Chapter II: Earliest Temple Altar (2)

An illustration of the popular idea of the sacredness of the church threshold, and of the impropriety of stepping on it, in its passing, is found in a Finnish mode of judging a clergyman. “In Finland, it is regarded as unlucky if a clergyman steps on the threshold, when he comes to preach at a church.” A writer on this subject says: “A Finnish friend told me of one of his relations going to preach at a church, a few years ago,–he being a candidate for the vacant living,–and the people most anxiously watched if he stepped on the threshold as he came in. Had he done so, I fear a sermon never so eloquent would have counted but little against so dire an omen.”[417] Here is a new peril for pulpit candidates, if this primitive test becomes widely popular!

Even to the present time, it is customary, in portions of Europe, for Jews to rub their fingers on the posts of a synagogue doorway, and then kiss their fingers. Quite an indentation in the stone at the door of the synagogue in Worms is to be seen, as due to this constant sacred rubbing.[418]

6. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN AMERICA.

In the West, as in the East, traces of the primitive sacredness of the threshold and the doorway are to be found. The stepped pyramid, or uplifted threshold, with the sanctuary at its summit, was the earliest form of temple or place of worship in Mexico, and in Central and South America. In the later and more elaborate temples there was no altar within the building, although an image of the god was there.

The altar, or stone of sacrifice, was without, before the door of the sanctuary.[419] When a sacrifice was offered on the altar, the blood of that sacrifice was smeared on the doors of the temple of the god.[420] Human sacrifices were included in these offerings, in earlier times.[421] Even when larger temples were erected, and altars were enclosed within them, human victims were brought to the temple entrance into the hands of the priests; and from the threshold they were borne by the priests themselves, to be laid on the altar.[422]

Among the Pipiles, a Maya people, in Central America, there were “two principal and very solemn sacrifices; one at the commencement of summer, and the other at the beginning of winter.” Little boys, from six to twelve years old, were the victims of sacrifice. At the sound of trumpets and drums, which assembled the people, four priests came out of the temple with braziers of coals on which incense was burning, and after various ceremonies and religious exercises they proceeded to the house of the high-priest, near the temple, and took from it the boy victim of the sacrifice. He was then conducted four times round the court of the temple, with dancing and singing.

When this ceremony was finished, the high-priest came out of his house with the second priest and his major-domo, and they proceeded to the temple steps, accompanied by the principal men of the locality, who, however, stopped at the threshold of the temple. Then and there the four priests “seized the victim by his extremities, and the major-domo coming out, with little bells on his wrists and ankles, opened the left breast of the boy, tore out his heart, and handed it to the high-priest, who put it into a little embroidered purse, which he closed.”

The blood of the victim was received by the priests in a vessel made of a gourd, and was by them sprinkled in the direction of the four cardinal points. Then the heart, in its purse, was put back into the body of the victim, and the body itself was interred inside of the temple. This sacrifice, at the threshold altar, was performed at the threshold, or the beginning, of each of the two chief seasons of the year.[423]

In the temples of Central America, generally, the doorway was hardly less prominent than in the temples of Egypt. There were massive decorations on and above the lintels; the door jams were richly sculptured; and there were male and female figures, or figures of animals, as guardians on either side of the entrance. In some instances a winged globe was above the door; and the uplifted hand was found over the doorway or at the sides.[424]

Among the Natchez Indians, along the lower Mississippi, there was an annual “Harvest Festival,” or “Festival of New Fire,” which was celebrated with great ceremony. An altar was in front of the temple, just before the door. On this occasion the priest of the sun stood on the threshold of the temple in the early morning, watching for the first rays of the rising sun. The chiefs, and braves old and young, stood near the altar. The women with infants in their arms stood in a semicircle facing the priest. When he gave the signal of his recognition of the sun, by rubbing two pieces of wood to start a new fire for the altar, they faced about to the east and held up their infants to the sun. Other exercises of worship followed. The priest’s place in this ceremony was on the threshold, before the altar of that temple.[425]

In America, as in the other continents, there are survivals of the primal sacredness of the threshold of a place of public worship, in the formal ceremonies attending the laying of the corner-stone, or threshold-stone, of a new church building of any denomination; and in the use of holy water at the doorway on entering Roman Catholic churches. More or less importance is attached in Protestant Episcopal churches to the location of the baptismal font near the door, and to the beginning of the marriage service before the bridal party approaches the threshold of the sanctuary proper.

If indeed, there be found no trace of the fountain of life flowing from under the threshold sanctuary of the gods worshiped by the aborigines of America, such a fountain was searched for in this land by Ponce de Leon and his followers.

7. TEMPLE THRESHOLDS IN ISLANDS OF THE SEA.

There is a certain resemblance in the plan of some of the temples of the South Sea Islands to those of Central America. A stepped pyramid in a large court was the central shrine; “in front of which the images were kept, and the altars fixed.”[426] In both cases the altars were outside of the shrine,–at its threshold, as it were. A method of sacrificing was by bleeding a pig to death before the altar, “washing the carcass with the blood, and then placing it in a crouching position on the altar.”[427] An uplifted hand was one of the symbols on these stepped pyramid shrines.[428] The temple foundation, or the threshold of the sacred building, was formerly laid in human blood.[429]

A recognition of the threshold, in a sacred service, and in a form of covenanting, is found in the ceremonies of circumcision as observed in Madagascar. This rite is not at infancy, as among the Jews, but is at the threshold of young manhood. Its period is fixed by the king, who, on “an application from the parents or the friends of any number of children in a given province, appoints a time, and orders the observance of the rite.” He is the “high-priest on this occasion.” The rite marks the transition of the boy from his dependence on his parents to his personal service of the king, as a member of the community.

Holy water is brought from a distance to the house of the master of ceremonies, as the sanctuary for the occasion. A sheep is killed immediately before this house, and the boys are caused to step across its blood. This sacrifice is called “fahazza,” or “causing fruitfulness,” and it is supposed to be the means of causing fruitfulness in all the women who obtain a share of it.

A tree is planted at the northeast corner of the house, and a lamp is fixed on it. Honey and water are poured upon the tree, and the boys partake of this mixture. The next day the persons present walk three times round the house, with various ceremonies, and then stop at the doorway. The rite of circumcision is performed on each boy as he sits on a drum at “the threshold of the door,” held firmly by several men. The knife with which it is performed is previously dipped in the blood of a young bullock, an ear of which is slit by the operator. A covenant of fealty to the king is entered into by the youth on this occasion. Sacrifices and feasting follow this ceremony.[430]

One of the ancient gods of Maui, an island of Hawaii, was Keoroeva. “In all the temples dedicated to its worship, the image was placed within the inner apartment, on the left-hand side of the door; and immediately before it stood the altar, on which the offerings of every kind were usually placed.”[431] The altar was at the doorway, in this case, as so generally elsewhere. Tiha was a female idol, as Keoroeva was a male, and much “the same homage and offerings” were given to her as to him.[432]

In Kohala, one of the large divisions of Hawaii, stood a prominent temple called Bukohōla, built by King Kamehameha, at the time of his conquest of the Sandwich Islands. “At the south end of this great edifice was a kind of inner court, which might be called the _sanctum sanctorum_ of the temple, where the principal idol used to stand, surrounded by a number of images of inferior deities.” “On the outside, near the entrance to the inner court [at the threshold of the _sanctum sanctorum_] was the place of the _rere_ [or _lélé_] (altar), on which human and other sacrifices were offered.”[433]

Human victims were ordinarily slain in sacrifice outside of the sanctuary proper, and then their bodies, carefully preserved whole, were taken within to be presented to the idol.[434]

There were Hawaiian cities of refuge, or _puhonuas_, as sanctuaries for guilty fugitives. A thief, or a murderer, might be pursued to the very gateway of one of those cities, but as soon as he crossed the threshold of that gate, even though the gate were open, and no barrier hindered pursuit, he was safe, as at the city altar. When once within the sacred city, the fugitive’s first duty was to present himself before the idol, and return thanks for his protection.[435] This was substantially the Hebrew law as to the cities of refuge.[436] Safety was only within the threshold.

There are traces of the primitive idea of a spring of life-giving waters flowing from under the threshold of the goddess of life, in the Islands of the Sea. According to the myths of that region, Vari, or “The-very-beginning” of life was a woman. She plucked off a piece of her right side and it became a man, or part man and part fish, known as Vātea, or Avatea. From the under-world there came to Vātea a supernatural woman called Papa, or Foundation. From this union the human race began. Rongo was the first-born son. The Hades of Polynesia is Avaika, or Hawaika. In the days of Rongo, and later, there was an opening from earth to Avaika; but because of the misdoings of the denizens of that realm, coming up through that passage-way, Tiki, a lovely woman, a descendant of Rongo, “rolled herself alive down into the gloomy opening, which immediately closed upon her.” She was the first to die. And now “Tiki sits at the threshold” of her home below, to welcome the descendants of Rongo, who bring her an offering. A sacred stream of water, “Vairorongo,” comes up from below into the sacred grove devoted to the worship of Rongo, and near that stream it is possible for a spirit to be returned to life and to a home on earth again.[437]

It is obvious that the idea of the sacredness of the threshold, in home, in temple, or in sanctuary, is not of any one time or of any one people, but is of human nature as human nature everywhere. It shows itself all the world over, and always. And it has to do with life, and its perpetuation or reproduction.

8. ONLY ONE FOUNDATION.

An idea tangent to, rather than identical with, the thought of the altar sacredness of the temple threshold, as found among primitive peoples, is that the first temple foundation is the foundation for all subsequent temple building at that place. And it has already been shown that the threshold, or hearthstone, or corner-stone, is considered the foundation.[438]

In ancient Babylonia a temple, however grand and extensive, was supposed to be built on the foundation of an earlier temple; the one threshold being the first threshold and the latest. If, indeed, there was a variation from the original foundation in the construction of a new temple, there was confusion and imperfectness in consequence, and the only hope of reformation was in finding the first temple threshold and rebuilding on it.

There is an illustration of this in an inscription discovered in the foundation of a temple at “Ur of the Chaldees.”[439] Nabonidus (556–538 B.C.), the last Babylonian king, tells with interest of his search for the old foundation, or outline plan, of the ancient temple, Eulbar, or, more properly, Eulmash, of the goddess Istar of Agade, as follows:[440]

The foundation of Eulmash in Agade had not been found from Sargon, king of Babylon (3800 B.C.), and Narâm-Sin, his son, kings living formerly, until the government of Nabunaʾid king of Babylon.

King Kurigalzu (II.), about 1300 B.C., had, in his reign, searched for this foundation, but had failed to find it, and he had left this record: “The foundation of Eulmash I sought, but did not find it.” Later on, Esarhaddon, king of Assyria and Babylonia (681–669 B.C.), searched for it, but without success. Again, Nebuchadrezzar (605–561 B.C.) mobilized his large armies, and ordered them to search for the foundation stone, or threshold, but all his efforts were in vain. Finally Nabunaʾid, the last king of Babylon before its fall under Cyrus, gathered his many soldiers, and ordered them to search for the foundation stone. For “three years in the tracks of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon,” says Nabunaʾid, “I sought right and left, before and behind, but did not find it.”

Encouraged by a prompting from the moon-god Sin, Nabunaʾid tried at another time and in another place, and this time with success. He found the inscription of King Shagarakti-Buriash (1350 B.C.), which tells that he had laid a new foundation exactly upon the old one of King Zabû (about 2300 B.C.). Then Nabunaʾid made sure to preserve the exact outline of the old shrine. He laid the foundation, and restored the ancient temple, so that “it did not deviate an inch to the outside or the inside.”[441]

There are indications of the same high value set upon the primal foundation of a temple in the records of ancient Egypt. A temple at its highest grandeur is in the location of a prehistoric sanctuary. “The site on which it is built is generally _holy ground_,[442] that is, a spot on which since the memory of man an older sanctuary of the god had stood. Even those Egyptian temples which seem most modern have usually a long history,–the edifice may have seemed very insignificant, but as the prestige of the god increased larger buildings were erected, which again, in the course of centuries, were enlarged and rebuilt in such a way that the original plan could no longer be traced. This is the history of nearly all Egyptian temples, and explains the fact that we know so little of the temples of the Old and of the Middle Empire; they have all been metamorphosed into the vast buildings of the New Empire.”[443]

While early Vedic and Brahmanic religion makes no mention of temples as such, fire from an ancestral altar was borne to a newly erected altar, in order to secure a continuance of the sacred influences issuing from that original family threshold.[444] And Vishnooism takes old temples from Booddhism for its centers of worship, prizing the old sacred foundation.

“Buddha-Gaya,” or “Bodhi-Gaya,” in Upper India, is famous as the locality of the holy pipal tree, or the Booddha-drum (“Tree of Knowledge”), under which for six years sat Sakya Sinha, in meditation, before he attained to Booddha-hood. A temple still standing on that site is supposed to have been rebuilt A.D. 1306, on the remains of one visited by Hwen Thsang, a Chinese traveler, in the seventh century of our era, which, in turn, had been built by Amara Sinha, or Amara Deva, about A.D. 500. This earlier temple is said to have been built by a command of Booddha himself conveyed in a vision, or by a command of the Brahmanical Mahâdeva, on the site of a still earlier sanctuary, or monastery, erected by Asoka between 259 and 241 B.C., on the site of Booddha’s meditations, about 300 B.C.[445] The existing temple has been called at different times “Buddha-pad” and “Vishnu-pad,” “Booddha’s foot” and “Vishnoo’s foot.”

Kuru-Kshetra, or the “Plain of Kuru,” near Delhi, India, has been deemed holy ground from time immemorial. At Thâvesar, on this plain, a temple of Siva was built on a site that was sacred long before Sivaism was known. It is even believed that the sacredness of this site runs back to the ancient times of the Rig Veda. The boundaries of this “Holy Land” are given in the great Hindoo epic, the Mahabharata. This plain is said to comprise three hundred and sixty holy shrines, each of which is erected on a foundation sacred from the times of the gods themselves.[446]

So general, in India, is this habit of building a sanctuary on an old sacred foundation, that it is said that “the erection of a mosk by a Muhammadan conqueror always implies the previous destruction of a Hindu temple.”[447] Thus a mosk erected by the emperor Altamash, A D. 1232, is supposed to have been on the foundation of a temple of the sun, built for Raja Pasupati about A.D. 300.[448] Not a new foundation, but an old one, was sought, in India, for a new temple, even to a god newly worshiped there.

Fourteen centuries before Christ, Pan-Kăng, an emperor of China, moved his capital from north of the Ho to south of it because he had ascertained that the original foundation was attempted to be laid there by his ancestor Thang in the Shing dynasty, seventeen reigns before him; hence the removal back to that first foundation would renew the blessing of Thang upon his descendants.[449]

A temple has added sacredness in China according as its foundation is on a spot originally chosen or honored by a representative of Heaven as a threshold of a place of worship. Thus Tai Shan, or the “Great Mount,” in the province of Shantung, China, is mentioned in the Shoo King, or Book of Records, as the site of the great Emperor Shun’s altar of sacrifice to Heaven, 2254 B.C., or, say, three centuries before the time of Abraham. On this holy mountain, as the earliest historic foundation of Chinese worship, “is the great rendezvous of devotees, every sect has there its temples and idols, scattered up and down its sides;” and great multitudes come thither to worship from near and far.[450]

This idea shows itself in modern discoveries among the ruins of ancient Greece. It appears that when Pericles (437 B.C.) began his building of the new Propylæa on the Acropolis, he would have cleared away the remains of such ancient sacred structures as stood within its outline. “The plan of Mnesikles the architect was very simple, and is still clear enough, though it was never fully carried out.” “That the original plan of Mnesikles had undergone modifications was long ago seen by every architect who made the Propylæa matter of serious study.” Dr. Dörpfeld thinks he has discovered how the plan was modified, and why. The enforced departure from the original plan seems to have been because that plan involved the destruction of shrines on an earlier foundation, with a threshold that might not be moved. The gate of Cimon, with its “statue of some guardian god of the gate,–it may be Hermes Propylaios himself,”–was within that outline, and also other sacred sites.

“Against such intrusion it is very likely the priesthood rose and protested, and, before even the foundations were laid, he had to give up, at least for the time, the whole of the southeast hall, and a part of the southwest wing.” This conclusion is the result of recent investigation by careful scholars, and it is in accordance with the ascertained fact that in primitive thought an original foundation for a temple or shrine is counted sacred for all time as the foundation there for such a place of worship, not to be swept away or ignored in any rebuilding or new building.[451]

When from any reason, in early Europe, an ancient shrine must be removed from its primitive foundation, it was deemed desirable to remove to the new site a portion of the foundation itself, as well as the sanctuary or altar above that foundation. Thus, for example, when Thorolf of Norway, who had charge of the temple of Thor in Mostur, removed to Iceland in A.D. 833, he took with him the temple posts and furniture “and the very earth on which the altar of that idol had been erected.” And when he landed in Iceland, Thorolf built a new temple of Thor, with an altar on the foundation which he had brought from the earlier shrine. A thousand years after this the foundation-site of that second temple was still pointed out near Hofstad, in Iceland.[452]

Bible language and narrative abound with incidental evidence of the commonness of this primitive idea. When Jacob, on his way to Haran, came to Beth-el–a House of God–he lighted on “the place” (_hammaqâm_) where,[453] long before, his ancestor Abraham had worshiped, as he came from Egypt by way of the Negeb.[454] And yet earlier Abraham himself, as he came a pilgrim from Haran and Ur, had there “builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord.”[455] And if that place were already known as Beth-el it must have been a sanctuary before Abraham’s day.

Moses, in the wilderness of Sinai, is told that the ground whereon he stands is “holy ground,” and that he is to bring the Hebrews out of Egypt to worship God in that mountain.[456] And the Egyptian records give reason for supposing that that region of Mt. Sinai, perhaps of the moon-god “Sin,” was known as holy ground, and as the “land of God,” or of the gods, before the days of Moses.[457]

At Jerusalem the Temple was built on Mt. Moriah, where the ark of the covenant rested after its return from Philistia,[458] and where David erected an altar to the Lord after the staying of the pestilence from Israel.[459] And it is supposed that this same Mt. Moriah was where Abraham offered a sacrifice to God on an altar he had built for the sacrifice of his son.[460] And this site of the Temple at Jerusalem is held sacred to-day, in view of its being deemed by multitudes a holy place from the beginning of the world.[461]

When Naaman the Syrian was healed of leprosy by Elisha, the prophet of Israel, he desired thenceforth to worship Jehovah in his Syrian home. To this end he asked of Elisha the gift of “two mules’ burden of earth” from Samaria, in order that he might on that sacred foundation erect in Syria an altar to Jehovah.[462]

In a prophecy of the Messiah as the foundation, or threshold, of a new temple, it was declared by the Lord: “Behold, I lay [or, I have laid] in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone of sure foundation.”[463] Again, it was the promise of God to the Israelites that they should be restorers of worship on former foundations. “They that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.”[464]

New Testament phraseology makes frequent reference to this same idea. “According to the grace which was given unto me, as a wise master-builder, I laid a foundation,” says Paul. “But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.”[465] The Christian saints of the “household of God,” as “living stones,”[466] are “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord.”[467]

Muhammadanism, which shows many survivals of primitive ideas and primitive customs, emphasizes the importance of the first foundation as the only foundation, in the traditions and legends of the holy places of its most sacred city. Every _masjid_, or “place of prostration,” in that vicinity is on a site counted holy long centuries before the days of the Prophet of Islam.

The Kaʿbah, or Holy House, in the mosk at Meccah is said to have been built by Adam himself, on the model of a similar structure in heaven. It would seem as if no earthly foundation, or threshold, could have been earlier than that; indeed, the Qurân declares: “The first house appointed unto men to worship in was that which was in Beccah [or Meccah];”[468] yet there is a tradition that Adam erected a place of prayer even before he built the Kaʿbah. In the Deluge the Holy House was destroyed; but Abraham was directed to rebuild it, and on digging beneath the surface of its site he discovered the original foundation, and the Kaʿbah was newly built up on that.

According to Muhammadan traditions, it was while Hagar was near the site of the Holy House, with her famishing son Ishmael, that a spring of water gushed forth with its life-giving stream from beneath that holy site. And that spring is the well Zemzem, or Zamzam, whose waters are deemed sacred and life-giving to-day.

Mount Arafat, a holy hill near Meccah, is another place of pilgrimage, and its sacredness dates from even an earlier day than the laying of the first foundation of the Holy House at Meccah by Adam. When our first parents were cast out of their heavenly paradise, Adam lighted in Ceylon, and Eve in Arabia. Seeking each other, they met on Mount Arafat, or the Mount of Recognition, and therefore that spot of their reunion and new covenanting is a place of pilgrimage and worship for the faithful of all the world at this time.[469] Adam is said to have built a _madaa_, a place of prayer, on Mount Arafat, before he built the Kaʿbah.[470] The religion of Islam thus teaches its subjects to worship at the earliest threshold laid by our first parents in their primal covenanting, and all other religions recognize the importance of a similar idea.

-----

Footnote 261:

Darmesteter’s translation of _Zend Avesta_, in “Sacred Books of the
East,” IV., 12, note.

Footnote 262:

De Coulange’s _Ancient City_, pp. 32–35, 46 f.

Footnote 263:

Compare Friedrich Delitzsch’s _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_, s. v.
“Êkallu.”

Footnote 264:

Wilkinson’s _Egyptians in the Times of the Pharaohs_, p. 141.

Footnote 265:

Erman’s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 279 f.

Footnote 266:

Guhl and Koner’s _Life of the Greeks and Romans_, p. 297.

Footnote 267:

See, for example, _Odyssey_, VII., 80.

Footnote 268:

Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Persia_, pp. 240–254.

Footnote 269:

Comp. Gen. 18 : 1–9, and Exod. 26 : 1–14; 39 : 32, etc.

Footnote 270:

Douglas’s _Society in China_, p. 343.

Footnote 271:

See Chamberlain’s _Things Japanese_, pp. 37, 226 f., 378; Griffis’s
_Mikado’s Empire_, p. 90; Isabella Bird’s _Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_,
II., 282.

Footnote 272:

Turner’s _Samoa_, pp. 18–20.

Footnote 273:

Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 703 f.

Footnote 274:

See Fergusson’s _Rude Stone Monuments_, pp. 100, 411–413.

Footnote 275:

Gen. 11 : 1–9.

Footnote 276:

See Mühlau and Volck’s Gesenius’s _Heb. und Aram. Handwörterbuch_
(12th ed.), s. v. “Babel;” also Schrader, in Richon’s _Dict. of Bib.
Antiq._ (2d ed.).

Footnote 277:

See Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 63; also, Erman’s _Life
in Ancient Egypt_, p. 58.

Footnote 278:

See Perrot and Chipiez’s _History of Art in Chal. and Assy._, II., 72.

Footnote 279:

See Count de Gobineau’s _Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l’Asie
Centrale_; also Browne’s _Year among the Persians, and Traveller’s
Narrative to Illustrate the Episode of the Bab_.

Footnote 280:

_Bibliothèque Orientale_, s. v. “Bab.”

Footnote 281:

John 10 : 9.

Footnote 282:

See, for example, Griffis’s _Mikado’s Empire_, p. 419; Isabella Bird’s
_Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_, I., 295 f.; II., 367 f.; Gray’s _China_,
I., 90; Fergusson’s _Rude Stone Monuments_, p. 413.

Footnote 283:

See Chamberlain’s _Things Japanese_, p. 429 f.; and, Lowell’s
_Chosön_, pp. 262–266, for a fuller explanation of the origin and
signification of this primitive entrance way.

Footnote 284:

See, for example, Douglas’s _Society in China_, p. 411; Isabella
Bird’s _Unbeaten Tracks in Japan_, I., 64; Fergusson’s _Tree and
Serpent Worship_, frontispiece, plates iv-ix, xxi.

Footnote 285:

See Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 656.

Footnote 286:

_Ibid._, p. 569. The doorway in the engraving from the intaglio is
clearly one of the doorway shrines, with the guardians of the doorway
on either side, and not, as has been supposed, an opening into the
ark.

Footnote 287:

Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 657, 662, 759, 762; also Perrot
and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Chal. and Assy._, I., 203, 212; II.,
95, 163, 210, 211.

Footnote 288:

_Ibid._, II., facing p. 212.

Footnote 289:

Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Chal. and Assy._, II., 231;
Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Phœnicia and Cyprus_, I., 9.
See, also, note in Rawlinson’s _Herodotus_, II., pp. 148–151.

Footnote 290:

Wilkinson’s _Anc. Egypt_, III., 349; Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, pp.
274, 283; and Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 189, 239.

Footnote 291:

Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 311; Maspero’s _Dawn of
Civilization_, pp. 237, 250, 253, 262, 316, 413.

Footnote 292:

Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 314. See, also, illustrations in
Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Anc. Egypt_, I., 131, 140, 175.

Footnote 293:

Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 319.

Footnote 294:

Perrot and Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Phœnicia and Cyprus_, I., 256;
II., 31, 57, 147, 178.

Footnote 295:

_Ibid._, I., 53, 54.

Footnote 296:

_Ibid._, I., 287; II., 147.

Footnote 297:

_Ibid._, I., 264, 321.

Footnote 298:

_Ibid._, I., 320.

Footnote 299:

Bent’s _Sacred City of the Ethiopians_, pp. 185–193.

Footnote 300:

See, for example, Fergusson’s _Rude Stone Monuments_, pp. 100, 168 f.,
217, 233, 335, 337, 344, 385, 388, 398–401, 411–413, 441, 464, 468,
484, 532.

Footnote 301:

See illustrations in Sherrin’s _Early History of New Zealand_, pp.
406, 514, 648.

Footnote 302:

Bancroft’s _Native Races_, IV., 481.

Footnote 303:

See, for example, Williams’s _Middle Kingdom_, I., frontispiece;
Gray’s _China_, I., 11 f.

Footnote 304:

See citation in Bonomi’s _Nineveh and its Palaces_ (2d ed.), pp.
157–160, 174.

Footnote 305:

_Ibid._

Footnote 306:

_Nineveh and its Remains_ (Am. ed.), II., 202.

Footnote 307:

_Assyrian Discoveries_, pp. 75, 78, 429.

Footnote 308:

_Chaldean Magic_, pp. 47, 48, 54.

Footnote 309:

See, for example, 1 Sam. 29 : 6; 2 Sam. 3 : 25; 2 Kings 19 : 27; Psa.
121 : 7, 8; Isa. 37 : 28; Ezek. 43 : 11.

Footnote 310:

See references to the Mezuza of the Hebrews at page 69 f., _supra_.

Footnote 311:

Grotefend Cylinder, Col. I., ll. 44–46. See, also, Rawlinson’s
_Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, Vol. I., p. 65, Col. I., ll.
19–21.

Footnote 312:

_East India House Inscription_, Col. III., ll. 48–50.

Footnote 313:

_Ibid._, Col. VIII., ll. 5–9.

Footnote 314:

_Ibid._, Col. IX., ll. 9–16.

Footnote 315:

Grotefend Cylinder, Col. I., ll. 36–38.

Footnote 316:

_East India House Inscr._, col. II., ll. 48–50.

Footnote 317:

See Layard’s _Nineveh and Babylon_ (Am. ed.), p. 424; Perrot and
Chipiez’s _Hist. of Art in Chald. and Assy._, I., 366–392; Rawlinson’s
_Herodotus_, Bk. II., Chap. 99, 125; Sayce’s _Religion of the Ancient
Babylonians_, p. 96; Mariette Bey’s _Monuments of Upper Egypt_, p. 79
f.; Bunsen’s _Egypt’s Place in Universal History_, II., 378–386;
Rawlinson’s _History of Ancient Egypt_, I., 188–194; Réville’s
_Religions of Mexico and Peru_, pp. 41 f., 179 f., Ellis’s _Polynesian
Researches_, II., 207.

Footnote 318:

Rawlinson’s _Herodotus_, Bk. I., Chap. 181–183.

Footnote 319:

The word “_sullam_,” here translated “ladder,” is a derivative from
“_salal_,” “to raise up in a pile, to exalt by heaping up as in the
construction of a mound or highway.” Comp. Isa. 57 : 14; 62 : 10; Jer.
50 : 26. See Bush’s _Notes on Genesis_, in loco.

Footnote 320:

Gen. 28 : 10–22.

Footnote 321:

See Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 691–696, with citation of
authorities at foot of p. 693, and note at p. 695.

Footnote 322:

_Ibid._; also, Sayce’s _Relig. of the Anc. Babyl._, pp. 221–278; 286,
note 3.

Footnote 323:

Comp. Job 1 : 21; Eccl. 5 : 15; 1 Tim. 6 : 7.

Footnote 324:

Maspero’s _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 696.

Footnote 325:

Ezek. 47 : 1–9.

Footnote 326:

Zeph. 2 : 13, 14, with margin.

Footnote 327:

See _Survey of Western Palestine_, “Memoirs,” I., 107.

Footnote 328:

See Gen. 2 : 8–10; Rev. 22 : 1, 2.

Footnote 329:

Ezek. 8 : 8–16.

Footnote 330:

Layard’s _Nineveh and Babylon_ (Am. ed.), pp. 302–311.

Footnote 331:

_Ibid._, p. 69 f.

Footnote 332:

1 Sam. 5 : 1–5.

Footnote 333:

_In loco._

Footnote 334:

Zeph. 1 : 9.

Footnote 335:

Ezek. 46 : 2.

Footnote 336:

_Ibid._, 10 : 4; 9 : 3.

Footnote 337:

_Ibid._, 43 : 8.

Footnote 338:

Lev. 17 : 2–9.

Footnote 339:

Exod. 29 : 4.

Footnote 340:

_Ibid._, 29 : 10–12.

Footnote 341:

Exod. 33 : 8–10; see, also, Num. 12 : 5; 20 : 6; Deut. 31 : 15.

Footnote 342:

See, for example, Exod. 40 : 6, 29; Lev. 1 : 3, 5; 3 : 2; 4 : 4, 7; 8
: 1–36; 12 : 6; 14 : 11, 23; 15 : 14, 29; 16 : 7; 17 : 4–9; 19 : 21;
Num. 6 : 10–18.

Footnote 343:

2 Chron. 23 : 4, 5.

Footnote 344:

_Ibid._, 34 : 8, 9 (see margin).

Footnote 345:

1 Chron. 15 : 23, 24; Jer. 35 : 4; 52 : 24, etc.

Footnote 346:

Psa. 84 : 10 (see margin).

Footnote 347:

See Edersheim’s _The Temple: Its Ministry and Services_, p. 191; also,
Ginsburg’s art. “Passover,” in Kitto’s _Cycl. of Bib. Lit._, p. 426.

Footnote 348:

See 2 Kings 12 : 9; 22 : 4; 23 : 4; 25 : 18.

Footnote 349:

See, for example, representation and description of temples at Byblus
and Baalbec, in Donaldson’s _Architectura Numismatica_, pp. 105 f.,
122–128.

Footnote 350:

Fellows’s _Travels and Researches in Asia Minor_, p. 256.

Footnote 351:

Roberts’s _Oriental Illus. of Scrip._, p. 148 f.

Footnote 352:

Maurice’s _Indian Antiquities_, V., 89.

Footnote 353:

Maurice’s _Indian Antiquities_, V., 79 f., note. Compare Trumbull’s
_Blood Covenant_, pp. 157–164.

Footnote 354:

Maurice’s _Modern Hist. of Hindostan_, Pt. I., Bk. 2, chap. 3, p. 296
f.

Footnote 355:

Hughes’s _Dictionary of Islam_, art. “Masjid;” also Conder’s _Heth and
Moab_, p. 293 f.; also Lane’s _The Modern Egyptians_, I., 105.

Footnote 356:

Morier’s _Second Journey through Persia_, p. 254.

Footnote 357:

The moon is said to have thus bowed before Muhammad, at the threshold
of the Kaabeh at Meccah. _Anecdotes Arabes et Mussulmans_, p. 22 f.
(By J.F. de la Croix, Paris, 1772.)

Footnote 358:

Chardin’s _Voyage_, I., 282.

Footnote 359:

_Ibid._, I., 292.

Footnote 360:

Laurie’s _Dr. Grant and the Mountain Nestorians_, p. 134 f.

Footnote 361:

Vambéry’s _Travels in Central Asia_, p. 233.

Footnote 362:

Huc’s _Travels in Tartary, Thibet, and China_, I., 191.

Footnote 363:

Hearn’s _Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan_, I., 188.

Footnote 364:

Lowell’s _Occult Japan_, pp. 270–273; also, Isabella Bird’s _Unbeaten
Tracks in Japan_, II., 278–285.

Footnote 365:

_Ibid._, I., 111–119; II., 286–288.

Footnote 366:

See Petrie’s _Ten Years’ Digging in Egypt_, pp. 138–142; also,
Mariette’s _Monuments of Upper Egypt_, p. 107 f., and Maspero’s _Dawn
of Civilization_, pp. 358–361.

Footnote 367:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 67.

Footnote 368:

See Wilkinson’s _Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians_, I.,
xiv.

Footnote 369:

This is on the testimony of Prof. W. Max Müller, who adds that “so far
the Egyptologists have not paid any attention to the threshold;” hence
there is a lack of material yet available as showing its peculiar
sacredness.

Footnote 370:

Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, p. 272.

Footnote 371:

Lemm’s “Ritual Book,” p. 29 ff., 47; cited in Erman’s _Life in Anc.
Egypt_, p. 274 f.

Footnote 372:

Erman’s _Life in Anc. Egypt_, pp. 260, 308 f.; Mariette Bey’s
_Monuments of Upper Egypt_, p. 26.

Footnote 373:

Wilkinson’s _Ancient Egyptians_, III., 65–86.

Footnote 374:

_Book of the Dead_, CXLII.

Footnote 375:

Renouf’s _Relig. of Anc. Egypt_, p. 191 f.

Footnote 376:

See p. 106, _supra_.

Footnote 377:

_Book of the Dead_, CXLV., CXLVI.

Footnote 378:

Renouf’s _Religion of Ancient Egypt_, p. 202 f.

Footnote 379:

_Book of the Dead_, CXXV.

Footnote 380:

Lane’s _Thousand and One Nights_. Notes to Chapter 3, Vol. I., p. 215
f. See, also, Stanley Lane’s _Arabian Society in the Middle Ages_, p.
73.

Footnote 381:

Or, “by steps,”–“_gradibus_.”

Footnote 382:

Cranch’s _Æneid of Virgil_, I., 572–585; _Æneis_, I., 441–449.

Footnote 383:

Bruce’s _Travels_ (Dublin ed.), III., 644, Bk. IV., chap. 12.

Footnote 384:

Bent’s _Sacred City of the Ethiopians_, p. 40 f.

Footnote 385:

See Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 17.

Footnote 386:

See, for example, _Iliad_, I., 426; XIV., 173; XXI., 427, 505;
_Odyssey_, VIII., 321.

Footnote 387:

Professor W.A. Lamberton, in a personal note to the author.

Footnote 388:

_Odyssey_, XIII., 4; VII., 83, 87, 89.

Footnote 389:

_Iliad_, VIII., 15.

Footnote 390:

See Hesiod’s _Theogony_, V., 749.

Footnote 391:

_Iliad_, IX., 404.

Footnote 392:

_Odyssey_, VIII., 80.

Footnote 393:

_Oedipus at Colonus_, 54 ff. See, also, 1591. Comp. Hesiod’s
_Theogony_, 811.

Footnote 394:

Prof. W.A. Lamberton.

Footnote 395:

Æschylus’s “Suppliants,” p. 497; cited in Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and
Roman Antiq._, s. v. “Ara.” See, also, Donaldson’s _Architectura
Numismatica_, pp. xvi, xvii, 33, 54.

Footnote 396:

Euripides, _Androm._, 1098. Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq._,
s. v. “Antæ.”

Footnote 397:

Acts 14 : 8–14.

Footnote 398:

_Odyssey_, VII., 130.

Footnote 399:

Euripides, _Hippolytus_, 741.

Footnote 400:

_Pausanias_, Bk. X., 24, 5.

Footnote 401:

Bingham’s _Antiquities of the Christian Church_, Bk. VIII., chap. 3.

Footnote 402:

_Ibid._, Bk. VIII., chap. 4.

Footnote 403:

_Ibid._, Bk. VIII., chap. 7.

Footnote 404:

Blunt’s _Annotated Book of Common Prayer_, p. 210.

Footnote 405:

_Ibid._, p. 217.

Footnote 406:

See Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 15 f.

Footnote 407:

Baring-Gould’s _Germany, Present and Past_ (Am. ed.), p. 105.

Footnote 408:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 14 f.

Footnote 409:

Vaux’s _Church Folk-Lore_, p. 99.

Footnote 410:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 16.

Footnote 411:

Vaux’s _Church Folk-Lore_, p. 98.

Footnote 412:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 17.

Footnote 413:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 254.

Footnote 414:

Wood’s _Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries_, II., 255.

Footnote 415:

See Henderson’s _Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties of England and the
Borders_, p. 38.

Footnote 416:

Curtin’s _Myths and Folk-Lore of Ireland_, p. 177.

Footnote 417:

See Jones’s and Kropf’s _Folk-Tales of the Magyars_, p. 410.

Footnote 418:

On the eye-witness testimony of Prof. Dr. Morris Jastrow, Jr.

Footnote 419:

Réville’s _Nat. Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, pp. 41, 179 f., 207; also
Bancroft’s _Mex._, I., 296.

Footnote 420:

Réville’s _Nat. Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, p. 183; Bancroft’s _Mex._,
I., 162.

Footnote 421:

Réville’s _Nat. Relig. of Mex. and Peru_, pp. 31, 184, 207 f.

Footnote 422:

_Ibid._, p. 83.

Footnote 423:

Bancroft’s _Native Races_, “Civilized Nations,” II., 706 f.

Footnote 424:

See Bancroft’s _Native Races and Antiquities_, IV., 209 f., 314, 321,
323, 332, 338, 351, 531, 801, 803, 805. See also, Stephens’s
_Incidents of Travels in Yucatan_, I., 137, 167–176, 303, 306,
403–407, 411–413; II., 42, 54, 56, 72, 122.

Footnote 425:

Chateaubraud’s _Voyage en Amérique_, pp. 130–136; cited in Frazer’s
_Golden Bough_, II., 383.

Footnote 426:

Ellis’s _Polynesian Researches_, II., 206.

Footnote 427:

_Ibid._, II., 211 f.

Footnote 428:

_Ibid._, II., 207, illustration.

Footnote 429:

_Ibid._, II., 212 f.

Footnote 430:

Ellis’s _Hist. of Madagascar_, I., 176–187.

Footnote 431:

Ellis’s _Through Hawaii_, p. 73 f.

Footnote 432:

_Ibid._, p. 75.

Footnote 433:

Ellis’s _Through Hawaii_, p. 81 f.

Footnote 434:

_Ibid._, p. 135 f.; also, Isabella Bird’s _Six Months in the Sandwich
Islands_, p. 196.

Footnote 435:

Ellis’s _Through Hawaii_, p. 153 f. See, also, Isabella Bird’s _Six
Months in the Sandwich Islands_, p. 135 f.

Footnote 436:

Num. 35 : 6–32; Deut. 4 : 41–43; 19 : 1–13; Josh. 20 : 1–9.

Footnote 437:

Comp. Gill’s _Myths and Songs from the South Pacific_, pp. 3, 4, 7,
14, 18, 20, 26, 152, 155, 158, 160, 170; also Turner’s _Samoa_, p.
259.

Footnote 438:

See pp. 21–23, 45 f., 55, _supra_.

Footnote 439:

Gen. 11 : 28; Neh. 9 : 7.

Footnote 440:

Rawlinson’s _Inscript. of W. Asia_, Vol. I., pl. 69, Col. II., l. 29
ff.

Footnote 441:

See Hilprecht’s _Assyriaca_, pp. 54, 55, 97.

Footnote 442:

Inscription in the temple of Rameses III. at Karnak.

Footnote 443:

Erman’s _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 279.

Footnote 444:

See “Grihya-Sutras,” in _Sacred Books of the East_, XXX., 193–201;
also De Coulange’s _Ancient City_, pp. 36, 47 f.

Footnote 445:

See Julien’s _Mémoires de Hionen-Thsang_, I., 459–466; Cunningham’s
_Archæological Survey of India_, I., 1–12; Sir Monier
Monier-Williams’s _Buddhism_, pp. 390–401.

Footnote 446:

Cunningham’s _Archæological Survey of India_, II., 212, 213.

Footnote 447:

_Ibid._, II., 353 f.

Footnote 448:

_Ibid._

Footnote 449:

“The Shih King,” Bk. 7, § 3, in _Sacred Books of the East_, III., 111.

Footnote 450:

Williams’s _Middle Kingdom_, I., 90 f.

Footnote 451:

Harrison and Verrall’s _Myth. and Monu. of Anc. Athens_, pp. 353–361.

Footnote 452:

Henderson’s _Iceland_, II., 64–67; also _ibid._, I., xiv.

Footnote 453:

Gen. 28 : 10–22.

Footnote 454:

_Ibid._, 13 : 1–3.

Footnote 455:

_Ibid._, 12 : 1–8.

Footnote 456:

Exod. 3 : 1–12.

Footnote 457:

Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 411.

Footnote 458:

2 Sam. 6 : 1–19.

Footnote 459:

_Ibid._, 24 : 15–25.

Footnote 460:

Gen. 22 : 1–13.

Footnote 461:

As evidenced in the traditional claim that the grave of Adam was under
the cross.

Footnote 462:

2 Kings 5 : 17.

Footnote 463:

Isa. 28 : 16; 1 Pet. 2 : 6.

Footnote 464:

Isa. 58 : 12.

Footnote 465:

1 Cor. 3 : 10, 11.

Footnote 466:

1 Pet. 2 : 5.

Footnote 467:

Eph. 2 : 20, 21.

Footnote 468:

_Sura_ 3 : 90.

Footnote 469:

See Sale’s _Koran_, “Preliminary Discourse,” Sect. IV.; Burton’s
_Pilgrimage to El-Medinah and Meccah_, III., 149–222; Hughes’s
_Dictionary of Islam_, s. vv. “Abraham,” “Adam,” “Arafāt,” “Hagar,”
“Ishmael,” “Kaʿbah,” “Masjidu ʾl-Harām,” “Zamzam;” Sprenger’s _Life of
Mohammad_, pp. 46–62; Muir’s _Mahomet and Islam_, pp. 12–17, 215–219.

Footnote 470:

Burton’s _Pilgrimage_, III., 260.

-----