I think that it was Mons. Weill, in his remarkable book called Moise et le Talmud, who first drew attention to the influence of the Talmudists upon the Jewish Scriptures. He pointed out that in the Mosaic law there was no idea of prayer, intercession, or pardon; everything was based upon the "lex talionis," an eye was to be paid for with an eye, murder was to be avenged by murder, and ecclesiastical, ceremonial, and other transgressions were to be atoned, i.e., satisfaction was to be given by sacrifice and payments to the priest or tabernacle. But when the Jews, after their contact with the Chaldeans, Medea, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, began to study theology, two sects arose—the Talmudists, who explained away the older Scriptures, interpolated narratives, or simply texts therein, so as to suit their purposes; and the Sadducees, who refused to adopt as matters of faith anything which was not taught by Moses. The first was the strongest sect, and composed the majority in the Sanhedrim. They thus had power over the sacred canon, and could reject manuscripts or adopt them according as the purposes which were aimed at were served. The Talmudic interpolations are supposed to b« recognised chiefly in the more modern parts of the Old Testament, in Ezra, Nehemiah, the second Isaiah and Jeremiah, in the books of Zechariah and Malachi, in the Chronicles, Daniel, in many Psalms, more sparsely in the older histories, but very largely in the Pentateuch. From these considerations, from the absence of any order in the Mosaic law for the priests to offer any supplication, and from, the general absence of prayer from the sacrifices of all nations, we may conclude that "intercession" formed no part in the Jewish religion in the early days of its existence.
When working upon this subject I endeavoured to examine the curious Iguvian tables, on which Aufrecht, Eircher, and Newman have bestowed such pains. These are, I believe, the only tables extant which give directions to the old Umbrian, or any other ancient priests, how to conduct public sacrifices and the ensuing feasts. In them there are directions for invocations, but no formula for prayers, unless one can call invocations by that name. I fancy, that in some parts of the tables there are words which may be rendered "speak," or "mutter," or "meditate," or "pray silently."
The fact that a Hebrew historian has composed a prayer, and put it into the mouth of King Solomon, rather than into that of a high priest, shows that supplication for the people was not a strictly sacerdotal duty. Even now, with all our liberality of thought, we take our prayers from the Archbishops, and not from the crown.
But what we have said points to another important consideration, viz., how far our Authorized Version can be trusted as a foundation upon which to build a theory respecting the use of prayer, when we find that the words given in English do not correspond with the words in the original Hebrew.
We have noticed in the text that both John and Jesus taught their disciples to pray; we may now call attention to the idea which the latter had of "prayer." In a parable, which was evidently intended to represent what was common enough in his day, he says, "Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican; the Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself—God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are," &c (Luke xviii. 10-13). Surely one cannot call a boastful enumeration of one's virtues either "supplication," "prayer," or "entreaty;" but we understand readily that what we should call "meditation" was once included under the name "prayer." This anecdote unquestionably seems to prove that there was nothing like public prayer in the temple ritual. The idea of the Ancients was to obtain what they wanted by costly sacrifice; the idea of the Moderns is to obtain their desires by the expenditure of words only. We know that Pagans used long litanies, and that Christians do so too. In Jezebel's time "0 Baal, hear us" resounded on Mount Carmel in sonorous monotony. We have replaced that heathen chant by another, and our cathedrals reverberate constantly with the musical rogation, "We beseech Thee to hear us, good Lord," uttered more than a score of times. Our orthodoxy consists in our using English instead Phoenician words, and in calling Baal by a word more familiar to us; and as the highest commendation which we can give to others is to imitate them, so we praise the Ancient heathen highly, who thought that they would be heard from their "much speaking." It is ever easier to change our words than our practice. Like the Pharisee, Christians boast that they are not as other men are; but by their proceedings they show that they are like the Jews, of whose paternity Jesus had not an exalted opinion. (See John viii. 44).
In further illustration of the absence of a set form of prayer in the temple worship in Jerusalem, and of the independence of all devout solicitors of priestly aid, I may point to Matthew vi. 5 to 8, wherein we find that hypocrites offered their supplications, not only in the temple, but at the corners of the streets. It is just possible that in the former locality there might have been some public worship going on, in which the saintly could join, but certainly there was no such ritual at street corners. But if there had really been divine service in the temple, it follows that those who joined in it would not have been conspicuous, or deserving the name of hypocrites. The fault of these which is mentioned by Jesus is ostentatious public prayer, i.e.9 the doing of that which had not been prescribed by Moses.
As I have, in a preceding volume, spoken at some length concerning the morals and manners of ancient races, and shown how, as a rule, their conduct has been the same as that of modern Christians, and as, moreover, the subject has been treated of in an essay by Lecky (History of European Morals), I will not pursue this part of my subject further than to remark, that we have scarcely two articles of faith—if, indeed we have more than one—i.e., respect for one day in seven—which we have not received, directly or indirectly, from Pagans. Even our Christianity is but a modified Buddhism, as I shall endeavour, in my next chapter, to show.
CHAPTER IV.
Christianity and Buddhism. The new and old world. An
impartial judge is said to be a partisan. Works on the
subject. Sakya Muni's birth, B.c. 620 (about), position in
life, original views. Parallels between Brahmin-ism,
Buddhism, Hebraism, and Christianity. History of Sakya Muni
—that of Jesus corresponds with it marvellously. Sakya
receives a commission from an angel—is henceforth a
saviour. History of Jesus follows that of Sakya. Siddartha
neither dictated nor wrote. A favourite garden. Sakya and
the Brahmins. Buddha and Christ equally persecuted. Spread
of Buddhism after Siddartha's death. Asoka a royal convert
Buddhist missionaries, b.c. 307. Their wonderful successes.
Different development of Buddhism and Christianity.
Persecution a Christian practice, Buddha tempted by the
Devil, and by women, like St Anthony. Buddha's life reduced
to writing, at least B.c. 90. Hardy on Buddhist miracles.
His remarks criticised. Necessity for miracles is doubtful.
Sakya and a future life. Resurrection from the dead. Jesus
not the first fruits of them that slept. Paul's argument
worthless. Buddhists in advance of Christians. Priestcraft
at time of Buddha and Jesus. Both did away with ceremonial.
Sakya's doctrine—compared with Christian teaching. Another
parallel between Buddha and Jesus. Commandments of Tathâgata
(Buddha), or the Great Sramana. Rules for his saintly
friends—for outsiders. Definition of terms. The Sra-mana's
opinion of miracles—a comparison. The history of Jesus told
without miracles. Buddhistic confession—remarks on in
modern times. Filial respect. Public confession, murder
absolved thereby. Asoka, about B.c. 263, sent out
missionaries. Objections made against Buddhism. Ideas
respecting God. Salvation. Buddha and Jesus. Nirvana. Heaven
and Hell—Christian ideas. Apocalypse. The heaven of John
and Mahomet compared with that of Buddha. Prayer not a
Buddhist institution—nor originally a Christian one. Nature
of prayer. The developments of Buddhism, particulars—
comparison between the Eastern ancient and Western modern
practice. Abbé Hue. No sexual element in Buddhism and
Christianity at first—it has crept into both in later
times. Inquiry into the probable introduction of Buddhism
into the West. Asceticism peculiar to Buddhism and
Christianity. The Essenes, their faith and practice—
resemblance to Buddhism. John and Jesus probably Essenes.
If Jesus was inspired, so was Siddartha. Differences
between Sakya and Jesus. Jesus 'believed in an immediate
destruction of the world. Idea of préexistence in Jesus and
Sakya adopted by their followers. The basis of the two
faiths is morality—but an unsound one. Nature of the
unsoundness. Morality has a reference to a life on earth
only. The decalogue superfluous. Ideas of future rewards and
punishments. Dives and Lazarus. The world can exist without
a knowledge of a future life. God thought so when He taught
the Jews. Dogma versus morality. See how these Christians
live! There are a few good men amongst Christians.
Supplementary remarks.