong to that order of facts which Science can claim a prescriptive right to interpret. Again and again while reading his interesting essay, this objection has occurred to us, and while expressing as strongly as we can our belief that the essay is exceptionally well worth reading, we cannot help feeling that the treatment of religion by science is amenable to the charge brought against the treatment of Nature by chemistry in Goethe's Faust:— " Eneheiresin naturae nennt's die Chimie,
Spottet ihrer selbst, and weiss nicht wie."
Previous page
