DEITY
686
DEITY
points to a time, 5000 years ago or earlier, when the
Aryans, before their dispersion, before they spoke San-
skrit, Greek, Latin, or German, united in calling on
the Deity as the Heaven-Father. In the Vedas Dyaus-
•pitar is foimd, but even in these documents Dyaus is
already a fading star; he is crowded out by Indra,
Rudra, Agni, and other purely Indian deities. In the
Vedas Dyaus has two forms; a masculine and a femi-
nine. But the Vedic Dyxi or Dyaus-pitar is first of all
a mascuUne, while in later Sanskrit only it becomes
exclusively a feminine. Hence it is not true to say
that the name originally was a feminine to designate
heaven, and that the nation afterwards changed it
into a proper name to express the Deity.
The Gathas, the most ancient hynins of the Avesta, form the kernel about which the sacred literature of the Iranians clustered in an aftergrowth. They in- culcate belief in Ahura Mazda, the self-existent omni- potent being. He is the all-powerful Lord who made heaven and earth, and all that is therein, and who governs everything with wisdom. Tiele says that the sole really personal being is Ahura, and that the two spirits in antagonism are below him (Elem. of the Science of Rel., Ser. I, p. 47). The opposition of Ahriman is of a later date. Pfleiderer holds that originally he was a good spirit created by Ahura (Phil, of Rel., Ill, p. 84). The Amesha-Spentos of the Gathas have the nature of abstract ideas or quali- ties, i. e. attributes of Ahura; afterwards they formed a kind of celestial council. L. H. Mills (New World, March, 1895) holds that the spiritual, unique nature of Ahura is attested beyond question, and he unites with d'Harlez, Darmesteter, and Tiele in teaching that the primitive form of Iranian belief was monotheistic. The Paganism of Greece and Rome, with its family of deities in human shapes and with human passions, bears upon its face evident marks of degradation and corruption. Thus a critical study of the Aryan be- liefs convinces the student that in them we fuid no il- lustration of an evolution from a primitive, low, to a later, and higher, form. "The religion of the Indo- European race", writes Dannesteter (Contemp. Rev., Oct., 1879), "while still united, recognized a supreme God, an organizing God, almighty, omniscient, moral. The conception was a heritage of the past."
The same truth is evident from a study of the relig- ions of Egypt and of China. In the most ancient monuments of Egypt the simplest and most precise conception of one God is expressed; He is one and alone; no other beings are with Him; He is the only being living in truth; He is the self-existing one who made all things, and He alone has not been made. Brugsch accepts this view, but calls it Pantheism. The ethical element in the Deity, however, is adverse to this. Renouf finds a similar Pantheism, but pre- fers the word HenotheLsm. De la Saussaye admits that "one can maintain that Egj-ptian Monotheism and Pantheism have never been denied by any serious enquirer, though the majority do not look on them as general and original". The sublime portions of the Egyptian religion are not the comparatively late re- sult of a process of purification from earlier and grosser forms. In the outlines of History of Religion Tiele so taught ; but m a later work, Egyptian Religion, he expresses the contrary opinion. Lieblein, Ed. Meyer, and Renouf admit degeneration in Egyptian religion. Thus de Roug^, Tiele, Pierret, EUingwood, Rawlinson, Wilkinson hold that belief in one Supreme Deity, the Creator and Lawgiver of men, is a truth clearly expressed in that ancient civilization, and Polytheism is an aftergrowth and corruption. The popular religion of China rests on the worship of nat- ural powers and of ancestral spirits. Underneath, liow<!ver, is the conviction of the existence of a higher creative power, which, according to Edkins (Religions in China, p. 95), is a tradition handed down from the earliest period of their history. D'Harlez (New
World, Dec, 189.3) and F. M. James (New World,
June, 1899) teach that the primitive Chinese wor-
shipped Shang-Ti, the Supreme Lord, one, invisible,
spiritual, the only true god. Dr. Legge (Religion of
China, p. 18) asserts that Ti was the one supreme ob-
ject of homage as far back as we can go, and unites
with d'Harlez, Faber, Happel in declaring that 5000
years ago the Chinese were monotheists. Lenormant
bases the Babylono-Assyrian religion on an original
monotheism. He claims to have discovered a reliable
trace of this in the word Ilu {el in Babel) which is said
originally to mean "the only god". De la Saussay
advances as an objection that " this word is nothiiig
else than the name for the conception of God, just like
the Indian Deva and other epithets of the same sort ",
yet he holds that "the goddesses of Babylono-Assy-
rian religion are really only one and the .same thing
under different names, and these again must be looked
on partly as titles".
Even among the lowest and most barbarous tribes illustrations of the same truth are found. "Nothing in savage religion", writes A. Lang, " is better vouched for than the belief in a Being whom narrators of every sort call a Creator, who holds all things in His power, and who makes for righteousness." The aborigines of Canada call Him Andouagne, according to Father Le Jeime. This Being is seldom or never addressed in prayer. The fact of an otiose or unworshipped Supreme Being is fatal to some modern theories on the origin and evolution of the deity. Tylor adniits that a Supreme Being is known to African natives, but ascribes it to Islam, or to Christian influence. If this were so, we should expect to find prayer and sacrifice. Fraser holds that the deity was invented in despair of magic as a power out of which something could be got. But how could the savage expect anything from a deity he did not address in prayer? Spencer teaches that the deity was a development out of ancestral spirits. But the Maker of things, not approached in prayer as a rule, is said to exist where ancestor spirits are not reported to be worshipped. William Strachey, wTiting from Virginia in 1(511, says that Okeus was only "a magisterial deputy of the great God who governs all the world and makes the sun to shine . . . him they call Ahone. The good and peaceable god requires no such duties [as are paid to Okeus] nor needs to be sacrificed to, for He intendeth all good unto them; He has no image." Winslow writes from New England in 1622 that the god Iviehtan is a being of ancient credit among the natives. He made all the other gods. Canadians, Algonquins, Virginians, and the natives of Massachusetts had a Great Spirit before the advent of the Christian missionaries.
The Australian mystery- rites reveal a moral creative being whose home is in or above the heavens, and his name is Maker (Bo /ame), Master (Biamban), and Father (Papang). The Benedictine monks of Australia say that the natives believe in an omnipotent Being, the creator of heaven and earth, whom they call Motogon. The Australian will say, "No, not seen him [i. e. Baiame], but I have felt him". Waitz tells us that the religious ideas of the African tribes are so high that if we do not like to call them monotheistic, we may say at least that they have come very near the boundaries of true monotheism. "However degraded these peo- ple may be," writes Livingstone (Missionary Travels, p. 158), "there is no need telling them of the exis- tence of God or of a future life. These two truths are universally admitted in Africa. If we speak to them of a dead man, they reply: He is gone to God." Among savage tribes, where the supreme Being is regarded as too remote and impassive, he is naturally su)iplic(l with a deputy. Thus, e. g., Ahone has Okeus. Kiclitiiii lias llobancok, Boyma has Grog- oragully, Baiame hasTunduii, or in places Daramulun, Nypukupon in West Africa has Bobowissi. Some- times, as in Australia, these active deputies are sons of
