The Arian Witness

The existence of sin and evil is a fact so indisputable that it needs no evidence to prove it. Every man has experience of it in the world external, and is conscious of it in the mind internal. Societies and communities make laws and rules to protect themselves from evils accruing from the depravity of their own common nature. The principal duties which press on governments are to ensure security of human life and property against external attacks and internal disorder, caused by men themselves. The great struggle of life is for every one to hold his own against aggressive injustice and wrong on the part of his neighbours. And the state of things we observe in our own days, we learn to have existed in the days of our ancestors and predecessors. The earliest history of man is principally a record of man's devices against man, whether aggressive or defensive.

And yet there must have been a commencement of sin and evil. Everything had a beginning. The beginning of the world, the creation of the heavens and the earth we attribute — we cannot help attributing — ■ we are compelled by every sentiment that is good in

oar nature to attribute — to the Supreme Being — to a Power, an Intelligence, a Goodness, and a "Wisdom, transcending all our thoughts, baffling all our calculations, and therefore Infinite and Boundless. Few will refuse their response to the Psalmist's assurance: " Be ye sure that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture." Few will hesitate to acknowledge: " The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: thon hast laid the foundation, of the round world, and all that therein is." Or, " The Lord is gracious, his mercy is everlasting: and hia truth endureth from generation to generation." Or either that, "righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne."'

But what about the introduction of Sin and evil? Is the creation of Sin to be attributed to the Supreme Being? To such an idea we can only respond — none but an irreverent and ungodly mind can help responding, " God forbid!" If any person can seriously entertain such a question, we can only turn aside with the exclamation, " monstrous blasphemy!" Even loyalty to an earthly sovereign will recoil from the idea of attributing injustice or wrong to the person of Royalty. And loyalty Is next to Piety.

We cannot, at the same time, attribute the introduetion of sin to a second but opposite co-ordinate and co-eternal Being. We cannot admit another independent Principle,— whether it be a P4pa.devat&, or an Angro-mainyus, as opposed to a Spenta-mainyus — without detracting from the Infinite power, which as we have said before, we are bound to attribute, to the Supreme Author of the Universe. Here then lies our difficulty. How to account for the origin of evil without any derogation from the Power, Goodness and Wisdom which constitute the glory of God. This is indeed a formidable difficulty — in fact the real difficulty in theology of any kind. It is not peculiar to Revealed Religion. It affects Natural theology itself.

The fact of evil cannot be denied, and yet the glory oi God must be maintained. Here we have constant need to bear in mind that the finite cannot comprehend the Infinite. We criticised in the last chapter the faltering voice of the Rig Veda X. 129 on the subject of the Creation — not because the Hymnist confessed his ignorance or the short-comings of human nature, but because, admitting some One as supervisor in the highest heaven, he doubted the sufficiency of His creative agency, and His knowledge of the mystery of the Creation. That writer did not, like his colleague of Hymn 83 in the same Mandal, refer to the Author of all things as the solution of all questions and doubts. The writer of Hymn 129 aspired after a transcendental position from which to suggest uncertainties on the Creator and the creation, and to undermine the fundamental Source of all knowledge and belief.

Human discussions must have some ascertained principle as their basis, or they would be like a ship without anchor or rudder at sea. In religious dis- courses, we must have faith and hope in a God, perfect and independent, of boundless power, knowledge, and goodness, as the anchor of the soul and mind. There must not be a derogation from any of these acknowledged attributes of the Deity. Whatever we may say must be in consistence with those attributes. And this maxim must be recognized as a principle, a postulated axiom, in every branch of religious controversy.

Such being the case, the perfect solution of the problem involved in the origin of evil transcends human ingenuity. And we must be satisfied with what is given to us to know and understand.

Moses has told us that at the Creation all things were good, and that man was made after the image of God. ' But he has not said that man was indefectible, in< fallible, or impeccable. The state of the present world was a state of probation, but there could be no probation where there was not a possibility of deflection^ and a liability to fall. And a fall there was, of which we have a concise account given us, not as a question decided dialectically, but as the narrative of an actual event.

" Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Loed God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We niay eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall yo touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then yoar eyes shall be opened: and ye shall be as gode, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.... And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field: upCn thy belly sbalt thou go, (md dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."^

The duty we have undertaken in this chapter is to see what portions of this narrative are confirmed by any statements In old Iranian or Indo-Arian records. Traditions of ante-diluvian facts or narratives may have been transmitted through Noah to the postdiluvian world. The Assyrians have a legend, that on warning having been given of a coming flood, their King Xisuthrus wrote a " a history of the beginning, procedure, and conclusion of all things," and buried it " in the City of the Sun at Sippara,"^ and that, after the Flood, they had searched the same out. Whether this account was true or false, it showed the possibilityofthe transmission of ante-dlluvian accounts. Our business now is to see what, if any, traditions or ideals of the event under consideration are recorded in Arian Scriptures. In the narrative of the Fall we have (1), the Serpent; (2), his instigation to disobedience of a divine injunction; (3), his sentence and the sentence against his victims.

The serpent was identified with the Devil. " And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil- and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out iuto the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."*

There could be no direct testimony to the above narrative in its integrity from human records. But both Iranian and Indo- Arian Scriptures testify to traditional recollections of substantial portions of that account. " The evil spirit," says Dr. Smith, " in the form of a serpent appears in the Ahriman, or Lord of Evil, who, according to Zoroaster, first taught men to sin under the guise of this reptile."* Whether' Ahriman was identical with " the enemy Serpent" of the Zend Avesta is not quite clear, but it is certain that the latter was his chief representative, if not his own self. The reason of our doubting the actual identity of these two personalities of evil is that, in one place, a distinction seems to be implied in the Vendidad.

*' Zarathustra asked Ahura-Mazda: " Ahura Mazda I Heavenly, Holiest, Creator of the corporeal world, ciilizedbv Google

Pure one! How shall I combat the Drutsh (enemy) which flies from the dead upon the living: how shall I subdue the Na^us which defiles the living from the dead?" "Mazda: Speak the words which are called in the Gdth^s Bishdmnita."..." After the Bish&mrfita speak these Tictorious wholesome words. ' I combat Anra-Mainyus away from this dwelling, away from this clan, from this tribe, this land, away from my own body, away from unclean (or dead) man, the unclean woman, from the lord of the house, the clan, the tribe, the region, away from all pure creatures. I combat the Na^us. I combat direct uncleanness. I combat indirect uncleanness away from the dwelling, the village, the town, the region, away from my own body, away from the unclean man, the unclean woman, the lord of the house, the village, the town, the region, away from all pure creatures."*

Here are two exorcisms — first of the Anro-Mainyus, and then of the " Natjus." It may be that the second was intended for adding intensity to the first. The first or Abriman was certainly called " Satan" in the Khordah-Avesta, although the passage in which it occurs was "in P4rsi," not Zend, and therefore of a later date. The passage is " Broken, broken, be Satan Ahriman, whose deeds and works are accursed."'' But " Satan" T?V which, in Hebrew means an enemy, corresponds to the Sanscrit irt^TT {sdtana) which signifies oppression, or an oppressor, and may stand for an

" enemy." Indeed, the Sanscrit W^ is from the same root na.

The most remarkable confirmation of the sacred narrative here, is, in truth, the linguistic view, the word Na^us, by which the Zend Avesta designates the *' Druksh" or enemy. It is the same as the Hebrew word " Nachas" (in Genesis iii) and also means a serpent. It also closely corresponds to the Sanscrit " Nagas" and Nahush" — both words having some bearing, as we shall presently see, on the question before ua.

As far then as the principal instrument of man's fall into sin is concerned, the narrative of the Bible is curiously confirmed by the Zend Avesta. The worker of evil appears the same, both in name, form and ideal. Considering that the languages are widely different, it is a remarkable coincidence, that the Zend Avesta should designate, by the word " Naijus," the same character for which in Genesis the word " nachas" is used. It would be difficult to account for such a concurrence except on the supposition of both having received and approved the prevailing tradition of the same primeval event. The Mosaic account is thus strongly supported by the legend of the Zend.

With reference to the sentence pronounced against the serpent, that it should be cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field, and go upon its belly, and eat dust all the days of its life, some eminent interpreters have maintained that before the event mentioned in Genesis iii, the serpent was not a reptile, but an erect animal, others, equally learned, have held, on scientific grounda, that the serpent was always a reptile, and that the sentence did not intend a change in its structure. It is not our purpose here to interfere between learned critics and interpreters on such a question. We have only to say that, even on the assumption of the theory of an organic change in the serpent, consequent on the above curse, the account of Moses would still have the support of Arian records. The Zend Avesta speaks of " Serpents with two feet, the very deadly two-footed, the wolves with four feet."^ The Indo-Arians, also, had certain mythical legends, occasioned, probably, by traditional interpretationsoftheaboveaccount of the Fall, which, incidentally, and therefore the more curiously, show that they were cognizant, as approvingly as the old Iranians themselves, of the Mosaic narrative of the origin of evil. They had (1) a legend about the " N&gas," corresponding to the Zend " Na9U8" and the Hebrew " nachas," that the serpent tribe, so called, hadCadrujthe wife ofKa8iapa,fortheir mother. They were looked upon as " demi-gods, in the human shape, with a serpent's tail, and dilated neck, like the Coluber Naga."^ They play an important part in Hindu mythology. They are classed with other demigods or demoniacal beings, such as Gandharvas, Rakshasas, Yakshas, and Kinnaras, and appear with them at festivals and ceremonies of Rajas and Rishis, sometimes as acceptable guests, welcomed as friends, and not seldom, as hostile intruders to be expelledor guarded against by mantras or amulets. Tbey are represented as capable of sexually attracting, and being attracted by, human beings. Mainaka, brother of Parvati, was married to a " n^ga-vadhu," or a wife who was a Kaga's daughter.

In the story of king Nahusha we have again a carious Indo-Arian ideal of the curse pronounced against the serpent. Nahusha was originally a righteous king, of a very ancient family, who by sacrifieea, austerity, sacred study, self-restraint, and valour, had acquired the sovereignty of the three worlds. Being then intoxicated with the conceit of his lordly power, he was corrupted by pride. The result is thus related by himself according to the Mahabh^rat in " the Serpent-section." " Yudhisthira

said: "0 thou best of the wise! That you have such excellent intelligence! Why do you ask me what is or ought to be known to you? How has delusion entered thee, who knowest all things and wast a dweller of heaven and a worker of such wonders? This perplexes me." The serpent replied: "Prosperity deludes even the hero of intelligence. I believe that all persons living at ease fall into delusion. And so myself, O Judhisthira, was filled with pride by the delusion of lordly power. But now I am addressing you, being awaken to better thoughts by my fall. You have, 0 great king, done me a great service. By speaking with you, a holy person, my curse has become attenuated. Formerly I moved through the sky on a celestial car. Intoxicated with self-conceit, I regarded no one but myself All the inhabitants of the three worlds, Brahmanical Rishis, gods, gandharvaa, yakshas, rakshasas, pannagas, paid me tribute. Such was the power of my gaze, that on what ■creature I fixed my eyes, I straightway robbed him of his energy. A thousand of the great aages bore my Tehicle. That misconduct it was, O king, which hurled me from my high estate. For then I touched with my foot the muni Agastya who was carrying me. Agastya in his wrath cried out to me, " Fall, thou serpent." Hurled therefore from that magnificent car and fallen from my prosperity, as I descended headlong, I felt that I had become a serpent.'""

The name of the person thus reduced to the condition of a reptile serpent was " Nahasha," or, according to popular parlance, Nahus. This, it will be observed, was almost identical with nachaa, the word for the serpent in Genesis, the Hebrew n sometimes standing for a deep aspirate, like the Arabic — with which it is firequently commutable. Now whatever the actual meaning of the divine sentence against the offending " nachas" might have been, there is no doubt that many interpreters, and especially Oriental expositors, held that a structural change was thereby caused in the serpent. Such a conception had existed in the East, and the Indo-Arian legend of Nahus, as it represents that ideal, gives at the same time a strong confirmation of the sacred record on which the ideal was founded.

Adverting, now, to another clause in the sentence pronounced against the serpent, we find both Iranian and Indo-Arian legends, again, to be curiously corro- borative of it. *' And I will put enmity between tbee and the woman, and between thy seed and ber seed, it shall bruise tby bead, and thou shalt bruise his

heel." In the Ardibehesbt, " the killing of tbe serpent seed' fazhi-chitraj i. e. of all noxious animals, such as, wolves, frogs, mice, ants, snakes, &c., which are believed to be the mere covers of evil spirits, is enjoined as meritorious, and contributing largely towards the growth of nature, and preservation of light, which both are represented by the archangel Ardibehesbt.""

In Yasna XL VII it is said:

" When the coming A8lia{Holy one) shall smite the Drukah When there comes what was announced as delusive: Immortality for men and Daevas, Then shall Thy profitable land increase, 0 Ahura.""

Druksh Naijus was tbe enemy serpent of the Zend Avesta, and Asha, the holy one. "Whatever the peculiar signification of tbe above lines may be, it is evident that it involved the general ideal of the sentence against the serpent as recorded in Genesis. But there is an Indo-Arian legend still more remarkable. We allude to the story of Rama.

Whether tbe conception of Rama, the antagonist of Rdvana, be an allegory or a myth, or whether it be a historical Romance, is a question we need not discuss here. There are German scholars who have pronounced it to be a myth borrowed from tbe ideal of Homer's Iliad, and there are others, again, who hold exactly the opposite opinion. Our business, now, is not to judge between the two conflicting theories. But whether allegorical or historical, we have in the very notion of hia Incarnation, a most curious confirmation of the last words in the sentence against the Serpent, the Devil. We need not stop to explain what the seed of the woman means, and how Gospel Truth is intimately linked with it. It is said in the Eamayana that gods and men were both anxious to encompass the overthrow of the arch-demon R&vana, under whose iron rod and oppressive rule the whole world was piteously groaning. But the monster was as powerful as he was cruel, and Indra, the king of the gods, was reduced to the condition of his vassal. They had recourse to BrahmS, the creator of the Universe, who told them that the salvation of the world from the tyranny of the prince of demons could only be achieved by the descent of Vishnu on the earth, born of human parents, and incarnate in human form. No other species of animated beings in the creation could prevail against Rdvana. It must be a man, armed with divine omnipotence, who alone could save the world by destroying that demon.'' Thus advised, the gods resorted to Vishnu, the second person of the Indian triad, beseeching him to assume human form and deslxoy the demon.'*

Now this is the very ideal of the verse just cited from Genesis. The seed of the woman was to bruise the serpent's head. " Verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham." " Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." That the Saviour of mankind must partake of human nature — and that " forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he must himself likewise take part of the same," were, according to Christian records, among the mysteries of the Divine Counsel with regard to human salvation. The mystery was first revealed after the fall, and the passage quoted from the Ramiyan may be considered a strong corroborative evidence of the fact.

We thus see that the Scriptural narrative of the Fall is supported by Arian records in such parts of it as concern human interests, human duty, and human regeneration. We know who, in the highest sense of the term, was the seed of the woman. And it is as remarkable as it is assuring to Christian faith, that the same ideal appears to have prevailed in the Indo-Arian mind of old. We know also what was Taeanth J the Serpent and his seed. And we see what the Arian conception was. R&vana, as the chief of Rakshasas, represented the Evil One, whom the Ira-

Diana called ihe Serpent enemy, and the Indo-Arians, " P&pa-devata" (Sin-deity), and " Rakshas-deva," (chief or god of Rakshasas). Brahm&j the first member of the Brahminical triad, was solicited for the destruction of that archdemon. He confessed his inability to give relief against the Evil One, who had a charmed life against all opponents, man alone excepted. The only person capable of affording relief, was Vishnu, the second member of the triad. But it would be necessary for him to come into the world in the likeness of man. He must be born as man — become the seed of the toomatt, assume human nature, be in all respects as man, and then he would be sufficient for the deliverance of the world from the oppression of Havana. The legend of Rama is thus founded on the old prevailing tradition of the seed of the woman, as alone capable of bruising the Serpent's head. We accordingly see the large extent to which the divine sentence against the Serpent had influenced human ideas even so early as the age of Rfima.

To the same ideas must be attributed the peculiar conception of Rama's incarnation. It was not the advent of a god for a momentary purpose in the disguise of a man or animal. It was different from the occasional descents of Apollo, or Jupiter, as Greek mythology has recorded. Nor was it to be confounded with the appearance of the divine ^sh, or the divine hoar, or even Nri'Singha, the man-lion. None of those characters is represented as born in those forms, nor partaker of those animated natures. The incarnation of Rama was bo far unique. There were two or three other iacarnatioiui in Indian records of which we may afterwards have to speak. But we have now to declare in concluding this chapter that to the Mosaic narrative of the Fall must be attributed the great idea with which the incarnation of R&ma was fraught, that it was necessary for a divine person to be made flesh, and assume human nature, in order to encompass the destruction of the Devil hnd his works.