idea had not arisen of sacred and
secular, or sacred and profane, as we say in the modern world. To the
old civilisations there was no such thing as sacred history and profane
history; no division was made between sacred science and secular
science; all history was sacred, all science was divine. And so much was
that the case that, when you find an ancient pupil asking of an ancient
teacher as to divine science, the answer was given: "There are two forms
of divine science, the higher and the lower." And the lower divine
science was made up of all the things that now you call literature,
science, and art; all those were run over by name, and summed up under
the heading of the lower divine science. The higher, supreme Science
was that knowledge of God, to which accurately the word Wisdom ought
only to be applied. So that to their thought Deity was everywhere, and
there was only variety in the manifestations of Deity. All Nature was
sacred. God expressed Himself in every object, in every form. All that
could be said was that through one form more of His glory came than
through another. The form might be more or less transparent, but the
inner radiant light was the same in all. And it was natural, inevitable,
with such a conception of Nature and of God, that the Master, the
Founder, of a religion should unite in His sole person the office alike
of the Priest and of the King. And so you find it. The only likeness in
modern days is not now a very fortunate one in the eyes of many--the
King-Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. For so ill had the duties of
the King been performed in that high seat, that the people lost the
sense of the divinity, and revolted against it, and cast it off, and
left that Pontiff shorn of his royal character. But far back in the old
civilisations, in the one person the two offices were united. The
Pharaoh of Egypt was truly the Lord of the triple diadem, but also the
supreme Priest in every temple of his land. So also in Chaldea, in
India, and in many another land; and wherever that is the case you find
a certain outline given to the civilisation, differing in detail, but
marvellously similar in the broad touches of that sketch. You find that
in those days the Priest-King, the Ruler of the land and the supreme
Teacher of his people, shaped the polity of the nation as he shaped the
doctrines taught in the temples of the religion. Both the religion and
the polity have the keynote of duty. And always wi