Can civilization grow out of barbarism? Dislike of progress,
especially if mental. Rediscovery of ancient knowledge.
Advance and retrogression. China and Japan--influence of
strangers. Decadence of nations--followed by a rise. The
Shemitic and Negro races. Varied religious ideas. The Negro
Fetish and Obi. Jewish, Arab, and Christian communication
with the dead. Australian idea about white men. Ideas of a
soul and futurity amongst the Aryans and Egyptians. Their
priesthood. The Aryans Monotheiste. An Aryan hymn. Max
Mueller and Talboys Wheeler. Aryan conceptions compared with
Psalm civ. 1-4. Monotheism of the Egyptians. Shemitic
religions.
At one period of my life I entertained the idea that civilization never
had grown, nor ever could grow, out of barbarism. Perhaps I have not yet
wholly abandoned it. The considerations which the question involves are
all but infinite. It is doubtful whether we can reduce them into shape
without writing an extensive treatise. We will, however, attempt to do
so, and present the subject to our readers to the best of our ability.
As far as our own personal and historic experience goes, we find that
man has no natural propensity to learn beyond that which he has received
simply as an animal. With him school is a hateful place, and education
is a painful process, even in the midst of the highest civilization we
see individuals who cast from them all the luxuries of life, and descend
voluntarily to a level scarcely superior to that of the brute creation.
But those who take kindly to education, and consent to try and learn
everything which the teacher presents to their notice, are bounded by
the amount of knowledge possessed by the instructor, who cannot impart
to others information in matters of which all are ignorant. It is true
that I once read a question propounded by his schoolmaster to one of my
sons, which ran--"Enumerate upon paper all the capes, bays, and rivers
of England that you don't know by name, and describe the seas which you
have never heard of." Without dwelling upon the anecdote farther than
to say, that it points out the absurdity of the idea that education
of itself advances knowledge, we may pass on to remark, that even in
nations, whose intellect is highly cultivated, the propensity to advance
in knowledge is singularly small. Throughout the old world an inventor
is usually regarded as a visionary, or a lunatic, and flouted by all his
contemporaries.* From the time of Aristotle and Hippocrates, scarcely
any advance was made in philosophy, and, throughout Europe, the
fourteenth century was as barbarous, if not indeed more so, than the
first of our era; and to such a dark age there is a strong clerical
party in Great Britain which desires us to return.
* A man who had travelled much once said to me,--"I will
tell you the main difference between a Yankee and an
Englishman. If you inform the latter of some new discovery--
or propose the use of some recent invention for his own
benefit--he will tell you either that the thing is old, or
worthless. On the other hand, if you recount to the former
what you have told the latter of, his rejoinder will be, I
can improve upon that." This is true, and we are now
repeatedly adopting from the United States discoveries of
various kinds, which we rejected when offered to us in the
first place.
Yet, notwithstanding the propensity of cultivated nations to remain
quiescent, there do appear, from time to time, individuals who,
being discontented with things as they are, endeavour to bring about
improvements in the arts, the sciences, and the general conditions of
life. The recognition of a want, is an incentive to a thoughtful mind
to supply the exigency. Whenever an individual endeavours to attain
a definite end, he exercises his mind, not only in what he has been
already taught, but what he can observe beyond that; he rakes up, if
possible, the experience of others, studies their proceedings, and
experiments with a definite object, and ponders upon the affinities,
nature, and the like, of every substance which he surmises may be of
service to him. When, by these means, he has obtained his purpose,
he will repeatedly find that he has done no more than rediscover a
something which was known thousands of years before his time. Without
a doubt, much of the philosophy, science, art, religion, &c., of the
present day, is due to a close observation and an attainment to the
knowledge possessed by our predecessors. "Is there any thing whereof it
may be said, see this is new?--it hath been already of old time, which
was before us" (Eccles. i. 10).
If this be true, even though it may only be so to a partial extent, it
is clearly more philosophical to believe that some primeval men were
created with a considerable amount of knowledge, rather than that all
were savage, barely, if at all, superior to monkeys, and that one or
more of these, gradually elevated their race, by degrees so slow, as to
be imperceptible in less time than many thousand years.
This side of the argument receives corroboration when we study the
history of such semi-civilized countries as China, and such barbarous
regions as those of Africa and Australia. In none of these parts do
we see any general propensity to advance. In the first we see a
retrogression; there is now no effort to repair ancient roads which
have been worn away by centuries of traffic, to restore the old temples,
towers, and landmarks, erected when time was younger, or even to keep
up the teachings of Confucius. A similar apathy existed amongst the
Japanese--yet no sooner do the civilized nations of Europe show the
rulers of China and Japan that it is necessary for them to improve, if
they desire to retain their power, than they attempt to learn the arts
which have enabled their rivals to overcome them. In both cases, the
progress is recognized as due to the interference of a nation, superior
for the time being, to that whose education has been faulty. Advance,
then, in such countries, is clearly due to foreign influence, rather
than to an innate propensity to general, mental, scientific, or
practical development.
But, on the other side, it may be alleged that the African has been in
existence from time immemorial--that he has been in contact with the
civilization of ancient and modern Egypt--with Christianity--with the
ancient Tyrians and Carthaginians--with the Arabs--with the Spaniards,
Portuguese, and British, and yet the African tribes remain almost as
savage now as when they first were known. Similar remarks apply to
the inhabitants of the Andaman Isles, of the vast islands of Borneo,
Celebez, Papua, New Guinea, and others.
Yet in many places, now considered barbarous, we see the remains of
previous empires--and when we are able to find some comparatively
authentic history which tells of the overthrow of a powerful kingdom,
it is clear that the civilized people have usually been destroyed by the
barbarian. The wealth of Rome tempted the hordes from the inhospitable
north, just as the gold of Mexico and Peru were the causes of their
decadence under the Spaniards, whose people were in themselves scarcely
superior to the troops led by Alaric, Genseric, and other so called
barbarians. Yet we know, as in the case of Spain herself, that decadence
from civilization to comparative barbarism may be due to causes inherent
in the people and its governors, wholly independent of foreign conquest.
This decadence is due to the bestial propensities of man being allowed
to dominate over the intellectual, and the result is the same, whether
the animal passions be cultivated by a debased and degrading policy of
monarch and priest, or by the indolence of each individual.
By developing the train of thought thus indicated, we imagine that the
philosophical reader will conclude that amongst men, some race, family,
or tribe, has been created with intelligence, as much above the rest of
their kind as the elephant is superior to the hippopotamus, and the dog
to the cat, and that others are generically as low as is the Australian
"dingo" in the canine race. Those once perfect may deteriorate, yet
carry with them the power of rising again--whilst those originally low
never rise at all, no matter what example may be set them, unless force
is used to make them learn. To these we must add a third set, specially
to include the American, for we have no evidence whatever that the
civilization of the Aztec and Peruvian was anything more than a
restoration of the scientific knowledge of a more ancient people,
possibly of an Aryan stock. Who that is acquainted with the Shemitic
race can fail to see in its people the type of an ancient condition
which has decayed, until, like a fallen gentleman, it can only show what
once it was, by conserving and exhibiting a few ornaments of no value,
save from their age, but whose sons may yet become princes in their
paternal domains? Who that studies the negro in Africa, America, and St.
Domingo, can fail to see that he is, or, at any rate has hitherto shown
himself, almost wholly incapable of development as a philosophic man?
And who can read the pages of Prescott without recognizing the fact that
some of the ancient inhabitants of America inaugurated--unassisted, as
we judge by any example from others--a style of religion and government
of which the world has hardly, if at all, seen an equal? Yet it is
remarkable, that both the Mexican and Peruvian traced their laws and
institutions to strangers who came amongst them, as Oannes did to the
Babylonians, and who taught them what arts, religion, and science they
themselves had. The subject of centres of human life into which our
considerations have drawn us, is by far too vast for discussion here.
It involves the study of geology, of anthropology, of glossology,
of navigation, of physical geography, of climate, of the laws of
reproduction, of the influences of climate over animals, and of diet
upon man. Into all these we dare not enter: we shall confine ourselves
rather to considering the religious ideas of the lowest of the known
races of mankind; and then proceed to those which have been held by what
we may call the oscillating people, i.e., those vibrating repeatedly
between a state of empire and one of slavery, like the people of
Hindostan, Babylon, Judea, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Egypt.
When we endeavour to ascertain the religion of the negro, by which term
we include all the black native tribes of Africa, we find ourselves
almost in the position of a modern chemist seeking for the philosopher's
stone. In no single book, and I have read very many, can I find any
trustworthy evidence of the negro having any religion at all. It is true
that travellers in Abyssinia, and those who are now returned from their
successful expedition against Magdala, tell us that in Abyssinia there
is a form of religion which is evidently a corrupt form of Christianity,
but with this exception, the blacks seem to have no idea of that
congeries of fact and fiction, dogma, ritual, and practice, which passes
current for religion in more civilized countries. Yet though they have
no definite idea of a Creator, and the way in which He works throughout
the universe, they have a dread of some unseen power, and, like a number
of frightened children, dread the effects of "fetish," and the power of
the Obi or Obeah man. When the mind is predisposed to fear, and it is so
amongst the lower animals as well as in man, it is astonishing at what
contemptible objects one may stand aghast. I can vividly remember being
sent, whilst a very young child, with a message from an aunt, at whose
home I was staying, to the maid, who was washing in an outhouse, but ere
I reached the door of the latter, I was terrified at a head which seemed
to be rising from the ground, Such was my horror that I ran away, too
proud to scream, yet almost fainting with horror. To me that ancient
battered barber's doll was "fetish," and if my friends had determined to
cultivate the timidity which I then showed, it is quite possible that to
this day I might have a dread not dissimilar to that of the African.
As it was, my aunt told me that what had scared me, was only a piece of
carved and painted wood, and so put me upon my mettle, that I delivered
my message and gave the image a kick in the face; yet my valour was
short lived, and during the rest of my sojourn I dared not venture
within sight of the bugbear. To all intents and purposes that human head
was, in my estimation, the guardian of the garden--its presence made all
within its influence under taboo--had I ventured to tell a lie, or to
have been naughty, I cannot conceive that any punishment would have been
greater than being doomed to sit in the presence of the weird image.
Hence I can easily understand the abject terror of the African at
"fetish," and his dread of the Obeah man, who asserts that he can direct
upon whom he will the power of the unknown god. So great is the fear of
this negro magician, and so common is that fear to man in general, that
we sometimes find the white man as full of it as the black. I have had,
for example, under my own care, an Englishman of good education, who,
whilst superintendent of a Jamaica plantation, became so cowed by "Obi,"
that he was obliged to give up his position and return to England,
literally insane upon the subject of "fetish" and "Obeah," and wholly
unfitted for any work whatever.
The objects to which the name of "fetish" is given are very numerous--a
rock, a stone, a tree, a pool, a dried monkey, an alligator, man, or
skull--anything will suit the purpose. One which is said to be very
popular amongst chieftains is prepared somewhat in the following
manner:--The head of a father is removed after death, and so placed,
that as the brain decays and softens, it may fall into a receptacle
already half filled with palm oil or other grease. The material so
formed, consisting to a great extent of the thoughtful organ of the
sire, is then supposed to give his spirit to the son, whenever the
latter smears himself with it, or takes it as a potent medicinal spell.
The head thus placed becomes the royal "fetish," and the king goes to
take counsel from it just as ancient priests inquired, or pretended to
inquire, from the god or lord of some shrine or oracle. I cannot charge
my memory with everything that has been at one time or another regarded
as an object of wonder, worship, or "fetish," but I have an indistinct
recollection that a musical box has been venerated by Africans, as much
as the Ancilia, the Palladium, the Diana which fell down from Jupiter,
the Caaba or black stone of Mecca, the ark of the covenant, the brazen
serpent, the wood of the true cross, the nails which pierced Jesus,
and the handkerchief which was used to wipe the face of the suffering
Nazarite, all of which have been sacred amongst civilized nations, and
are still adored by some. It would be difficult for a philosopher to
draw a distinction between an African "fetish" and a Papal relic. There
is no virtue which the Romanist has attributed to old bones, old nails,
old shoes, old coats, old houses, old staircases, old bits of wood, old
links of chains, old hairs, old statues, &c., that has not been equally
attributed by negroes to some absurd fetish in Ashantee, Dahomey, or
elsewhere.
In some parts of the vast African continent, however, there seems to be
an indistinct idea of a life after death, and when a great man dies,
or is killed, his wives, and many of his slaves, are sacrificed for his
future use, and vast human sacrifices are made annually in his honour,
that the departed may hear, from time to time, of the welfare of those
whom he has left behind. Feeling indisposed to regard this practice
as the offspring of religious faith, I would compare it with the crude
conceptions of some of the lowest class in Europe and America, aye, of
some cultivated intellects as well, who profess to be able, by means
of _media_, to communicate with the dead, or who send messages to
their departed relatives by friends that are dying. The most remarkable
development of this idea which I have yet met with has recently occurred
in France, where a young man attempted to murder a beautiful young
woman, to whom he was a total stranger, the reason he assigned being,
that he intended to commit suicide immediately after the murder, so that
he might enter the future world with a pleasant companion.
We can scarcely regard the persons figuring in the following true story
as being very much superior to the King of Dahomey. In a well-cared
for English village a poor woman was about to die in the full odour of
Protestant sanctity. In youth she had lost one leg, and now had disease
in the other. To her came an old woman and said,--"I hear thou's goin'
to dee Betty, and that thou's goin' to heaven--at least parson says
so--when thou's got there, willee tell my owd man that I've just bought
that field as he set his heart on." "Oh dear," said the dying woman,
"how can I go stumping all about heaven with my legs in the state
they're in." "Well, you can tell him at anyrate if you happen to see him
go by!"
Passing from the African, let us now say a word or two about the
Australian. It is, I think, Mitchell, who states, in an account of his
travels in that country, that the white men were used in a manner so
considerate, in some instances, indeed, so kindly, that he was induced
to inquire into the cause. He found that these friendly tribes were
in the habit of eating their defunct relatives--being always short of
provisions, they used man meat, as do other starving creatures when they
devour their like--and they cooked the body much in the same way as we
do dead pig. By scalding the carcass, the cuticle and the black layer,
called _rete mucosum_, was removed, and the corpse became white. This
gave the people the notion that Europeans were their own dead relatives
returned from the spirit world. Sir G. Gray also, in his account of an
expedition to the north-west coasts of the same vast island, describes
how all the people with whom he came into contact believed in the
power of sorcery or witchcraft. Without extending our inquiry into the
undeveloped religious ideas of other barbarians, we may affirm, from the
preceding examples, that there is, even amongst the lowest human beings,
some idea of a future state, and of the existence of some unseen power,
which may work mischief upon themselves or their friends. Beyond these
vague notions the savage who has neither been taught, nor inherited the
power or propensity to learn, rarely, if ever, passes.
If, then, the surmise to which we gave utterance awhile ago is founded
in truth, we may fairly endeavour to ascertain what is the race, or
the people, which have been born with a higher religious development, a
greater capacity for learning, and a higher appreciation of the value of
agriculture and civilization than the rest of the world's inhabitants.
We now find ourselves on the threshold of a question which has, for many
years past, divided the scientific world, viz., Was there originally one
human couple only, or were there many intellectual centres? Into this
matter it would be unprofitable to enter, for to give an account of the
Chinese, Egyptian, Aryan, American, and Shemitic races, would require
many huge volumes. It will, probably, be permitted to me to omit from
the inquiry all but Aryans and Egyptians. I select these because I
have, in the preceding volumes, descanted largely upon the faith of the
Babylonians, Assyrians, Tyrians, and others, and because I believe that
these ancients have done very much to modify the faith of Europe. If
time and opportunity permitted, I fancy that anyone might make a
most interesting analysis of that which Europe owes to the Shemites,
Egyptians, and Aryans respectively; but it is beyond our powers at
present to go into the whole subject. The volumes which have recently
been published about the Ancient Hindoo religion may be counted by
dozens, and the writings of Egyptologists are almost equally numerous.
We must, therefore, content ourselves with a reference to a few main
points.
It seems to be an undoubted fact, that both the Egyptians and Aryans
recognized the existence of a soul in human beings, and believed that it
survived the dissolution of the body in some state, whose position and
physical condition were unknown. They held, moreover, that the locality
and condition of the spiritual part of man after death depended upon
the actions of the individual during life. Both people believed in the
influence of prayer, of sacrifices, of a maceration, or torturing of the
fleshy body, and they had, moreover, each of them, a priestly race,
who regulated festivals, ordained ceremonies, and prescribed everything
which those who regarded their spiritual welfare should do. I believe
that the Egyptians were, in reality, monotheistic; but my authority for
the idea has escaped me. It is certain that the ancient Aryans were so,
and I cannot do better than refer my readers to the _History of Sanscrit
Literature_, by Max Mueller, and the first vol. of the _History of
India_, by Talboys Wheeler. Yet, as the first is out of print, and the
second a volume of considerable size, it will, perhaps, be judicious if
I quote some passages from both. The following hymn, translated by M.
M., p. 559 sq., is, to my own ideas, far more grand in conception than
any other which I have read, and shows a depth or sublimity of thought
that could only be attained by a profoundly intelligent intellect.
Moderns might equal it, none could surpass it. Speaking of the
beginning, the words run, "Nothing that is, was then; even what is not,
did not exist then." The poet then proceeds to deny the existence of
the sky, and of the firmament, and yet, unable to bear the idea of an
unlimited nothing, he exclaims, "What was it that hid or covered the
existing? what was the refuge of what? was water the deep abyss, the
chaos which swallowed up everything?" Then his mind, turning away from
nature, dwells upon man, and the problem of human life. "There was no
death, therefore there was nothing immortal There was no space, no life,
and lastly, there was no time--no difference between day and night--no
solar torch by which morning might have been told from evening. That One
breathed breathless by itself, other than it, nothing since has been.
That One breathed and lived; it enjoyed more than mere existence; yet
its life was not dependent upon anything else, as our life depends upon
the air we breathe. It breathed, breathless. Darkness there was, and all
at first was veiled in gloom, profound as ocean without life." Mueller
then rather describes what the poet means than gives his words; I will,
therefore, adopt now, for the rest of the hymn, the metrical version,
which he gives at p. 564:--
"The germ that still lay covered in the husk
Burst forth, one nature, from the fervent heat.
Then first came Love upon it, the new spring
Of mind; yea, poets in their hearts discerned,
Pondering this bond between created things And uncreated.
Comes this spark from earth,
Piercing and all-pervading, or from heaven?
These seeds were sown, and mighty power arose,
Nature below, and Power and Will above.
Who knows the secret? who proclaimed it here?
Whence, whence this manifold creation sprang?
The gods themselves came later into being.
Who knows from whence this great creation sprang?
He, from whom all this great creation came.
Whether His will created or was mute,
The Most High seer, that is in highest heaven,
He knows it; or, perchance, e'en He knows not"
One more hymn is even more distinct in its monotheism, p. 569. "In the
beginning there arose the source of golden light. He was the only born
Lord of all that is. He established the earth and this sky. Who is the
God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice? He who gives life. He who
gives strength; whose blessing all the bright gods desire; whose shadow
is immortality; whose shadow is death.... He who, through His power, is
the only King of the breathing and the awakening world. He who governs
all--man and beast.... He whose power these snowy mountains, whose power
the sea proclaims, with the distant river. He whose these regions are,
as it were, His two arms.... He through whom the sky is bright, and the
earth firm. He through whom the heaven was 'stablished, nay, the highest
heaven. He who measured out the light in the air.... He to whom heaven
and earth, standing firm by His will, look up, trembling inwardly.
He over whom the rising sun shines forth.... Where-ever the mighty
water-clouds went, where they placed the seed, and lit the fire, thence
arose He who is the only life of the bright gods.... He who, by
His might, looked even over the water-clouds, the clouds which gave
strength, and lit the sacrifice. He _who is God above all gods_.... May
He not destroy us. He, the creator of the earth; or He, the righteous,
who created the heaven. He who also created the bright and mighty
waters." In this hymn I have only omitted the repeated question--Who is
the God to whom we shall offer our sacrifice?
Of the high antiquity of these productions no competent scholar
entertains a doubt. It is not certain how many years before our era it
was composed, but it is considered that it was prior to B. C. 2000, long
before the time when the ideal Moses is said to have written, and _a
fortiori_ anterior, by at least a thousand years, to the authors of the
Book of Psalms.
Talboys Wheeler remarks, p. 27--"Having thus sketched generally the
individual character of the leading deities of the Aryans as they appear
in the Rig Veda, it may be advisable to glance at that conception of One
Supreme Being, as in all and above all, which finds full expression in
the Vedic hymns. Upon this point the following passages will be found
very significant:--'Who has seen the primeval being at the time of His
being born? what is that endowed with substance that the unsubstantial
sustains? from earth are the breath and blood, but where is the
soul--who may repair to the sage to ask this? What is that One alone,
who has upheld these six spheres in the form of an unborn?'" Then
follows the hymn just quoted from M. Mueller.
I may add that the so-called gods Indra, Agni, Surya, the Maruts, &c.,
are only personifications of the abstract powers of nature, the sky,
fire, the sun, the winds, &c. These are the same conceptions as are
referred to in Ps. civ. 1-4--they are not deities, but ministers.
It will probably be said by the orthodox that these descriptions of the
creation and the Creator are mere efforts of the human mind, and not the
products of "revelation." We grant it at once, and answer, why, then,
should the comparatively miserable conceptions of one or more Hebrews,
who knew nothing of a soul or a future life till they had learned it
from the Chaldeans or the Persians, be regarded differently? Was the
Jewish ignorance the result of Divine "inspiration?" Did the Devil give
to the heathen the knowledge of Satan's origin and power? If so, why did
the Jews, and why do Christians, adopt it?
I have already mentioned that the Aryans believed in the efficacy
of prayer to their gods: they offered to them, much as we do now,
supplications for rain, abundant harvests, prolific cattle, bodily
vigour, long life, numerous progeny, &c., just as did, very rarely, the
seed of Abraham.
We may now make some quotations from the Egyptian Ritual for the Dead
(Bunsen's _Egypt_, Vol. V.). "O soul, greatest of things created" (p.
165); "I am the Great God, creating himself" (p. 172); "Oh Lord of the
great abode, Chief of the gods" (p. 177). Throughout this invocation,
however, the lord of the universe seems to be spoken of as the sun under
various titles. There is frequent reference to the danger of the soul
falling into the power of some malignant deity, and orthodoxy is secured
by addressing every good god by his or her proper title. There is no
grand conception anywhere, and the endless repetitions disgust the
ordinary reader. I must add that the sun, Osiris, and the male organ,
are spoken of as emblematic of each other.
If we next turn to the Shemitic religions, we have to contend with the
difficulty produced by the paucity of written records, and the doubts
which exist about certain epithets that relate to the gods. As far as I
can discover, there was an idea of a Supreme Being, whose name was Jeho.
Io. Iou., or the like, and Il or El. His ministers were the sun, moon,
planets, constellations, and stars. His emblems were the sexual organs,
and worship was, to a great degree, licentious. There was no conception
of a spiritual life after death, or of a state of future rewards and
punishments. Sacrifice was thought much of, but I doubt whether there
was anything like what we know as prayer. At any rate, in all those
parts of the Bible which seem to be the oldest, there is a singular
absence of any formula or command for supplication. Solomon's prayer
is comparatively of modern date. Indeed, this vacuity is implied in the
expression of one of Jesus' disciples, "Teach us to pray, as John
also taught his disciples" (Luke xi. 1), thus showing clearly that the
practice of prayer was not a Judaic, i.e., Mosaic one.*
* As a friend, who has been kind enough to assist me to
correct these sheets in their passage through the press,
considers that I ought to give some reasons for the
assertion made in the text, the following information is
appended:--
I. There are, in all, about a score of different words in
Hebrew which have been translated, "prayer," "I pray,"
"praying," &c. These are--(1) ahnah or ahna, (2) begah, (3)
ghalah, (4) ghanan, (5) loo, (6) lahgash, (7) na, (8)
gathar, (9) pagag, (10) pahlal, (11) tztlah, (12) seeagh,
(13) shoal, (14) tephilah. The rest are different forms
of the same roots.
II. These words do not, except in a few instances, really
bear the signification of "prayer" or "intercession," which
is given to them in the Authorised English Version of the
Bible; as any one may convince himself by consulting
Wigram's Hebrew concordance.
Thus, No. 1, in three instances, is translated in the A. V.
by the interjection "or,(OL)" No. 2, in the A. V. is once
used as "praying," but in other parts as "seeking" for
persons, "desiring" or "requesting," and "making." No. 8 is
translated in various parts of the A. V. "I am weak" "I
fell sick," "was not grieved," "a parturient woman crying,"
"to put one's self to pain," "is grievous," "hath laid," "is
my infirmity," and these meanings are far more common than
the signification of "prayer." No. 4 is only used twice, and
is in one place translated "by showing mercy," and in the
other by "making supplication." No. 5 is translated "O
that," "peradventure," "would God that," "if," "if haply,"
"though," and only once "I pray thee." No. 6 is translated
"enchantment," "orator," "earrings," "charmed," and once
only "prayer," with the marginal reading "secret speech."
No. 7 is in one place "now," in another "Oh," "go to," as
well as "I pray," and this in the same sense as we should
use the words to a child "I wish you would be quiet" No. 8
is generally used in the sense of "intreaty" or "prayer,"
but it once is found as "earnest," and "multiplying words,"
as in a Litany. No. 9 is used to signify "he came,"
"reached," "thou shalt meet," "fall upon," or "kill," "he
lighted" on a certain place, "they met together," and in
the 53d chapter of Isaiah the same word is used in verse 6,
"for the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," and
in verse 12, for "and made intercession for the
transgressors!" No. 10 is used almost exclusively for
prayer, but it is only found six times in the whole
Pentateuch, in one of which it is read "I had no thought"
in the A. V. No. 11 is only found twice, once in Ezra and
once in Daniel, and signifies "prayer" in both. No. 12 has
many interpretations in the A. V., viz., "meditation,"
"speaking," "talking," "complaining," "declaring," in one
instance only is it translated "pray," and that in the
apparently important text Ps. lv. 17, "Evening and morning
and at noon will I pray." As a substantive the word is
rendered as "complaint," "talking, meditation,"
"babbling," and only once "prayer," and that in Ps. lv. 2,
"Hear my voice, O God, in my prayer." No. 13 is generally
translated "ask," as we should remark, "well, if he asks me
what must I say?" "beg," as "he shall beg in harvest;"
"consulted," in the text "he consulted with images,"
"salute," "to salute him of peace;" "enquired," "Saul
enquired of the Lord;" "wished," "and wished in himself to
die;" "lent," "I have lent him to the Lord," "so that they
lent unto them." No. 14 is used exclusively for prayer, but
the word is not to be found in the whole of the Pentateuch.
III. There is reason to believe that the most important of
these words have come from the Persian, a language allied to
the Sanscrit; and if so, it is clear that the idea of
prayer was adopted by the Jews after they were patronised by
the conquerors of Babylon. Some of the other words are
Aramaic, and probably even more modern than the rest. For
example, No. 10 is compared by Furst in his Hebrew and
Chaldee Lexicon, to the Sanscrit phal, and No. 8 may also be
derived from the Persian, and a Sanscrit root gad, which
signifies "to speak to," or "call upon," Anahf No. 1, is
Aramaic.
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.