CHAPTER
6
(The
Bible or the Church?, Chapter V., pp. 56-69)
72
"THE extravagances which disfigure the record and practice of Buddhism
are to be referred to that inevitable degradation which priesthoods
always inflict upon great ideas committed to their charge." Thus writes
Sir Edwin Arnold, in the preface to his great Indian poem and the words
may serve to "point a moral" here.
In its origin Buddhism
was no more than "a mere system of morality and philosophy, founded
on a pessimistic theory of life."[1]
It was lacking in the essential element of a religion, for it had no
God. And yet it had much in common with Christianity. It resembled it
notably in its
73
repudiation of idolatry and priestcraft and asceticism, and in its contempt
for everything unworthy, material, and base. And not only in these respects,
but also in its doctrine of the "path," it comes nearer to Christianity
than does the religion of Christendom. A man's acts and words, important
though they be, are in one respect not so important as his aims, and
the beliefs that inspire them. For his acts and words may be like the
clothes he wears, assumed; but his aims bespeak the deeper currents
of his inner life, and his beliefs are part and parcel of himself.[2]
[1]
Sir Monier Williams, "Buddhism," lect. xviii.
[2] The
principles of ''the noble eight-fold path" are (1) right belief; (2)
right aims; (3) right words; (4) right actions; (5) right means of livelihood;
(6) right endeavour; (7) right mindfulness; and (8) right meditation.
The more this is studied the more will the order be approved.
But though the teaching
traditionally attributed to Gautama was thus beautiful and pure, the
Buddhism of to-day is one of the most degraded forms of Paganism. But
what concerns us here is to mark that, though Buddhism and Christianity
have flowed in channels wholly separate, the corruptions of both are
of the same type, both having developed errors and superstitions so
precisely
74
similar that the apparatus of the one cult could easily be adapted
to the other. The following most striking language is used by Dr. Rhys
Davids[3] in describing the
Lamaism of Tibet:—
"Lamaism, indeed,
with its shaven priests, its bells, and rosaries, its images, and
holy water, and gorgeous dresses; its service with double choirs,
and processions, and creeds, and mystic rites, and incense, in which
the laity are spectators only; its abbots and monks, and nuns of many
grades; its worship of the double Virgin, and of the saints and angels;
its fasts, confessions, and purgatory; its images, its idols, and
its pictures; its huge monasteries, and its gorgeous cathedrals, its
powerful hierarchy, its cardinals, its Pope, bears outwardly at least
a strong resemblance to Romanism, in spite of the essential difference
of its teachings, and of its mode of thought."
[3] "Buddhism,''
ch. ix.
Such is Buddhism in countries
where it has made its home. Is it any wonder that when Roman Catholic
missionaries settled in certain provinces of China, they were amazed
to find all the externals of their own religion ready to their hand;
and that a change of images and of nomenclature alone seemed needed
to "Christianise" the native cult?
But more than this, both
Christianity and Buddhism
75
in their decadence bear a family resemblance to the religions of classic
Paganism, and to the old-world cults of Babylon and Egypt. What is common
to all is the presence of some material representation of the God, a
priesthood and an altar, and mystical rites and ceremonies of essentially
kindred types.
This intensely interesting
fact has escaped the attention it deserves. How is it to be accounted
for? Evolution-talk about "cells and sacs and nerves" and "abnormal
reversions" will throw no light on it. Neither dogs, nor donkeys, nor
anthropoid apes, display the least appreciation of images, or priests,
or millinery, or "incense used ceremonially." Therefore, even if it
were only among degraded races that these frauds and fooleries of human
religion prevailed, evolution could claim no hearing. Not so, indeed,
if men turned naturally to atheism for the lapse might fairly be described
as an "abnormal reversion." But atheism is always a revolt against a
false religion, and it never maintains its hold upon the minds of men.
The problem here, however, is that the superstitions which prevail in
the midst of Western
76
civilisation are essentially identical with those of Buddhism in its
most depraved form, and with those of the Pagan religions of the ancient
world.
Quod semper, quod ubique,
quod ab omnibus! The same phenomena apparent everywhere, whether
in ancient Babylon or in modern England; whether in the decaying civilisations
of the East or the advancing civilisation of the West. One explanation
only is possible, and it is that already urged. Man is by nature the
slave of perverted religious instincts. The existence of such instincts
is proof of the Divine origin of the race; the perversion of them is
proof of a great catastrophe in its primeval history. Man is God's creature
in a special sense; but he is a fallen creature, and it is in
his religion that the effects of the fall first and most declare themselves.
And not only is man, regarded
as a spiritual being, thus subject to a law of "degeneration," but there
is some mysterious influence which so guides the operation of that law,
that it invariably leads to similar results. No matter what the point
of departure, no matter what the environment,
77
man's religion assumes the same phase, and displays the same general
characteristics.
In a world so full of
doubt it is not easy to find a "rough and ready" test by which to distinguish
truth from error. But "Vincent's famous rule,"[4]
already cited, will rarely fail us. The method of its application, however,
must depend upon the sphere in which it is to be applied. Speaking generally,
what mankind in the mass approves is seldom wrong. And the intuitive
judgement of the many is not infrequently a safer guide than the reason
of the few. But in one province, at least, the presumption is reversed.
Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus ["What
(has been accepted) always, everywhere, by all."]: In
the religious sphere anything which satisfies this threefold test we
may with reasonable confidence reject. It may generally be taken as
an authentic "hallmark" of falsehood.
[4] See
p. 57 ante. It is said that this "famous rule" was formulated
by Vincent of Lerins as a caveat against the teaching of Augustine,
who was distrusted by the Lerins school.
In no other sphere, save
that of religion, do men of intelligence and culture willingly subject
their minds to delusions. The "historic Church"
78
once tried to compel belief that this planet was the fixed centre of
the solar system; but who believes it now? Men cannot be made to believe
that water runs up-hill, or that five and five make anything but ten.
In no other sphere can they be induced to stultify reason and common
sense. But in religion there seems to be no limit to their credulity.
And in every age, and in all kinds of different environments, credulity
fastens, and feeds itself, upon errors and superstitions of a kindred
type.
One exception only has
there been to this rule. In the ages when His people were in a state
of tutelage, God gave them a religion. It was a concession to the weakness
of human nature. That Divine religion is expressly described as "a shadow
of the good things to come," namely, Christianity; for, to the spiritual
discernment, Christ Himself was the sum and substance of it all. It
was the only Divine religion the world has ever known; for Christianity
is not, strictly speaking, a "religion" at all, but a revelation and
a faith. And how did it differ from human religions, not excepting that
which calls itself
79
Christian? It differed essentially in these respects:—
(1) In the absence of any material
representation of God.
(2) In the absence of mystical rites.
(3) In the absence of a mystically endowed
priesthood.
(4) In the absence of tradition. It
was based altogether upon a Divine revelation which every Israelite
was expected to study and obey.
And though in their apostasy
the Jews lapsed into idolatry, the evil was eradicated by the judgments
which fell on them in the era of the Captivity; and after the great
revival under Ezra it never again declared itself. The post-Captivity
apostasy was not due to idolatry, but to the prevalence of human tradition,
by which, as the Lord declared, they "make the word of God of none effect,"
"teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."[5]
[5]
Matt. xv. 3, 6, 9. The Sermon on the Mount was largely a protest and
a warning against the traditions by which the Scriptures were perverted.
The Great Synagogue and the Great Sanhedrin were to the Jews' religion
what the "historic Church" is to the Christians' religion. Therefore
it was they had to he saved as really from their religion as from their
sins—as the Apostle Peter declared, "redeemed from your vain manner
of life received by tradition from your fathers" (I Pet. i. 18).
80
But never even in the darkest period of the nation's history was their
religion corrupted by the Pagan conception of priesthood. "The Jews'
religion" was, I repeat, an apostasy; but it never sank to the level
to which "the Christians' religion" has fallen. It never knew the degradation
of openly displaying those brand-marks of Paganism—mystical ordinances
and a priesthood with mystical powers. "Sacraments"[6]
abounded. The priest himself, the appointed rites which he discharged,
the altars at which he ministered, the sacrifices which were offered
on them, the shrine, and every detail of its divinely ordered furniture—each
and all proclaimed some spiritual truth, and pointed forward to the
Messiah who was the reality of every type, the substance of every shadow,
of the national religion. But there was not a single act, a single rite,
in the prescribed ritual, even for the high-priest himself, which the
humblest Israelite
81
might not have discharged. The priest's position was unique, his privileges
and duties were exclusively his own; but mystical powers he had absolutely
none. The prophets in Israel were specially inspired. They uttered God-breathed
words they "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." But if the
members of the Aaronic house were, like the prophets, a class apart,
it was solely and altogether in virtue of the Divine appointment which
separated them to the service of the altar. In no respect did they differ
from the people in whose behalf they ministered.
[6] I use
the word "sacrament" in the Christian sense, as an outward symbol of
a spiritual truth—not in the Pagan sense, in which the religion
of Christendom has adopted it (see "The Silence of God," Appendix IV.,
Note 5.).
The book has yet to be
written which will describe what Israel might have been, and the world
would have been, had the favoured nation been true to the revelation
God entrusted to them. Solomon's prophetic prayer at the dedication
of the temple gives a transient glimpse of the vision.[7]
Blessed with the knowledge of the true God in a world that had wilfully
lost it, they would have been a rallying centre to which earnest souls
of every kindred might have come to seek and find the light. Professing
a sublime faith, and commending
82
it by noble and blameless living, they would have been missionaries
to all the nations. The traditions of Eden, which even now still linger
in some of the old religions of the world, of a coming deliverer, destined
to bring blessing to mankind, would have been voiced by every part of
their national cult. But that ritual was maintained solely in the interests
of a carnal and corrupt priesthood. False prophets were honoured in
proportion to the audacity with which they pandered to the nation's
pride, and God-sent messengers were persecuted and slain. Appeal followed
appeal, warning succeeded warning, one judgement after another fell
on them; but all without avail. Their divinely taught religion became
utterly degraded and in its degradation dragged down the nation to still
lower depths; until at last, in the name of that religion—in the
name of the God who gave it them—they became "the betrayers and
murderers" of the Son of God.
[7] I Kings
viii. and 2 Chron. vi.
And these were nominally
"the people of God" and their priests were "the priests of God;" and
during His life on earth our blessed Lord acknowledged them, and called
them to repentance on
83
the ground of their divinely given promises and covenant. If ever there
was a people who had seemingly a right to boast of knowing the true
God, and of having a divinely ordained religion, it was the Hebrews.
In every detail their cult was ordered by an express revelation. During
all their pilgrimage from the house of bondage to the land of promise
the tabernacle of Jehovah was in their midst. But what was the judgement
of God who reads the heart? We here recall the words of the prophet,
quoted by the martyr Stephen: "Have ye offered unto me slain beasts
and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the
tabernacle of Moloch."[8]
Outwardly and with their hands they bore the tabernacle of Jehovah;
but inwardly and with their hearts they were carrying the tabernacle
of Moloch.
[8] Acts
vii. 42-43. The suggestion that they had a Pagan shrine which they carried
about with them in secret, is refuted by the whole testimony of Scripture.
Heaven was not silent in that dispensation, and open apostasy
was openly judged.
Who was the god they served
when they stoned the prophets and persecuted the messengers of heaven?
That god was Moloch, the god of blood; though Jehovah was the name by
which they
84
called him. Who was the god they served when they "killed the Prince
of life?" That god was Moloch, though the name they gave him was Jehovah.
The nation as a whole had in all respects the same ordinances, and used
the same nomenclature, as those among them who were the true "Israel
of God;" but they knew nothing of their spiritual significance they
were dead to their spiritual power.
It will be said that the
making of the golden calf is proof that the Jews were always idolaters,
whereas the Christians' religion has a pure and spiritual worship. The
plea will not avail. Idolatry in the sense this argument implies has
no existence, save perhaps among the more degraded races of mankind.
The golden calf was to fill the place of Moses, not of God. But yesterday,
Moses the mediator of the covenant had offered the sacrifice by which
the covenant was dedicated, and now he had gone up to the Mount, where
for forty days he remained with God.[9]
The tabernacle had not yet been made: the daily ritual had not yet been
appointed. So they cried out for something
85
to represent to them and make vivid to their minds the solemnities of
their religion. And to this end they made an effigy of the calf which
was the appointed victim in the great sacrifice of the covenant;[10]
and Aaron forthwith proclaimed a feast, but it was a feast to Jehovah.[11]
[9]
Exod. xxiv.
[10] Comp.
Heb. ix. 19 with Exod. xxiv.
[11] Exod.
xxxii. 1-5.
It is the
crassest stupidity to suppose that these men imagined that the image
of the calf was the God of their deliverance. It was nothing but an
outward symbol. It met the craving of man's fallen nature for something
material in religion. It was idolatry, no doubt, but it was idolatry
of the kind in which the Christians' religion is steeped. Altars and
crucifixes, images and pictures, relics and the "hocus-pocus"[12]
of the mass—these fill precisely the same place in the religion
of Christendom which the golden calf was designed by Aaron to hold in
the cult of Israel. But "God is Spirit,[13]
and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit." All such idolatry
is hateful to Him.[14]
[12]
The derivation of the word is supposed to be the "hoc est corpus"
of the mass.
[13] pneu`ma
oJ Qeov~,
John iv. 24.
[14] Therefore
"God gave them up," Acts vii. 42.
86
And are we to learn nothing from all this in our judgment of Christendom?
The religion entrusted to the Jews was Divine, but yet "the Jews religion"
was false; false, moreover, although in externals it had right ordinances,
and it used a correct nomenclature. Why, then, should we suppose that
the religion of Christendom is different? Like apostate Judaism, it
is a human religion based upon a Divine ideal; and, as we have seen,
every human religion gravitates towards error and evil.
*
* *
The
preceding chapter was taken from:
THE BUDDHA OF CHRISTENDOM (revised and republished in 1908 as
The Bible or the Church?) by Sir Robert Anderson.
Published by Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1899, no copyright.
The Buddha of Christendom, Chapter 7 / Bible or Church?, Ch 6
|
