CHAPTER X: THE MILITARY FUNCTIONS OF PRIESTS.

§ 628. Among the many errors which result from carrying back advanced ideas and sentiments to the interpretation of primitive institutions, few are greater than that of associating priestly functions with actions classed as high in kind, and dissociating them from brutal and savage actions. Did not men’s prepossessions render them impervious to evidence, even their Bible readings might raise doubts; and wider readings would prove that among mankind at large, priests have displayed and cultivated not the higher but rather the lower passions of humanity.

We at once see that this must be so, when we remember that instead of deities conceived as possessing all perfections, moral and intellectual, most peoples have had deities conceived as possessing ferocious natures, often in no way distinguished from the diabolical. Of the ancient Mexicans we read that their “Princes sent to one another to prepare for War, because their Gods demanded something to eat;” and that their armies “fought, only endeavouring to take Prisoners, that they might have Men to feed those Gods.” According to Jackson, the Fijian priests told those around “that bloodshed and war, and everything connected with them, were acceptable to their gods.” Though Pindar repudiates the ascription of cannibalism to the Greek gods, yet the narrative of Pausanias shows that even in his day, human victims were occasionally sacrificed to Zeus; and the Edition: current; Page: [108] Iliad tacitly ascribes to the Greek gods natures lower than it ascribes to men: lying, treachery, blood-thirstiness, adultery, are without palliation attributed to them. The fact that they took part in the battles of the men with whom they respectively sided, reminds us of the Assyrians, among whom also direct divine aid in fighting was alleged. Says an inscription of Esarhaddon:—

And kindred traits are directly or tacitly ascribed to the primitive Hebrew god. I do not refer only to sacrifices of human victims, or to such phrases as “the Lord is a man of war,” and “God himself is with us for our captain” (2 Chron. xiii, 12); but I refer more particularly to the indiscriminate slaughter said to be ordered by God, and to the fact that a religious war is assumed to be naturally a bloody war: instance the statement in 1 Chron. v, 22—“there fell down many slain, because the war was of God.” All which divine traits, attributed by early historic peoples as well as by existing barbarians, are accounted for when we remember that mythologies, which habitually describe battles among the gods for supremacy, are but transfigured accounts of struggles among primitive rulers, in which the stronger, more blood-thirsty, and more unscrupulous, usually prevailed.

Fully to understand the original connexion between military deeds and religious duties, we must recollect that when gods are not supposed to be active participators in the battles commanded or countenanced by them, they are supposed to be present in representative idols, or in certain equivalents for idols. Everywhere we find parallels to the statement made by Cook, that the Sandwich Islanders carry their war-gods with them to battle. Among the ancient Mexicans when meeting a foe, “the priests with their idols marched in the front.” Certain of the Yucatanese had “idols, which they adored as gods of battles. . . . Edition: current; Page: [109] They carried these when they went to fight the Chinamitas, their neighbours and mortal foes.” Of the Chibchas, Herrera, referring to private idols, says—“So great was their Devotion, that whithersoever they went, the Idol was carry’d, holding it with one Arm and fighting with the other in their Battles.” Nor has it been otherwise in the old world. The account in 2 Samuel, v, 21, shows that the Philistines carried their images of the gods with them when fighting; and the ark, regarded by the Hebrews as a residence of Jahveh, was taken out to war not unfrequently (2 Samuel, xi). Indeed in 1 Samuel, iv, we read that the Hebrews, having been defeated by the Philistines, sent for the ark that it might save them; “and when the ark of the covenant of the Lord came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang again. . . . And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp.” Moreover, on calling to mind the sacrifices habitually made before and after, and sometimes during, battles by uncivilized and semi-civilized peoples, we are further shown how close has been the connexion between killing enemies and pleasing deities.

Priests being the official propitiators of deities, the corollary is obvious. While often restrainers from wars with those of the same blood, they are originally stimulators to wars with those of other bloods worshipping other deities. Thus, concerning the Mexicans above referred to, who fought to provide victims for their gods, we read that “when the Priests thought fit, they went to the Kings, and told them, they must remember the Idols who were starving with Hunger.” The Assyrian priests had further motives. “They lived on the revenues of the temples . . . were directly interested in war, as a portion of the spoil was dedicated to the temples.” But without multiplying instances, it will suffice to recall the fact that even among the Hebrews, while king and people were in some cases inclined to show clemency, priests insisted upon cherem—merciless indiscriminate slaughter; and Samuel “cried unto the Lord Edition: current; Page: [110] all night” because Saul, though he had “utterly destroyed” the Amalekites, had not killed their king and all their cattle: reminding us of the Fijian who, not having done his utmost in slaying, worked himself into a “religious frenzy,” calling out continually “the god is angry with me.”

This preliminary brief survey prepares us to find that in early stages of social evolution along with sacerdotal functions go military functions. Let us look at these under their leading aspects.

§ 629. The truth that in the normal order the chief, who is originally the greatest warrior, is also the primitive priest, implies union of military and sacerdotal functions in the same person. At first the head fighter is the head propitiator of the gods. The frescoes and inscriptions of Egypt and Assyria, presenting the king as at once leader in war and leader in worship, illustrate a connexion habitually found.

This connexion is even closer than at first appears; for among the most important sacrifices made by kings to gods, are those made on the eve of battle to gain divine favour, or after victory in token of thanks. That is to say, the king discharges his function of religious propitiator in the most conspicuous way, at the time when his military headship is exercised in the most conspicuous way.

With but small modification, this connexion of functions is occasionally shown where the leadership in war is not exercised by the ruling man or body, but by an appointed general; for in such cases generals assume priestly functions. The Mexicans furnished an instance. The office of high-priest “involved, almost always, the duties of Tlacochcalcatl, or commander-in-chief of the army.” So was it with the ancient civilized peoples of Europe. At Rome, “before setting out on an expedition, the army being assembled, the general repeated prayers and offered a sacrifice. The custom was the same at Athens and at Sparta.” To which we may add that, among the Romans, “the army in the field was the image of the city, and its religion followed it:” the Edition: current; Page: [111] sacred hearth was perpetually burning, there were augurs and diviners, and king or commander sacrificed before and after battle. And, indeed, the priestly function of the Roman commander was such that in some cases he paid more attention to sacrificing than to fighting.

Nor does the community end here. Beyond this union of military functions with sacerdotal functions in leaders, there occur among the uncivilized, cases in which active parts in fighting are taken by priests. Concerning the Tahitians, whose “chiefs and priests were often among the most famous boxers and wrestlers,” Ellis says that “the priests were not exempted from the battle, they bore arms, and marched with the warriors to the combat.” Presently we shall have to note that parallels have been furnished where they might least be expected.

§ 630. After recognizing the fact that at the outset, active ecclesiastical headship is united with active military headship; and after recognizing the fact that throughout later stages these two headships remain nominally united with headship of the state; we may go on to observe that very soon, priests usually cease to be direct participators in war, and become indirect participators only.

During times when the characters of medicine-man and priest are vaguely represented in the person of one who is supposed to have power over, or influence with, supernatural beings, we see foreshadowed the advising and administrative functions of priests in war. The Dakotahs show this kind of action in its rudest form.

Then among the Abipones the medicine-man—

And we are told that among the Khonds—

To raise the courage of the soldiers by hopes of help from the gods, was in like manner a function of the priest among Spartans.

And the Hebrews similarly availed themselves of the agency of the priest in promising supernatural aid; as witness Deuteronomy, xx, 1—4.

In some cases of which I have notes, the functions of the priests who accompanied the armies, are not specified. On the Gold Coast, where “war is never undertaken by kings or states without consulting the national deities,” the “fetish-men accompany the warriors to the field.” And Herrera describes the armies of the Yucatanese as having “two Wings and a Center, where the Lord and the High Priest were.” But the military functions of the priest during active war, are in other cases somewhat different. Among the primitive Germans—

In yet other cases the functions discharged are more exclusively of the kind called religious. The Samoans took a priest “to battle to pray for his people and curse the enemy.” Edition: current; Page: [113] In New Caledonia, “the priests go to battle, but sit in the distance, fasting and praying for victory.” Among the Comanches the supplicatory function was performed before going to war. “The priesthood,” says Schoolcraft, “appear to exercise no influence in their general government, but, on war being declared, they exert their influence with the Deity.” And in this conception of their office it seems that Christian priests agree with the priests of the Comanches; as witness the following prayer directed to be used by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the commencement of the late war in Egypt.

A noteworthy difference, however, being that whereas the priest among pagans in general, seeks some sign of divine approval as a first step, the Christian priest assumes that he has this approval; even though the case be that of attacking a people who are trying to throw off an intolerable tyranny.

Besides being direct or indirect aiders in battle, priests are in other cases relied on for military management, or appealed to for guidance. In Africa among the Eggarahs, a priest “officiates as minister of war.” Of the ancient Mexicans we read—“The high-priests were the oracles whom the kings consulted in all the most important affairs of the state, and no war was ever undertaken without their approbation.” Prescott speaks of the Peruvian priests as giving advice in matters of war; and Torquemada says that in Guatemala the priests had decisive authority on war questions. In San Salvador, too, the high-priest and his subordinates, after seeking supernatural knowledge, “called together the cazique and war chief, and advised them of the approach of their enemies, and whether they should go to meet them.” And the like happened among the Hebrews. Edition: current; Page: [114] I Kings, xxii, tells us of consultations with the prophets concerning the propriety of a war, and especially with one of them:—

§ 631. Anyone simple enough to suppose that men’s professed creeds determine their courses of conduct, might infer that nations which adopted Christianity, if not deterred from war by their nominally-accepted beliefs, would at least limit the functions of their priests to those of a religious kind, or at any rate, a non-militant kind. He would be quite wrong however.

The fact is familiar that Christian Europe throughout many centuries, saw priests taking as active parts in war as do priests among some extant savages. In the seventh century in France, bishops went to battle; and “by the middle of the eighth century regular military service on the part of the clergy was already fully developed:” “under Charles Martel it was common to see bishops and clerks bearing arms.” Says Guizot concerning the state of the church at this period, the bishops “took part in the national warfare; nay more, they undertook, from time to time, expeditions of violence and rapine against their neighbours on their own account.” And in subsequent centuries Germany and France alike witnessed the union of military leadership with ecclesiastical leadership. In Germany the spiritual head “was now a feudal baron; he was the acknowledged leader of the military forces in his dioceses.” Writing of events in France, Orderic describes the priests as leading their parishioners to battle, and the abbots their vassals, in 1094, and again in 1108; while in 1119 the bishops summoned the priests with their parishioners. Even after the middle of the fifteenth century the Cardinal de Balue mustered troops in Paris; and “the bishop, the heads Edition: current; Page: [115] of the university, the abbots, priors, and other churchmen,” “appeared there with a certain number of men.” Not until nearly the middle of the seventeenth century was there issued an edict which exempted the clergy from personal service in the armies. Even now, Christendom is not without an example of union between the man-slaying and soul-saving functions. It is remarked that the Montenegrins form “the only community now in Europe governed by a military bishop;” and the Rev. W. Denton says “the priests carry arms, and ‘are generally good heroes,’ the first at a gathering, the leaders of their flocks in war.”

To a direct participation in war exhibited by actual service in the army, must be added an indirect participation implied by administrative control of the fighting organizations. Cardinal Richelieu was director of both navy and army. Moreover, his policy “was the opening of a new era for France, an era of great and systematized warfare;” and he, “in his Testament politique, recalls with pride the discipline he established in the army of Italy and among the troops which besieged La Rochelle. ‘They obeyed like monks under arms.’ ”

Now-a-days people have become unaccustomed to these connexions, and forget that they ever existed. The military duties of priests among ourselves have dwindled down to the consecration of flags, the utterances by army-chaplains of injunctions of forgiveness to men who are going to execute vengeance, joined with occasional prayers to the God of love to bless aggressions, provoked or unprovoked.

§ 632. Thus, contemplation of facts supplied by all places and times, reverses that association of ideas which the facts immediately around us produce. Recognizing the truth that the gods of savages and partially-civilized peoples, were originally ferocious chiefs and kings whose ghosts were propitiated by carrying out their aggressive or revengeful projects; we see that their official propitiators, so far from being at first associated in doctrine and deed with the higher Edition: current; Page: [116] traits of human nature, were in both associated with the lower. Hence the naturalness of that militancy which characterizes them in early stages.

Under a more concrete form this union of the sacerdotal and belligerent characters, is shown by the fact that in the normal order of social evolution, the political head is at the same time the leader in war and the leader in worship. Evidently the implication is that these two functions, at first united, can acquire separate agencies but gradually; and that these separate agencies must long continue to show some community of character: a truth indicated by that nominal headship of the church and the army which the head of the state in many cases retains when actual headship has ceased.

That other priests besides that head priest who is also head warrior, should take active parts in war, is therefore to be expected. We need feel no surprise on finding that in various barbarous societies they share in battle—sometimes as actual soldiers, at other times as inspiring prompters, at other times as advisers divinely enlightened; while occasionally they act as war ministers.

Moreover this original relation is, as we see, not easily obliterated. The history of mediæval Europe proves undeniably that conditions which cause a great recrudescence of militancy, re-establish the primitive union of soldier and priest, notwithstanding a cult which forbids bloodshed—re-establish it just as completely as though the cult were of the most sanguinary kind. Only as war becomes less chronic, and the civilizing influences of peace begin to predominate, does the priest lose his semi-warlike character.

Lastly, let us note that the differentiation of these two functions of fighting enemies and propitiating deities, which were originally joined with headship of the State, has gone furthest in those religious organizations which are separate from the State. Unlike the ministers of the established church, who ordinarily belong to families which furnish military and naval officers, and who, though not actively Edition: current; Page: [117] militant, have their militant sympathies occasionally indicated by the votes of bishops in the House of Lords, dissenting ministers, derived from classes engaged in one or other form of industrial activity, are the least militant of religious functionaries.