once for all, complete and unalterable. What was the reason for its continued observance? Fear of the consequences, were it neglected. Let the offerings to departed ancestors be omitted, or even intermitted, they would become spirits of plague, of blight, of destruction and devastation. But on what did belief in this prediction rest? Surely, on an estimate of the knowledge possessed by those who made it, i.e. by the ministers of the cult, the patresfamiliarum, the clan-chieftains, the flamens, by all who had the administration of the many diverse sacra practised in the community. But why was their knowledge rated so high? They had heard with their ears, and their fathers had told them, what dire things the invisible powers had done in their day, and in the old time before them. We may say, I believe, that the typical pagan cult originated in the discovery, or what was regarded as the discovery, of the manner of some God or gods holding power over some definite religion. We get back, of course, to the medicine-man or witchdoctor. Now the authority of the medicine-man is based upon belief in his ability, by reason of knowledge, to do certain things which the community needs to have done. In the case of any cultus of ancestors, the original medicine-man is the πрожάтwр of the clan or the family. He, it is supposed at any rate, bequeathed to his sons instructions concerning what they should do at his grave. As he himself had been the priest of the clan or family, knowing the names of and thereby controlling, the spirits, knowing the sacrifices that gained their favour or appeased their wrath, knowing the various devices by which good crops and healthy offspring might be obtained, and storms, blight, and disease averted or stayed-as he had known all these things, his instructions were accepted as infallible, as commands not to be disregarded save at extremest peril-in a word, as authoritative.

There were cults in the pagan world which possessed-or rather acquired-a cosmopolitan character. I do not refer to cults such as those of Zeus or Athena among the Greeks, Jupiter and Venus among the Latins; for there is reason to believe that they were worshipped with local differences of ritual, indicating that originally the Jupiter or Venus of one place was not that of another. I refer to cults such as that of Mithra, and to other 'mystery-religions.' These, however, did not spring

into existence simultaneously in a large number of localities. Each had its 'cradle'-e.g. the "Orphic mysteries" in some Thracian locality—even as Christianity had its 'cradle' in Jerusalem. But each originated in the ritual practice-believed to be justified by experience of some individual or family. They found acceptance in the world, because people believed that their ministers knew what men must do to obtain certain things whereof humanity stood in need. The mystery-priests or hierophants professed to know and to be able to teach others the way to obtain pardon and purification from the stains of sin, and a place with the gods and all the 'blessed ones' in the next world. They held authority in two senses. (1) They were "authorized" to perform and practise their religions in the several states, those who directed and administered the affairs thereof having consented to the introduction of the rites; and (2) they found many "attentive to hear them," willing to resort to their sanctuaries, perform their ordinances, and obey their counsel. It is to be noticed however that we find instances of the State withdrawing the license granted to a cultus introduced from abroad. Isis and Serapis were more than once compelled to retire from Rome before they finally established themselves there. It is perhaps a question, whether Judaism was ever really a religio licita in Rome, but maintained itself there only under connivance.

Besides the purely local cults of beoì Toxoxo, and those which had their temples, votaries, and adherents in many cities and countries, there was another variety of religion in the pagan world which ought to be noticed here. This is the religion of the oracles. The administration of an oracle-sanctuary was in the hands of a local priesthood, but the religion of the place was not merely a local concern. Most notable among all the oracles was, of course, that of Delphi. To the sanctuary of the God of Delphi came Greeks from all parts of the world, and occasionally "barbarians" also, seeking revelation of things hidden from human powers of insight or conjecture. The "prophet" at Delphi, who interpreted the "inspired utterances" of the Pythia, was a person who spoke with authority. He was believed to know what the God said, and the God was believed to know the hidden things of heaven above and the earth beneath and the water under the earth. No one was compelled to

resort to the oracle, and the God spoke only when he was consulted. When a community sent deputies to enquire of the God, its own magistrates, not the priests of Delphi, enforced obedience to the oracular judgment, if enforcement were required. The authority of the "prophet" and the Pythia rested upon the belief, universal among the Greeks, and shared even by some "barbarians", that they were in the counsel of the God whose ministers they were, and that they could foretell, if not foreordain, things that were yet for to come.

There is evidence to show that enquiry was made of the God at Delphi by individuals seeking guidance in private affair, as well as by states needing political direction.* In the earlier epochs of Greek history, the Delphic Oracle (and other oracles too) may have exercised in the Greek world an influence comparable in kind, though not in degree, with that of the philosophers in later ages. Such responses as that which was given to Glaucus the Lacedaemonian became widely known, being made matter of common knowledge for example of life and instruction of manners, and they reinforced the authority of the commands and prohibitions which they illustrated and exemplified. They showed that these "Sayings of the Fathers" were the sayings of men who knew that whereof they spake.

"Those in authority," "the authorities," in the pagan State had the supervision of religious practices within the sphere of their jurisdiction. "Those in authority", i.e. those who issued administrative regulations, claiming, and (normally) obtaining, submission, compliance, obedience, from the whole body of their fellow-citizens. How did that quality of bindingness, which made it discreditable, if not dangerous, to disregard and

•Herodotus has preserved the story of Glaucus, son of Epicydes, a Lacedaemonian, who, having guile in his heart, enquired of the God whether he should carry out his evil intent in word and deed. "Perjure thyself," answered the God, "seeing that even to him who keepeth his oath must death come at the last. Nevertheless, the nameless son of Oreusthough hands he hath none, neither feet-pursueth swiftly until he hath overtaken and destroyed the perjurer's house, even to the uttermost generation; but the seed of him who sweareth to his neighbour and disappointeth him not shall prosper after him upon the earth." Glaucus, when he heard this reproof, entreated pardon of the God, but was told that to tempt the God to countenance wickedness was all one with the actual execution of the evil purpose. In after days, it was told how within three generations the honor of Glaucus had been cut off from Lacedaemon, root and branch. (Hdt. VI. 86).

disobey their ruling, attach to it? Because those over whom they bore rule consented thereto, having either acquiesced in their assuming the position of rulers, or actually put them into it. Why did the governed acquiesce in, or even establish their rule? Because they regarded them as capable of ruling—imperii capaces-and capability of ruling is given by wisdom and integrity.

There were many forms of polity in the ancient pagan world. But in all of them religion was an affair of the State, for the State was no godless society. Its founders, who had become gods, had established rites and ceremonies from the first, which no good citizen would reject or tamper with, even though he might have doubts as to their real efficacy. Resident aliens were allowed to have their own ancestral gods, but that was because they were permitted to sojourn in a land which was not theirs, and if their religious observances threatened the public peace, they might be prohibited. The citizen might, if licensed by the magistrates, council, or whatever officials were appointed to exercise this function, become a worshipper at the sanctuaries of resident aliens. But he must not forsake the gods of his own people. Pericles praised Athens for the large measure of personal freedom enjoyed by her citizens. Plato thought Athens the very "limit" of freedom and easiness. But democratic, free-and-easy Athens, expelled Anaxagoras and Protagoras for expressing doubts as to the existence of the gods, and condemned Socrates to death for not recognizing the gods whom she recognized and worshipped. Socrates indeed might have escaped execution of the sentence of the court. But he would not. The laws of his country had condemned him. They required his life, and as a good citizen of Athens, he would yield it up.

Authority in pagan religion, then-as exemplified in Greek and Roman paganism-attached to the State, the Commonwealth, which itself was a religious as well as a political organization. The laws and institutions embodied the wisdom and judgment of the sacred Commonwealth. All power, all authority, in the Roman Commonwealth passed into the hands of Caesar and his successors in the monarchy established by him. Quite appropriately, Caesar became "Divus", divine, even in his lifetime. Who gave him all this authority? Who but the

Senate and People! And why? Because of his qualities and achievements; forasmuch as an excellent spirit appeared in him. The glory that gathered around the first Caesar settledand not altogether unworthily-on the second, and upon many others, on some of them very unworthily. But the Senate and People loved to have it so.

2. Israel. Authority in religion was held by the priests and the prophets. The functions of the priests included teaching as well as the performance of rites and ceremonies in the court of the Tabernacle or the Temple. "The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts." "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me." The special knowledge possessed by the priests was of course knowledge of what was to be offered at new-moon and on the Sabbath, knowledge of what was to be done when a leper had been examined and pronounced clean, hoc genus omne. The colonists placed by the King of Assyria in the deserted cities of Israel found themselves plagued by lions. They attributed this annoyance to their own ignorance of "the manner of the god of the land"; i.e. their ignorance of the ritual approved by him, and used by his former worshippers. Το remedy this defect, an Israelite priest was brought back from exile, who taught them how they should approach Yahveh, the God of Israel. But ritual knowledge was not the only kind. which the priests were expected to possess. The words of Hosea and Malachi quoted above, when taken in their context, show that the priest was expected to be competent to instruct the people in conduct. The priest was "a messenger of the Lord of Hosts." His function was to declare the will of the Lord. This included ascertaining the will of the Lord by Urim and Thummim, by means and methods corresponding to pagan "divination", but it was not confined to this. Hosea would not have been so indignant with the priests had they merely failed -as a Roman would have said-"to take the auspices." The priests were the depositaries, the "keepers and witnesses", if not the regular administrators, of a law which, in addition to ritual regulations, contained such precepts as "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", "Thou shalt not defraud thy neigh