{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_67171/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_67171","id":"gutenberg_67171","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67171","summary":null,"tags":["Buddhism -- Relations -- Christianity","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity and other religions -- Buddhism"],"text":"BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY\n                       A PARALLEL AND A CONTRAST\n\n\n\n\n                       BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY\n\n                       A PARALLEL AND A CONTRAST\n\n                                 BEING\n\n                     THE CROALL LECTURE FOR 1889-90\n\n                                   BY\n\n                         ARCHIBALD SCOTT, D.D.\n\n               MINISTER OF ST. GEORGE\u2019S PARISH, EDINBURGH\n\n\n                        EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS\n\n                                MDCCCXC\n\n                        [_All rights reserved._]\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nIn endeavouring to sketch in so limited a space even the most salient\nfeatures of the many-sided religion of Buddhism it is possible that here\nand there I may have misrepresented it.\n\nIf so, I hope the fault will be attributed to inadvertence, or rather to\ndisadvantages under which I have worked. The sacred beliefs of any\nsection of mankind are entitled to receive at our hands not only justice\nbut kindly consideration, and a religion so vast and in some respects so\nwonderful as Buddhism ought to have much to commend it to our sympathy.\nLong and patient study of it has indeed greatly modified opinions\noriginally formed concerning it, but it has only tended to increase\nrespect for so earnest an effort of the intellect to solve the mystery\nof human life and destiny. Even Christians may have something to learn\nfrom Buddhists. The divers and seemingly antagonistic Churches of\nChristendom help to educate and reform each other, and non-Christian\nreligions may perform a similar office to Christianity in bringing into\nprominence some universal truths which its creeds have allowed to slip\ninto forgetfulness. Our perception and apprehension of what Christianity\nreally is will be all the clearer and firmer for an impartial study of\nthe system formulated so long ago by Gotama the Buddha.\n\nThe aim of the Lecture has not been to use the extravagances of Buddhism\nas a foil to set off the excellencies of Christianity. That Christianity\nas a religion is immensely superior to Buddhism goes without saying,\nunless in the case of a very small and conceited and purblind minority.\nI have tried by a fair exposition of what is best and highest in this\nreligion to discover its feeling after something better and higher\nstill, and to suggest rather than indicate the place which it occupies\nin the religious education of humanity. As\n\n               \u201cMan hath all which nature hath, but more,\n                 And in that more lie all his hopes of good,\u201d\n\nso Christianity, while having in it in fuller measure and clearer form\nevery truth that has vivified any other religion, has in it, as the new\ncreation to which the long travail of the soul under every form of faith\nhas from the first been pointing, something peculiar and\ncontrasted\u2014which is the Divine answer to all their aspirations. This we\ndo not need to demonstrate: indeed it may be a verity, as incapable of\ndemonstration as is that of the existence of Deity or the immortality of\nthe soul. It is sure eventually to be almost universally recognised, and\nmeanwhile, whether accepted or denied, we may say\u2014_E pur si muove_.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nVery gratefully would I acknowledge my profound obligations to all who\nhave instructed me in this subject. Though we no longer regard the\nSaddharma-Pundarika and Lalita Vistara as good specimens of Buddhism, we\nstill venerate the great scholars who first introduced them to our\nnotice. The splendid productions of Burnouf, Foucaux, K\u00f6ppen, Stanislas\nJulien, Hodgson and Turnour; the excellent works of Spence Hardy,\nGogerly, Bigandet and H. H. Wilson, and, among the best of all, the\nlaborious and faithful Dictionary of Professor Childers, though several\nof them are unfortunately out of print, are not likely to be soon out of\ndate. It is with pleasure that we find them so frequently quoted or\nreferred to by our latest and best authorities. Still, ever since\nProfessor Max M\u00fcller organised his truly catholic enterprise of the\ntranslation of the Sacred Books of the East, he has brought us very\nconsiderably nearer to real Buddhist teachers themselves. To praise the\nscholarship of himself, and Oldenberg, and Rhys Davids, and Kern, and\nFausb\u00f6ll, and others of his _collaborateurs_, would be unwarrantable\npresumption on my part; but as a humble disciple very willing to learn,\nI am glad to have this opportunity of publicly expressing my\nappreciation of the great services which in their editions of old\nEastern texts, and in these series of translations, they are rendering\nto the cause of religion.\n\nThe lectures were drafted and in great part written before I read the\nvery valuable works of Sir Monier Williams on _Buddhism_ and of Dr.\nKellogg on the _Light of Asia and the Light of the World_. I specially\nmention these books as likely to prove very useful guides to any one\ndesirous of prosecuting the subject of the present Lecture. In the notes\nI have marked my indebtedness to them, and to many authors of what has\nalready become a great literature. Many others whose works have been of\nservice to me in a course of reading extending over many years are not\nnoted, simply because in the caprices of memory my peculiar obligations\nto them could not at the time be recalled.\n\nFor in regard to Buddhism I do not profess to add any original\ninformation to the stock already acquired. Others have extracted the ore\nfrom these old and interesting fields, and minted it into gold and\nsilver. What has thus been rendered available many like myself can only\nreduce into copper or bronze, but if only our work be faithfully done,\nwe may thus help in increasing the currency and in extending its\ncirculation. With this in view I accepted the honour which the Croall\nTrustees conferred upon me in calling me to undertake this Lecture, and\nif the only effect of my efforts be to stimulate other ministers of the\nChurch more advantageously situated to prosecute their researches to\nmuch better purpose, no one will be more pleased than myself.\n\nARCHIBALD SCOTT.\n\nEDINBURGH, _25th December 1889_.\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\nLECTURE I.\n\nINTRODUCTORY: NECESSITY FOR A PROPER COMPARISON OF BUDDHISM AND\nCHRISTIANITY.\n\nSchopenhauer\u2019s prediction as to the influence of Oriental studies upon\nEuropean religion and philosophy\u2014New science of Comparative Theology\u2014Its\nvalue to the expounders of Christianity\u2014Study of all religions binding\nupon Christians\u2014Special claims of Buddhism\u2014Its duration and wide-spread\ndiffusion\u2014The quality of its doctrinal and ethical system\u2014The\ncorrespondences between it and Christianity\u2014Instructive parallels of\nhistorical development\u2014Resemblances, if granted or assumed, not to be\naccounted for by theory of derivation\u2014Renan\u2014E. Burnouf\u2014Ernest de\nBunsen\u2014Both religions independent in origin, though analogous in\ndevelopment\u2014What the significance of this\u2014True answer to be found, not\nby examining alleged resemblances between the religions, but their\npoints of contradiction and contrast\u2014Unity of humanity involves organic\nunity of language and of religion\u2014What is meant by organic unity and\ndevelopment of religion\u2014Declarations of Scripture\u2014Christianity as the\nuniversal religion has much in common with all\u2014has something peculiar to\nitself which it possesses in contrast\u2014In this will be found not only its\nsuperiority to all the rest, but the answer to all their cravings and\naspirations, _Pages 1-58_\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\nTHE HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS OF BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY, AND THE\nEVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SCRIPTURES.\n\nBoth religions inherited and produced scriptures\u2014Christian scriptures\ncriticised for eighteen centuries\u2014Buddhist scriptures as yet only in\npart available for examination\u2014Admissions made by translators in regard\nto them\u2014Strong contrasts between two sets of scriptures, in respect of\nauthenticity and genuineness\u2014Impossible to regard the two as of similar\ncanonical or authoritative value\u2014In Buddhism only oral traditions for\ncenturies\u2014Effect of the lack of a real canon in primitive\nBuddhism\u2014Effect of a fixed and written canon in the development of\nChristianity\u2014Antecedents of Buddhism\u2014Vedic India\u2014Brahmanic\nIndia\u2014Development of Brahmanic speculation\u2014Its highest reach in\nphilosophical Brahmanism\u2014The Upanishads\u2014Pursuit of Atman\u2014Antecedents of\nChristianity\u2014Patriarchal belief in Deity\u2014Mosaic stage of religious\nbelief\u2014The religion of Moses and the prophets too pure for the people\nunder the kings\u2014Destruction of the kingdom\u2014Effect of Captivity on the\nprophets\u2014on the people\u2014Difference between the beliefs and hopes of the\nDiaspora and those of the returned Palestinian Jews\u2014Preparation of the\nEmpire and world beyond it for the dawn of Christianity, _Pages 59-125_\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\nTHE BUDDHA OF THE PITAKAS: THE CHRIST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nPalestine at the birth of Christ\u2014India at the birth of Gotama\u2014Like, yet\nunlike\u2014Analogies in development of previous beliefs and\nspeculation\u2014Contrasts\u2014Gotama\u2019s life and ministry contrasted with the\nlife and ministry of Jesus\u2014The difference between their personal\nrelations to the religions which they founded\u2014\u201cI take refuge\nin Buddha\u201d\u2014\u201cI believe in Christ\u201d\u2014The supernatural in both\nreligions\u2014Pre-existence, incarnation, and miracles ascribed to\nBuddha\u2014Sources of information as to these beliefs examined and compared\nwith the Gospel accounts\u2014Relation of the miracles to each\nreligion\u2014Nature of the miracles themselves\u2014Growth of Buddhist legends\ndescribed by T. W. Rhys Davids\u2014Implied growth of the Christian legends\nexamined\u2014Essential contrasts manifest all through\u2014Buddha can be\naccounted for, but Christ is the Miracle of History, _Pages 126-191_\n\n\nLECTURE IV.\n\nTHE DHARMA OF BUDDHA: THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST.\n\nGotama\u2019s discovery at Bohimanda\u2014The Four Sacred Verities\u2014The noble\nEightfold Way\u2014His theory of life different from but not wholly\nantagonistic to that of speculative Brahmanism\u2014Existence not illusion,\nbut essentially evil\u2014Transmigration\u2014\u201cModern Buddhists\u2019\u201d defence of the\ndogma\u2014Contrast between it and Christian doctrine of the\nFall\u2014Christianity in its sorest struggle with evil hopeful\u2014Buddhism\nhopeless\u2014atheistic\u2014materialistic, yet has its own way, not of victory,\nbut of retreat and escape\u2014Doctrine of Karma analogous to Christian\ndoctrine of Heredity, yet really contrasted\u2014Goal of all Buddhist\naspiration and effort\u2014Nirvana, point-blank contradiction to Christian\ngoal, yet way to it analogous\u2014Arhatship as essential in Buddhism as\nholiness is in Christianity\u2014Noble quality of Buddhist ethical code\u2014Its\napproach to the Christian rule\u2014A law not for all\u2014Its degrees or paths of\nperfection\u2014Uprightness\u2014Meditation\u2014Enlightenment\u2014Christ\u2019s way of\nsalvation and sanctification by the Holy Spirit through the\ntruth\u2014Essential defects of Buddhist scheme, _Pages 192-252_\n\n\nLECTURE V.\n\nTHE BUDDHIST SANGHA: THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.\n\nThe Church the fruit of Christianity, the Sangha the root out of which\nBuddhism sprang\u2014The Sangha not a Church but an Order\u2014Different from the\nmany Orders then existing, yet with a likeness to them which it never\nlost\u2014Renunciation of secular life an indispensable qualification for\nmembership\u2014Analogous to yet essentially different from Monachism in\nChristianity, and in utter contrast to the idea and reality of the\nChristian Church\u2014The Sangha as theoretically open to all, and\npropagandist in its purpose, a precursor of the Church\u2014Actual\ndisqualifications for membership\u2014Ceremonial of admission\u2014The \u201coutgoing\u201d\nfrom the world\u2014Ceremonial of Confirmation\u2014The \u201carrival\u201d\u2014The novitiate or\ntutelage\u2014The rule of the Sangha\u2014No vows of obedience to\nsuperiors\u2014Stringent vows of poverty and chastity\u2014Difference between a\nBuddhist Vihara and a Christian monastery\u2014Favourable features of\nBuddhist monastic life\u2014The Uposatha gathering\u2014The P\u00e2timokkha\ncatechising\u2014The Pav\u00e2r\u00e2na invitation\u2014Relation of women to the\nSangha\u2014Institution of Order of Bikkhuni\u2014The relation of the laity to the\nSangha\u2014The Buddhist layman\u2019s only possible \u201cmerit,\u201d and his only hope,\n_Pages 253-313_\n\n\nLECTURE VI.\n\nTHE RELIGIONS IN HISTORY.\n\nExternal diffusion\u2014Both religions missionary\u2014Vastly different in respect\nof their messages\u2014Buddhist endeavour to perpetuate a system\u2014Christian\nendeavour to set forth and interpret the facts of a miraculous\nlife\u2014Effect of belief in Christ\u2019s continued presence upon the\nChurch\u2014Rapid diffusion of Christianity during the first four\ncenturies\u2014Condition of Buddhism during a similar period\u2014Spread of\nChristianity after Constantine\u2014Spread of Buddhism after Asoka\u2014Difference\nin the peoples affected by both religions\u2014Inferences\u2014Internal\nhistory\u2014Buddhism and Brahmanism\u2014Christianity and Judaism\u2014In Buddhism an\nearly abandonment of fundamental principles manifest\u2014Recoil of human\nnature from its Atheism into Polytheism and Tantrism\u2014Degradation of\nSouthern and Northern Buddhism\u2014Buddhism in Tibet\u2014Christianity in\nAbyssinia\u2014History of Chinese Buddhism from fourth century A.D. analogous\nto that of Christianity in Europe from same date\u2014Deterioration of both\nreligions similarly indicated\u2014B\u00f4diharma\u2014Modern Neo-Buddhism\u2014The\nT\u2019ien-t\u2019ai School\u2014Reformed Buddhism in China\u2014in Japan\u2014Its most modern\nattitude\u2014Difference between Buddhism and Christianity\u2014Alike in\ntheir tendency to deteriorate\u2014Christianity alone manifests a\nreforming and progressive power\u2014Resources of Buddhism manifestly\nexhausted\u2014Christianity apparently in only an initial stage of\ndevelopment, _Pages 314-386_\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT, _Pages 387-391_\n\n\n\n\n                               LECTURE I.\n        NECESSITY FOR A PROPER COMPARISON OF THE TWO RELIGIONS.\n\n\nEarly in this century Schopenhauer, fascinated by the contents of the\nUpanishads, which had been translated from the Persian into Latin by the\nillustrious discoverer of the Zend-Avesta, ventured to predict that the\ninfluence of the newly-found Sanskrit literature upon the philosophy of\nthe future would not be less profound than was that of the revival of\nGreek upon the religion of the fourteenth century.[1] That century was\nmarked by the close of the medi\u00e6val age, and the beginning of the times\nof Reformation in which we are privileged to live. The Reformation was\nnot an event, but the inauguration of a period. Its significance was far\ndeeper than that of a revolt from ecclesiastical superstition and\ncorruption. It meant a quickening of the human spirit, and a consequent\nawakening of the human intellect, to which many forces other than the\nleading religious ones, contributed; and its effects are visible not\nsimply in the changes which it immediately produced, but in the\nrevolution which is still actively progressing in all our social,\npolitical, and religious relations. The movement designated by the\nReformation is manifestly far from having exhausted itself, and there\ncan be no question that its course has been greatly accelerated by the\nstudies to which Schopenhauer referred.\n\nThe re-discovery of India, lost to Europe for centuries after the\nbeginning of the Christian era, almost as completely as America was\nhidden from it, was a fact of even greater import than the resurrection\nof Greece. It was no wilderness of ruins which was thus disclosed, from\nwhich only the shards of a long-buried civilisation could be exhumed,\nbut a living and cultured world, whose institutions were rooted in an\nantiquity more profound than Greece could claim, and whose language and\nmanners and religion were separated from the West by far more than a\nhemisphere. So totally unlike to the Western world was it, that the\nlabours and sacrifices of several generations of the finest intellects\nof Europe were required before a key could be found to interpret its\nsignificance. Since the days when Anquetil Duperron, after many\nadventures and hardships, succeeded in breaking through the tangled\nthicket which guarded its treasures, the scholars of all nations have\npressed into it, each one announcing, as he emerged, the dawn or the\nprogress of another Renaissance, whose meaning and direction and\nultimate issues only the rash will venture to predict or pretend to\nforesee.\n\nOne of the first-fruits of their combined or independent researches is\nthe new science of Religion. By a careful collection, analysis, and\ncomparison of all the beliefs of mankind available, with the view of\neliciting what is peculiar to each, and what they all share in common,\nits professors aim at discovering what may be the real nature and origin\nand purpose of all religion.[2] As yet it should hardly be designated a\nscience, for though the elements for it undoubtedly exist, they are too\nwidely scattered to be of service for immediate induction. The materials\nalready collected have not been sufficiently sifted, and moreover, it\nrequires the assistance of other sciences, as yet too immature, to\nrender it effective support. The title may not be a \u201cmisnomer,\u201d[3] but\nonly a somewhat inflated expression by which an age, rather wise in its\nown conceit, proclaims the discovery of a new field of learning which it\nmeans assiduously to cultivate. The discovery however is a solid one,\nand the assiduity of those who would improve it is unmistakable; year by\nyear their numbers increase, their implements improve in quality, and\nthis generation may not pass away before an abundant harvest has been\nreaped.\n\nAnother indication of the change that is coming over the world is the\nattitude which Christian divines now assume toward other religions.\nFifty years ago the attempt to compare our Bible and our Creed with the\nscriptures of other religions would have been regarded as a sacrilegious\nsurrender of what was holy to the dogs. This was due not so much to\nprejudice on the part of the expounders of Christianity as to aversion\nto the avowedly anti-christian spirit in which these researches were\nprosecuted. The Comparative method was then frequently employed, as it\nhad been by the Encyclop\u00e6dists of last century, for the purpose of\ndiscrediting and degrading Christianity. The conclusion was often\nforegone before the process began; and so it was natural that reverent\nbut timid minds jealous for their religion, and anxious to guard it from\ninsult, should decline such encounters. Now, however, orthodox\ntheologians are quite aware that in this matter they have to reckon with\nother than the professed enemies of Christianity. The ablest advocates\nof Comparative Theology are not only free from antichristian prejudice,\nbut they protest against it as inimical to the science itself.[4] It is\nnot infidelity, but Providence, that is forcing us to investigate the\norigin of our religion, and to search its scriptures in the fuller light\nwhich we now enjoy. We are being divinely taught that we cease to revere\na heavenly gift the moment we begin to idolise it; that the disposition\nmost fatal to ourselves, most dishonouring to our religion, is that\nwhich would regard its scriptures as charmed relics too sacred to be\nexamined, and only to be brought by an undevout and apostate Church, in\nthe moment of its extreme peril, into the field of battle with the\nPhilistines. To shrink from the comparison of our Faith with the\nreligious beliefs of those whom we acknowledge to be bone of our bone,\nand flesh of our flesh, is to manifest a cowardly lack of confidence in\nits Author. It is at the judgment-bar of all the ages that He means to\nmake good His claim to be the Judge of all mankind. The more He is\ntried, the more will His authority be confessed to be divine. He\ncertainly invited inspection and comparison, and He may have had other\nthan Hebrew scriptures in His view when He instructed us to \u201csearch\nthem, for they testify of Me.\u201d[5]\n\nThe comparative study of other religions, so far from being prejudicial\nto the claims of Christianity, will be helpful in establishing its\nsublime pre-eminence among them, and in enabling us to discharge to\ntheir adherents the duty which its Founder has imposed upon us. It may\nmodify considerably our theology, but it will strengthen our fundamental\nbeliefs. As a general rule, we may assert that the strength of a man\u2019s\nfaith will be found to be in direct proportion to his knowledge of the\neverlasting and unchangeable laws by which the universe is governed. It\nis our theology alone that is assailed, and we are learning that\ntheology, as a system of reasoning upon materials furnished not only by\nreligion itself, but also by some other \u201cologies,\u201d must be based on\nother and higher authority than that of an infallible Council, or that\nof a chapter whose significance was supposed to be unalterably fixed two\nor three thousand years ago. The religion which revolted against the\nassumption of the Scribe in our Lord\u2019s day, and which disallowed the\nclaim of the Pope some three centuries ago to be the sole interpreters\nof revelation, is not only testing the authenticity of the texts to\nwhich the appeal was then made, but is inquiring into their actual\nsignificance by collating them with the truths of another revelation as\ndivine. It is not that men want to get rid of dogma, for dogma of some\nkind there must ever be. There will always be a vast deal which we must\nbelieve, because there is much that can only thus be known; but a\nsatisfactory dogmatic foundation must henceforth be sought in facts\nanterior to any scriptures, or to any church that would interpret them,\nviz., in the elemental necessities and aspirations of our common human\nnature. It has been wisely said that \u201cthe theology which fails to meet\nthe demands of the whole man is simply doomed.\u201d[6] What is wanted\ntherefore for theology is some broad and solid basis, to be laid by\nanalysing, comparing, and co-ordinating all religious beliefs within our\nreach. In each of them we may hope to find some truth\u2014it may be very\nfeebly and very partially expressed\u2014of no more value by itself than a\nflake of gold found in an immense drift of sand or mass of quartz, but\nyet of immense value as indicating the source from which it came and the\nsubstance to which it claims affinity. All separate and imperfect truths\npoint towards some higher truth which will unite and fulfil and\ninterpret them. And so every religion, however erroneous it may be, is\nprophetic\u2014because found in a humanity that is essentially one\u2014of a\nuniversal religion, a faith which is not just one of the faiths of the\nnations, but is the divine answer, unchanged and inexhaustible, to all\nthe aspirations of mankind. The study of other religions therefore, even\nof those of the most degraded peoples, and of those most contradictory\nof our own, is as binding upon us as is the study of our Bibles. For us\n\u201chistory\u201d has been truly said \u201cto stand in the place of prophecy,\u201d[7]\nand it is only by gathering up and considering its testimony that we can\nappreciate the worth of the treasure which has been given to us, that we\nmay communicate it to all the world.\n\nProminent among the religions that challenge our consideration is the\none which, following authorities acknowledged to be the best, we will\nendeavour briefly to sketch and to expound. It is not an obsolete\nsystem, appealing only to the poetic sentiment from a vanished past,\nlike the religion of Greece, but one which confronts us with vitality\nsufficient to overshadow a considerable portion of the populous East.\nTwo thousand four hundred years have passed since it was first\nproclaimed, and though it disappeared long ago from the land of its\nbirth, it still reigns in many kingdoms, and continues to spread its\ninfluence in several directions in Central and Northern Asia. To tell\nits story completely would be to write the history of nearly the whole\nof China, India, and the countries that lie around or between them. Till\nvery recently it was generally computed that quite one-third of the\nhuman family, though widely separated geographically and otherwise,\nprofessed to find in Buddhism consolation sufficient to strengthen them\nto do the work and endure the sufferings of life, and to confront with\ncalmness the necessity of death.\n\nWere this computation correct, Buddhism would have to be accounted by\nfar the most widely accepted of all the religions of mankind. It has\nhowever been seriously challenged by those whose experience and candour\nare beyond question. According to their enumeration, Buddhism must rank\nonly fourth in the scale of numerical comparison among the great faiths\nof the world, for instead of there being five hundred millions of\nadherents, as we were previously led to believe, probably not more than\none hundred millions of professing Buddhists can be found in all the\nworld.[8] The question in dispute after all is one of only secondary\nimportance, for we can hardly conceive of any one other than some\ndemocratic fanatic who would propose to settle the truth of a religion\nby a reckoning of the suffrages which it could command. Numerical\nstatistics of religious adherence furnish only an indirect test even of\ninfluence. It is impossible to indicate even geographically the range of\na religion. We are very properly reminded that \u201cthe influence of\nBuddhism in India may be immense, though not a single Buddhist temple\nexists in it, while its influence in China and Ceylon may be vastly\nover-stated in figures, for many Chinese Buddhists may be called\nConfucianists and Taoists, and many Singhalese worshippers at Buddha\u2019s\nshrines are far from being only or altogether Buddhists.\u201d[9] Indeed\neverywhere, though chiefly in Thibet, Nepaul, and Mongolia, the religion\nwhich is called Buddhism is no more Buddhist than the survivals of Pagan\nworship and belief which are found in some extreme forms of Romanism can\nbe called Christian.\n\nThe rapidity with which and the extent to which a religion has spread is\nno certain indication of its capability to meet and satisfy the real\nspiritual necessities of mankind. A religion may rapidly gain, and\nretain for long, an ascendency over many men, without possessing any of\nthe qualities essential to its being recognised as the one religion of\nall men. The catholicity of a faith is indicated not by the extent of\nthe supremacy which it has acquired, but by the quality of its contents.\nUniversal truths are not necessarily the truths which have won the\nconsent of the greatest numbers. The test of _quod ubique, semper, et ab\nomnibus_, if thoroughly applied, would have established the truth of\nmany a degrading superstition in former times. \u201cIt is not that which is\ncommon to barbarism and civilisation which is most truly human, but\nprecisely that in which civilisation differs from barbarism.\u201d[10] The\ndivinity of a religion, instead of being attested by the readiness with\nwhich it is accepted, may be indicated by the antagonism which it at\nfirst evokes. Truth at no time depends upon majorities, at least in this\nworld, for here truth of any kind, when first proclaimed, instead of\nmeeting a generally friendly reception, has to win its victory by\nconflict and lay in martyrdom the foundation of its throne.[11]\n\nIt is not on account of its adherents, however, nor of the superficial\nextent of its supremacy\u2014though such facts have indeed a very pathetic\nsignificance\u2014but it is in respect of the quality of its original faith,\nthat Buddhism is considered worthy of comparison with Christianity. We\nmust not be repelled by the childish superstitions and gross absurdities\nwith which it is incrusted, for in a religion so ancient and extensive\nthis is just what we might expect to find; nor should we be surprised at\nthe marvellous and grotesque legends which profess to relate its origin\nand early history, for these, as Professor M\u00fcller has very properly\nreminded us, \u201care the clouds, not alway rosy, that gather round the\nsunrise of any religion.\u201d[12] In the estimation of its severest critics,\nBuddhism must occupy a grand and exalted place in the general history of\nreligions.[13] Among the various systems of the non-Christian world,\nancient or modern, none can compare with it in respect of its ethical\ncode, its spirit of toleration and gentleness, and its beneficent\ninfluence upon many wild populations that have embraced it. Neither Zeno\nnor Marcus Aurelius conceived a higher theory of morals, in which\njustice and temperance were infused by kindness, than that which the\nfounder of Buddhism successfully reduced to practice. It was the most\nnatural of all things therefore, that it had only to be introduced to\nthe notice of Christendom to win for itself a degree of admiration\naccorded to no other heathen faith.\n\nWe would be understating its claims, however, if we referred to it as\nappealing only to our Christian consideration and sympathy. It has been\nbrought into the lists of criticism as the rival of Christianity. Modern\nunbelief is forcing it upon our notice as a much truer philosophy of\nexistence and a more satisfactory theory of the universe than that\nfurnished by Christianity. We cannot let it alone, were it for no other\nreason that it will not let us alone. In the civilised and\nsemi-civilised portions of the East its disciples have long ago ceased\nto propagate it, and as a form of belief it may be said that there not\nonly has it reached the limits of its extension, but that its present\ncondition is one of \u201cincreasing disintegration and decay.\u201d[14] Even in\nthe East, however, among the classes who have most come under the\ninfluence of Western culture, the spirit of Buddhism shows considerable\nvitality, and there its spirit is coming into constant and active\ncollision with Christianity every day. The educated or intelligent\nBuddhist of Burmah or Siam tells us plainly that he will not give up his\nancient faith for Christianity; for notwithstanding the manifold and\nmanifest absurdities of his ancestral religion, he professes to find the\nsame in the forms in which Christianity has been presented to him. By\nthe light of our science we have helped him to weed out his old\nsuperstitions, and he will not accept from us any new ones. In language\nmarvellously akin to that of the founder of Buddhism, he discards every\nreligion as involving the worship of deity, and he professes to find in\nSuttas more ancient than our Gospels a morality as sublime, a charity as\ncomprehensive, and a system of faith sufficient to bear the strain of\nall his necessities, whether present or future.[15] In short, Buddhism\nas professed by a modern Oriental with any pretension to culture, is\nalmost identical with that paradoxical condition of thought or belief\nwhich maintains, and indeed professes to be spreading in Christendom as\nmodern Agnosticism.\n\nBut it is not in an attitude of resistance only that Buddhism confronts\nChristianity even in the East. In Ceylon, if we are to trust the _Times\nof India_,[16] it numbers among its typical gains \u201ca young highly\neducated European lady and a clergyman of the English Church,\u201d and\nthese, it is averred, \u201care not the first, and are not likely to be the\nlast of its direct converts from the Christian churches.\u201d In Europe and\nAmerica also, not among the lower and less educated, but among the\nhigher ranks of society, among people affecting culture and new light,\nare to be found not a few professing admirers, if not practical\nfollowers, of Buddha and his law. The admiration of many of these\ndilettanti may sometimes be found to be in exact proportion to their\nignorance of Buddhism. Their information is drawn almost exclusively\nfrom such sources as are supplied by the romance of Sir Edwin Arnold and\nworks like those produced by Mr. Sinnett and Colonel Olcott;[17] but\neven when we discount all these, we must own that here and there we find\nsome thoughtful and earnest people who profess to have come out from\nbondage to the beggarly elements of the Church\u2019s faith to gentle\nBuddha\u2019s better gospel of liberty. Mr. Alabaster\u2019s _Modern Buddhist_\nfinds a co-religionist not only in the disciples of Feuerbach and Von\nHartmann, but in every \u201cfervent atheist\u201d who, acknowledging nothing in\nthe universe save man, and a system of unbending law in which he is\ninvolved, and with which he is sometimes confounded, has been compelled\nto deify humanity and to demand for its idol a service worthy of a\ndivine object of faith.\n\nSo another prediction of Schopenhauer\u2019s, uttered in the beginning of the\ncentury, seems to be repeated in many publications at its close. \u201cIn\nIndia,\u201d he affirmed, \u201cour religion will never strike root; the primitive\nwisdom of the human race will never be pushed aside by any incidents in\nGalilee. On the contrary, Indian wisdom will flow back upon Europe, and\nproduce a thorough change in our knowing and thinking.\u201d[18] He certainly\nlaboured hard to bring about the fulfilment of his prophecy, preaching\nNirvana as the goal of moral effort, though confessing that his own\nanimal propensities allowed him no hope of attaining it. In his lifetime\nhis strenuous endeavours were unsuccessful, and he died in 1860 in\ncomparative neglect. Since then, and especially since the publication of\nhis book _Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung_, the doctrine painfully\nplanted, has taken root in the congenial soil prepared for it by Comte\nand his disciples. Spiritualism again\u2014which, though originating only in\n1848, in circumstances almost ludicrous, has spread so rapidly and\nextensively that it now claims to count its converts by millions all\nover the world\u2014has obviously contributed to the dissemination and growth\nof pseudo-Buddhist ideas. With a literature of over five hundred\npsychological works\u2014many of them voluminous and very costly\u2014and with\nforty-six periodicals regularly published in Europe and America, it not\nonly assails Christianity, but supports the doctrine that \u201cthe Reign of\nLaw has supplanted the Reign of God; that just as we have ceased to\nembody the conception of the State in a person, it is time we should\ncease similarly to embody the conception of the universe, for loyalty to\na personal ruler is an anachronism in the nineteenth century, and will\nsome day become extinct.\u201d[19] Its apostles profess to find in the\nChristian faith many signs of disintegration, and they look \u201cto the\nbloodless and innocent record of Buddhism for the reconstruction of true\nreligious faith upon a permanent basis.\u201d[20] This they expound in a\nso-called theosophy in phraseology largely borrowed from the New\nTestament, but descriptive of a curious amalgam of later Buddhist and\nHindu doctrines utterly contradictory to the essential teaching of\nChristianity.\n\nOccultism, Esoteric Buddhism, which professes to supplant the religion\nof Jesus, and to prepare the way of the twelfth of the Messiahs, whose\nmission is to harmonise the perverted teaching of his predecessors,[21]\nand thus establish the universal religion of humanity, is not likely to\noccasion serious concern. It is just another of those instances in which\nthe diseases of a lower civilisation are communicated to one superior\nand more robust. Just as plagues originating in the ruined or degraded\npopulations of the East have repeatedly desolated large portions of\nEurope, where they found physical conditions favourable to their spread,\nso there are mental and moral epidemics which, generated among inferior\nreligions, propagate themselves in the very highest, for reasons almost\nsimilar. There are modern conditions which present very close affinities\nto those out of which Buddhism arose. It has been truly called the\nreligion of despair, and it seems suited to that intellectual _ennui_ in\nwhich many profess to live who find themselves confronted by problems\nwhich they are unable to solve. The enervating agnosticism and\nsentimental pessimism of our generation furnish the very soil in which\nthe germs of Buddhism are most likely to mature; but the spiritual life\nof Christendom is too robust to succumb to its heresy of inertion and\nmoral defeat. The system of Buddha, even as laid out by himself, is not\nat all likely to entrap any considerable number of Western\nnineteenth-century thinkers; and this mongrel system of Neo-Buddhism,\nthough professing to be founded on that ancient creed, will only find\nadherents among peculiar people. There is always a tendency in the most\nadvanced civilisation, on the part of some who are freed from the\nnecessity of industry, so essential to man\u2019s mental and moral as well as\nto his physical health, to revert to beliefs and customs peculiar to\nearlier and inferior stages of culture. It is a curious and significant\nfact,[22] that not among the working and professional classes, but among\nthe upper and fashionable ranks of modern society, such survivals of\nancient superstition as intercourse with spirits and palmistry are\nchiefly now to be found. For such unstable souls as have been or may be\ntempted to be drawn into these practices by an appeal to the authority\nof the beautiful character limned for our generation in the _Light of\nAsia_, I know no better restorative than a plain exposition of primitive\nBuddhism. It will be seen then that this modern fungus is a growth\nalmost as foreign in its nature to real Buddhism as it is to true\nChristianity. The degenerate Buddhism from which it borrows its largest\nstock of ideas bears the same relation to the actual teaching of Buddha\nthat the Cabbala bear to the prophecies of the Old Testament, and the\ndoctrines which it counts upon as most popular and attractive are\nprecisely those which Buddha would have treated with his most withering\nscorn.\n\nThere is yet another characteristic of this religion which has commended\nit more to the unbelief than the belief of our age. Many agreements are\nalleged to subsist between the contents of the New Testament and those\nof the sacred books which profess to record the life and express the\nteaching of Buddha. Its ancient Pitakas are said to be filled with\nstories resembling the narratives of the Evangelists, with sayings which\nrecall the parables, and miracles reflecting the signs and wonders which\nsignalised the ministry of Jesus. It is averred that with the single\nexception of the Crucifixion\u2014and how immense is the significance of that\nexception I shall endeavour in a subsequent lecture to show,\u2014it would be\neasy to find in them a parallel to almost every incident related in the\nGospel. Most startling of all are said to be the resemblances between\nthe central figures in both sets of scriptures. For Buddhism, as truly\nas Christianity, has its ideal of a perfect human life, illustrated in\none who, like unto the Son of Man, went about doing good, and enforcing\nby his example the pure morality which he preached, but who, most unlike\nthe Son of Man, without any sustaining belief in deity, or hope of\nsympathy or help from any divine being, professed to have made good his\nown salvation, and to teach all whom he could reach the way to work out\ntheirs.\n\nWhen we come to examine its history, we find that it has followed a line\nof development strikingly parallel to that of Christianity, and the\nparallels thus furnished by its antecedents and progress, and by the\nexternal and foreign influences which encountered and modified it, are\nthose which have the most interest and instruction for the student of\nReligion. In order, however, to ascertain their significance, we must\nexamine these alleged correspondences of story and of doctrine; for\nthese have powerfully influenced a certain class of thinkers, as\nsupplying confirmation of a charge brought against our religion in\nalmost the beginning of its history, that after all there was nothing\noriginal in Christ, and nothing new in His teaching. That resemblances\ndo exist, not only between the forms in which Buddhism confronts us in\nsome quarters of the world and the ritual and organisation of a large\nsection of the Christian Church, but between the contents of the\nBuddhist scriptures as we have them now, and those of the New Testament,\nall must admit. As we cast a hasty and general glance over them we see\nhow natural and how pardonable was the old rough and ready method of\naccounting for them by the supposition of direct transference of the\nvarious lineaments from the one to the other. The early Jesuit\nmissionaries did not hesitate to assert that the Buddhists, by\nassimilating and incorporating the rites and doctrines of the primitive\nmissionaries, had succeeded in producing a caricature of Christianity.\nIn like manner, when in Central America\u2014till then as independent of\nEurope as if it had been separated not by untraversed oceans, but by the\nimmensities that divide the planets\u2014the Spaniards found to their\namazement a most complex religion, with priests, and monasteries, and\ntemples adorned with the cross and statues of a goddess with an infant\nin her arms, they could only explain the mystery by averring that it was\na gigantic mimetic ruse of the devil to lead the unhappy nations astray.\nThe suppositions in both cases are not likely to be seriously supported\nnow. Indeed, it is far more likely, as the author of _Ancient\nChristianity_ and Dr. Prinsep and others have attempted to show, that in\nthe East we have to seek for the origin of several institutions and\nrites once considered the peculiar growth of Greek or Latin\nChristianity. There can be little doubt that as these religions spread\nthey would come in contact with and react upon each other.[23] It is\ndifficult in the present state of our knowledge to indicate their first\nconjunction, or to trace their various intercommunications, but that\nthey have been mutually indebted to each other is sufficiently attested\nby their histories. In later Hinduism and Buddhism and Lamaism there are\nplain indications of the action of the Western upon the Eastern\nreligions. Romanism, on the other hand, has set its official seal upon\nthe relationship, by incorporating a legend of Buddha among its \u201cLives\nof the Saints,\u201d by canonising the founder of this most antichristian of\nall religions, and by consecrating the 27th November as a day on which\nhe may be invoked for intercession.[24]\n\nThough as yet the field is only opening out, and its exploration is only\nbeginning, there can be little doubt that it will be found that in their\nadvanced stages Buddhism and Greek and Latin Christianity have\ncontributed to each other\u2019s resources; but it is quite another matter to\nassert that the existence of the one religion accounts for the origin of\nthe other, and that Christianity, as the junior of the two, is simply \u201ca\nproduct of India spoiled in its route to Palestine.\u201d[25] Those who\nallege that the sources of Christianity may be discovered in Buddhism\nare bound not to assume but clearly to trace and demonstrate the medium\nof communication between the two. As yet the allegation, though\nfrequently made, appears to be incapable of proof. Renan\u2019s picture of\n\u201cwandering Buddhist monks who overran the whole world, and converted on\nthe banks of the Jordan, by their garb and manners, people who did not\nunderstand their language, like the Franciscan monks in later days,\u201d is\nonly a pious imagination.[26] And so are the theories elaborated by M.\nEmile Burnouf in the _Science of Religions_ and by M. Ernest de Bunsen\nin his _Angel Messiah of the Buddhists_. Both these authors have\nexplained to their own satisfaction the derivation of Christianity from\nold Indian or Aryan beliefs, which, transmitted through Parthia to the\nBabylonian Jews, by them communicated to the Essenes John Baptist and\nJesus of Nazareth, and from them again passed on to the Therapeut\nStephen, were formulated in the plastic mind of Paul of Tarsus into the\nChristian dogmas which we now revere. The scheme is devised with\nthoroughly French precision, and the treatises in which it is\nelaborated, full as they are of indications of great ingenuity and\nlaborious research, are interesting as any romance. For scientific\npurposes, however, they have hardly more historic worth than a romance.\nBased upon assumptions, they are constructed almost entirely of\nhypotheses: when a difficulty emerges, it is solved by a supposition\nwhich further on is confirmed by a \u201creasonable expectation\u201d of something\nelse, so that by and by the supposition meets us as an established\nresult. They abound in analogies, some of which transgress as flagrantly\nthe laws of time as the theory once advanced that the story of Christ is\nonly a reflection of the legend of Krishna, seeing that belief in\nKrishna did not arise in India till centuries after Christianity had\nreached its shores. \u201cThe laws of language[27] are also violated as\nopenly as they were by the discovery that the mysterious word \u2018Om\u2019 of\nthe Upanishads is the equivalent of the \u2018Amen\u2019 in ancient Hebrew\nworship.\u201d It may be as possible by this method to prove the connection\nbetween the Vedic and Levitical institutions, as it is possible to\nestablish the conclusion that the old Aryan symbol of the fire sticks is\nthe fontal idea of the Cross, or that the Vedic word \u201cAgni\u201d is\nequivalent to the Latin \u201cAgnus Dei.\u201d Dr. J. Estlin Carpenter[28] and\nProfessor Kuenen[29] have most exhaustively and decisively exposed the\nvanity of such speculations, which, on the whole, may be regarded as a\ngood confirmation of a saying uttered by Professor H. H. Wilson some\nthirty years ago, in reference to those who would derive Christianity\nfrom Indian sources, that \u201cthe disposition to draw impossible analogies\nis not yet wholly extinct.\u201d\n\nAs far as the history of Buddhism can be traced it presents no actual\npoint of contact with either Syria or Egypt or Europe. Even after it\nbecame a missionary religion its progress was never westwards, and at no\nperiod did it reach further in this direction than the region now known\nas Afghanistan. The civilisation of the West offered no opportunity for\nits enthusiasm, and none of the great Western cities appear in its\nrecords. In the few scattered extracts which survive of the writings of\nthose Greeks who visited India during or subsequent to the period of\nAlexander\u2019s invasion, there is no indication of a knowledge of Buddhism,\nnor any allusion to Buddha by name. We have to come down to the times of\nClement of Alexandria[30] and of Bardesanes the Syrian before we have\nany tangible evidence of the slightest acquaintance on the part of the\nWest with Buddhism. The first writer mentions Buddha by name, the second\ndistinguishes his monks from the Brahmans, and gives some details as to\ntheir customs, but it is impossible from their statements to conjecture\nhow much they knew of the faith to which they alluded, and most absurd\nto infer from them that they were affected with the slightest admiration\nfor it.[31]\n\nIf Christianity be the offspring of Buddhism, or even if Buddhism\nexercised any direct influence upon its earliest development, some\nindications of that influence should be traceable in the Jewish and\nGreek literature of that period. Yet in spite of the most searching\nexamination none have as yet been found, and it is not at all likely\nthat they ever will be found.[32] Our religion was well advanced in its\ncourse before we find in the works of its defenders any sign of\nacquaintance with the Buddhist legend, or any expression of suspicion,\nas on the part of Cyril and Ephraim of Jerusalem in the fourth century,\nthat the taint of some of the heresies which had infected the Church\nmight be traced to its contagion. Then, unfortunately for the\ningeniously constructed theory that the doctrines were secretly\ntransmitted by the channel already indicated till they reached St. Paul\nthrough Stephen the Therapeut, the only passage on which the existence\nof Therapeuts in Apostolic times could be founded has been recently\nproved to be a spurious interpolation in the writings of Philo of a\ntreatise forged several centuries after his death.[33] Research can find\nno trace of Therapeuts in Alexandria nor anywhere else till Monachism\nhad become the fashion in the Christian Church. Bishop Lightfoot has\nconvincingly proved that the theory of the transmission of Christian\ndoctrine from the Buddhists of India through the Babylonian Jews to the\nEssenes has not the slightest trace of evidence to support it, but that,\non the contrary, the weight of evidence and probability is all against\nit.[34] Again, any one who compares the Gospel account of the life of\nthe Baptist with the description given in Josephus[35] of the manners\nand tenets of the Essenes will find that just as the Essenes owed\nnothing to Buddha, so Christ, and even John Baptist, owed nothing to\nthem. Though similar in a few external points, the Baptist\u2019s preaching\nand manner of living were essentially antagonistic to those of the\nlittle Jewish sect which had severed itself not only from Jewish society\nbut from Jewish hopes. The teaching of Christ, again, whose manner of\nlife, notoriously in contrast to that of His herald, was throughout a\npowerful though silent contradiction to every doctrine which the Essenes\nheld, and it would be extravagant to assert that He owed to it even an\nillustration of His own.[36] It may be safely asserted that the theory\nof the derivation of Christianity from Buddhism breaks down at every\npoint at which it is tested. We may dismiss it in the words of Professor\nKuenen, that the \u201cso-called connection between Essenism and Christianity\ncannot bear serious inquiry for a moment,\u201d and in those of the learned\nBishop,[37] \u201cthat though the Essenes may have had some connection with\nPersia, their system was antagonistic to that of Buddhism in everything\nsave the spirit of despair which called both into existence.\u201d\n\nThe whole supposition of Burnouf and De Bunsen, and writers of the\nschool to which they belong, is based upon a most exaggerated and indeed\nfictitious estimate of the Indian contribution to the sum of human\nknowledge. It assumes that India was the cradle of all wisdom, and that\nfrom that favoured land of primeval light went forth from time to time\nthe apostles of religion and the expounders of all philosophy. Yet\nhistory reveals not the slightest trace of any such propaganda westward\nbefore the coming of Christ, and though centuries after we have slight\nnotices of Indian travellers to the West, we do not find a missionary\namong them. We have historic evidence, however, of the Western races\nreaching India certainly before the coming of Christ, and probably long\nbefore the birth of the founder of Buddhism, and we can hardly suppose\nthat races with enterprise and intelligence sufficient to discover and\nconquer the Hindus would appear only before them as beggars to receive\ntheir alms. We forget that the wave of Aryan humanity that poured\ndownward into India really deflected from the path of progress, and that\nunder climatic and other unfavourable conditions, and through\nintermixture with inferior races, it stagnated, while that which\nproceeded westward improved the more the farther it advanced. We have a\ntolerably clear idea of the civilisation of Western Asia in the time of\nSolomon, whose navy is supposed to have traded with India. It\ncomprehended capitals with magnificent buildings, public works, and\nwell-guarded highways; commerce protected and encouraged; law\nadministered; religion observed, and learning cultivated. What Indian\ncivilisation meant at the same period we can only conjecturally infer\nfrom the literature that is extant, but we have clearer glimpses of it\nfive centuries later as the home of a mixed race, geographically severed\nfrom the rest of the world, living in village settlements, which only\nhere and there were large enough to be called towns, divided into clans\nwhose wealth consisted chiefly in pasture and tillage lands, and flocks\nand herds.[38] A kingdom in the sense in which Solomon would have used\nthe word did not exist. In respect of civilisation Palestine was far\nahead of India, and in respect of religious development, its theology,\nthough greatly tainted with heathen superstitions, was sufficiently pure\nand strong to save the Hebrew from requiring instruction at the wattle\nhuts of a race that confounded God with His works. If Ophir be the name\nof an Indian port, then Solomon\u2019s navy brought back from it gold, and\nivory, and curious things indicated by Sanskrit words for which the\nHebrew chronicler could find no equivalent. The sailors may have picked\nup a few fables and riddles and proverbs, but surely in regard to\nreligion and philosophy, the superior and stronger race would be more\nlikely to impart of their abundance to the lower and weaker than to\nenrich themselves out of their poverty.\n\nWhen we come to the Greek invasion we move on more solid ground, and we\ncan handle events which have left permanent and very traceable effects;\nbut in the historic notices that remain, we have no trace of Hindu\ninfluence upon Greek civilisation. Instead of Greek religion and\nphilosophy being enriched by the Indian, the opposite is more likely to\nhave been the case. The invasion of Alexander must have originated a\nhost of new thoughts in India, which may yet be traced in the works of\nthe prolific Buddhist scholars, who are said to have lived in the Punjab\nduring the period of the Greek domination.[39] It is alleged with fair\nshow of reason to have given rise to some new products, such as the art\nof writing, a currency in coin, stone sculpture, none of which have as\nyet been traced in India in any previous period.[40] The appearance in\nIndia of the drama, the epic, of new views of mathematics, astronomy,\nphysics, are all said to be subsequent to and consequences of the Greek\ninvasion. And this is what we might expect, for all through the\nhistorical ages the Hindu, instead of enriching Western nations, has\nbeen a needy borrower from them. He has always been more ready to absorb\nthan impart, ever greedy of foreign ideas, and ever ready to be modified\nby external culture. The beneficent influence of India is indeed\ntraceable in China, whose science it undoubtedly improved, and whose\nliterature it has greatly enriched; but with the exception of the cipher\nso useful in our arithmetical notation, it is questionable whether India\nhas contributed to the stock of Western wisdom one single religious or\nphilosophic or scientific truth.[41]\n\nThe wealthy are more likely to lend to than to borrow from the poor; the\nwise more likely to teach, though they do sometimes learn from the less\ninstructed. The strong may be infected by the diseases of the feeble,\nbut generally the contagion of health radiates from the more robust to\nthe weaker vitalities. The \u201cpower\u201d which the touch of the East has \u201cmade\nto go forth from us\u201d[42] no doubt flows back in quickened life upon\nourselves. As these Oriental studies proceed, the tables will perhaps be\nturned upon the school that would derive all our philosophy and religion\nfrom old Indian sources. We have seen that two successive waves of\nWestern life flowed eastwards upon the shores of India. Another rich\nstream of Semitic thought in pre-Buddhistic times, represented by such\nreligious teachers as the second Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel,\nreached the Tigris, and we may ask, Was the Indus unknown to them? We do\nnot assert that they knew it, but surely it was just as easy for a Jew\nto reach India as for Burnouf or de Bunsen\u2019s Buddhists to reach Babylon.\nIt was just as probable that a Jewish pedlar found his way eastward\nthrough Parthia to India, with other and more precious goods in his\npossession than the Babylonian wares in his pack, as it was that Renan\u2019s\nwandering Buddhist monk found his way to the Jordan. Later on there is a\ntradition\u2014and though it is only a tradition, what a find to Messieurs\nRenan, Burnouf, and de Bunsen would one similar Buddhist tradition\nbe!\u2014that one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus evangelised a\nportion of the western shores of India. So, founding on all these data,\nonly assuming\u2014as we are entitled to assume\u2014that the East was well\nconnected with the West by the sea routes from Arabia and by the land\nroute through Persia, and remembering that there is nothing so volatile\nand permeating as thought, is the speculation so very extravagant that\nold Indian philosophy and religion, though following their own course,\nmay have been modified and purified by contact with the thoughts of the\nWest? What if the conjecture be hazarded that from the West a thousand\nyears B.C. was communicated the theistic impulse which produced what is\nbest in the Upanishads\u2014the truth, viz., of the unity which is behind and\nabove all variety, the One Absolute into which all thought and all being\nis resolved?[43] What if it be some day asserted that the teaching of\nthe Hebrew prophets before the Diaspora, as to the worthlessness of\nsacrifice to put away sin and to promote communion with God, may have\ninsinuated itself into the reveries of Indian ascetics in their forest\nretreats, and made the teaching of reformers like Buddha possible? And\nwhat if to St. Thomas may be indirectly traced that influence which made\nlater Buddhism differ so materially from the primitive, and approach in\nthe similarities of its legends so close to the Gospel narratives? Dr.\nKellogg already proclaims that \u201cit may be affirmed with certainty that\nno man can show that the legend of Buddha, in a form containing any\ncoincidence which could be held to argue a borrowing from it by\nChristians, was in existence before the Christian era\u201d; \u201cthat all the\nvarious versions of the legend in any language date from a time later\nthan the Christian era\u201d; \u201cthat the chief Sanskrit authority for it\ncannot be proved in the judgment of the most competent critics to have\nexisted in its present form nearly as far back as the Christian era\u201d;\nand though he does not allege any actual transference from the Gospel to\nthe Buddha legend, he avers with justifiable confidence that the\nopportunity for \u201csuch a transference before the Sanskrit version assumed\nits present form is an indubitable fact.\u201d[44]\n\nThese suggestions, though just as worthy of consideration and support as\nthe theory that Christianity is either an offshoot of Vedic Brahminism\nor a direct product of Buddhist speculation, need not be discussed at\npresent. We may content ourselves with the conclusions formed by our\nmost reliable authorities, that Buddhism and Christianity in their\norigin and earliest development were perfectly independent of each\nother. The births of their founders were separated by centuries, and the\nspheres of their ministry by almost the whole extent of Asia. While thus\nsundered by the conditions of both time and space, they were still more\nso by their intellectual peculiarities and antecedents. The Indian\ndiffered very widely from the Jew in his way of looking at and reasoning\nabout things. He would be very differently impressed by the same or\nsimilar phenomena, and he would communicate his impressions by a very\ndifferent method. Geographically India was shut up from the rest of the\nworld, and the Aryans who went down into it were left in a manner hardly\nparalleled by other peoples to develop their own life out of itself, and\naccording to its own laws. In far less favourable circumstances, and far\nremoved from the educational stimulus of contact with alien or cognate\nnations, they came to stand alone as a people scarcely intelligible by\nothers. The Jews, on the other hand, were early brought into the stream\nof human movement. Mingled with many peoples, sent from land to land,\nthey became in spite of their passionate love for their own country the\ncosmopolitans of the world. Consequently when the two races came in\ncontact, the circles of thought and feeling in which they moved could\nhardly be said to touch. Solomon\u2019s sailors, as regards religious or\nphilosophical treasures, could neither give nor take away. They had\nalmost nothing in common with the strange people whom they met. The\nSanskrit words which they took home to designate the peculiar products\nobtained in Ophir indicated how helpless they would have been to\nunderstand the metaphysics of India even had they inquired about them.\nThe natives of Western India a thousand years before Christ were as\nhelpless to understand the Jew. You have only to compare a prophecy of\nIsrael of the eighth century B.C. with the earliest of the Upanishads to\nfind how widely separated at that date was the Semite from the Aryan of\nIndia. Even when their own kinsmen visited them, when the descendants of\nsires who had occupied the same cradle and had heard the same stories\ntold over them in the one primeval home, met for deadly strife in the\nwars of Alexander on the plains of the Punjab, they were aliens in\nalmost everything. Later on, when Christian missionaries, anxious to\nteach them better ways, succeeded in influencing their religious\nconceptions, the Hindus always modified what of our faith they adopted.\nThe question how far the early proclamation of the Gospel in India\ninfluenced the development of Hinduism is by the best of judges\nconsidered not yet settled,[45] but even those who affirm the reality of\nthis influence admit that Hinduism did not so much incorporate the\ndoctrines as assimilate the ideas of Christianity. The ultimate decision\nof this question, however, does not in any way affect the one before us.\nWe may be almost certain that the great mass of Indian speculation on\nman and his relations to the infinite, for many centuries before our\nera, was developed originally from the resources of the Indian mind\nquite apart from foreign influences. The same assertion will hold good\nas to the rise of Greek philosophy and of the Christian religion. Not\none of the three can be understood without careful reference to their\nparticular antecedents, but they can never be accounted for by any\ntheory of derivation of the one from the other.\n\nIt is the fact of this complete independence of each other in origin,\ncoupled with their analogous development, and the many supposed\nagreements in their systems, which makes the study of Buddhism so\ninteresting. What does this signify? What important law in providence\ndoes it indicate or illustrate? Our best guides content themselves with\ncalling attention to the analogies, and they are chary as yet of drawing\ninferences from them. The wisdom of such caution is apparent when we\nfind that the supposed coincidences require to be examined and\ndiscussed. Most of them have been found to be superficial and\naccidental, and, when probed, very essential and fundamental contrasts\nare discovered beneath them. Now to judge correctly concerning these\nreligions we must try not their analogies but their contradictions. The\nanalogies may be only seeming, and the contrasts may be very real and\nprofound. On every point that is truly characteristic the two religions\nmay be separated as widely as the zenith is from the nadir. All\nreligions are parallel in their tendencies, and every approach to truth\nmust inevitably produce resemblances in religious belief. The\nresemblances may indicate the aspirations of a moral and religious\nnature common to all men; and in what is peculiar to Christianity, what\nit possesses in contrast, may be found the divine answer to these\naspirations. The two religions may proceed in parallel lines, but on\nvery different planes, and from quite opposite directions. Thus the\nmorality of Buddhism so deservedly admired is in no sense peculiar to\nBuddhism, for much of it was taught in India before Buddha appeared, and\nin China before his law was proclaimed in it. It is the natural\noutgrowth of the moral sense of mankind where circumstances are\nfavourable to its development. But high as the law of Buddha is, it only\n\u201capproaches, swings toward,\u201d as Oldenberg tells us, but never reaches or\ntouches the law of Christ.[46] There is in the Christian Gospel\nsomething which the Buddhist system plainly lacks, and which Buddhism\nout of any evolution of its own inherent energy could never produce.\nChristianity seems to be superior to it, not in the sense that the\ninfant is superior to the embryo, but as man is superior to the animal,\nwhich yet may be said of very necessity to precede him. The lower\norganism in creation, though not accounting for the higher, may reach\nout after and indicate the necessity for it, and the higher by\nfulfilling the lower will interpret it. Just as the mineral, vegetable,\nand animal world all point to some higher creative fact, which in man is\nto sum up and perfect them, so the many lower religions of the human\nrace all point to a higher, which is to annul and fulfil them. No theory\nof evolution has yet accounted for man. He appears in the universe as a\nnew creature while part of a very old system of creation, and related to\nall its inferior forms. So Christianity, in one sense as old as human\nhistory, and related to every form of religion by which man has tried to\nsatisfy his spiritual cravings, may not be elaborated out of any of them\nas their products, but confronts us as a new fact of history to satisfy\nand complete them.\n\nThis conclusion is one which many students of the science of religion\nare not prepared to accept. To them Christianity is simply one of the\nnatural religions, and at best their highest but necessary outgrowth.\nJust as they allege that the origin of man is to be found in the lowest\ntype of the savage, so they seek for the genesis of his religious\nconsciousness in his lowest animal wants and fears, and they profess to\ntrace the development of that consciousness from its first almost\nshapeless forms, through the monstrosities of Fetichism, then of\nAnimism, Polytheism, Monotheism, till it finds its ultimate culmination\nin Christ. Now Christianity is indeed a natural religion; were it\notherwise, it would cease to be divine. It supplies all man\u2019s natural\nwants, and it satisfies and educates all man\u2019s natural aspirations.\nWhile, however, there is nothing _un_natural in it, we aver that there\nis something supranatural in its ideal, fitting it to answer the\nnecessities of a being who has in him all that nature has, and a great\ndeal more. Man is a being akin on one side of his nature to both the ape\nand the worm, but he is also what they are not. \u201cThe pressure of the\ninfinite on his senses\u201d awakens feelings, and originates a train of\nthought in which he soon becomes conscious of relations to a higher than\nnature his inferior, and to other than men his equals. There is that in\nhim which once it is aroused refuses to believe that what he sees or\nhandles or tastes is all, and that there can be no higher being than\nhimself. If his own most perfect machine does not express all his\nintelligence, he cannot believe that all possible intelligence is\ncomprehended and expressed in the world of nature. Behind and beyond all\nthese physical arrangements of the world, which seem fully to meet the\nlower wants of his being, he feels that there must be higher\narrangements corresponding to his peculiar wants. Just because he finds\nevery appetite has its corresponding object, and every organ implies an\nelement for which it is fitted,\u2014so that if there be an eye there must be\nlight, and if lungs there must be air,\u2014so this feeling or instinct which\nimpels him to seek the unknown Power, \u201cfor whose sake he feels\nconstrained to do what he does not like to do, or to abstain from what\nhe would like to do,\u201d[47] is the pledge not only that He exists, but\nthat he has already and always been found by Him, as One who understands\nperfectly his thoughts and wants, and is freely communicating with him.\n\nIt is not in the anthropoid ape that we may hope to find the origin of\nman, and it is not in the terror of the savage cowering before the\nmajesty and mystery of nature that we are likely to find the genesis of\nhis religion. Even if anthropology succeeded in proving that savagery\nwas the first type in which humanity was expressed, and that its bestial\nrites inspired by terror was the first form of human religion, it would\nnot then have accounted for their origin. The gulf between the religious\nsavage and the non-religious speechless ape would remain as vast as\never. The first manifested beginning of a work may be rude enough, \u201cas\nis the rough block which receives the first stroke of the sculptor who\nhas designed to produce a statue; but the real beginning,\u201d as we have\nbeen eloquently reminded, \u201cis in the plan of the artist, and to perceive\nhis ideal we have to wait for the final result.\u201d[48] It is in the end\ntherefore that we may be said to find and understand the author. So the\norigin of man, and the genesis of his religion, is more likely to be\nindicated by that divine fiat which one of the ancient authors of\nGenesis has dared to formulate, \u201cLet us make man in our image, and after\nour likeness.\u201d According to that conception, man is a creature, neither\nequal with, nor perfect as the Being who conceived him, but having\naffinity with his Creator, and from the very first manifesting capacity\nand potentiality of indefinite progress to be gained by the divine\neducation to which he is everlastingly subjected.\n\nIt is not in the plan of our lecture to discuss these momentous\nquestions, or to enter the lists against the representatives of the\nsciences of Anthropology or Religion. Anthropology is not sufficiently\nadvanced to scatter the mystery that surrounds the cradle of the human\nrace: and it would be rash for the apostles of the other science to\nmaintain that they have succeeded in tracing the lines of that process,\nout of which Christianity or even Buddhism is alleged to have evolved\nfrom the shapeless superstitions of the primitive savage, before they\nconfront us as facts in the history of human thought. Observation and\nexperience alike seem to counsel greater caution in making our\ndeductions and drawing our inferences. Indeed there seems to be almost\nas much evidence in favour of the theory of degradation as there is in\nfavour of that of evolution. There is no inherent tendency in human\nsociety to pass ever on and ever up to something better and nobler. No\nrace, by its own inherent strength, seems to have raised itself from\nbarbarism into anything that can be called true civilisation; but we\nhave abundant proof in the Aztecs of former generations, and the negroes\nof the Black Republic in the present day, that races can terribly\ndecline. A state of civilisation is very difficult to keep, as well as\ndifficult to gain.[49] And so far as observation goes, savage life and\nreligion appear to be \u201cnot the dawning of a society about to rise, but\nthe fading remains of one sinking in storms, overthrown and shattered by\noverwhelming catastrophes.\u201d Humboldt and Niebuhr, quoted by Whately in\nhis lecture on the Origin of Civilisation, both protest as strongly as\nhe did himself against those who profess to find in the wreck of the\ncivilised and religious man his original representative,[50] and our\nbest authority in the science of religion assures us that Fetichism, far\nfrom being the initial of an upward course, marks the very last stage in\nthe downward course of religion.[51] It should content us, in the\npresent state of our knowledge, to find that humanity is capable both of\ndevelopment and degradation. Savagery and civilisation are not separated\nfrom each other by impassable barriers: savagery is at least a\npossibility to a civilised race;[52] civilisation is not beyond the\nreach of the savage. On the surface of the very highest civilisation\nmany things appear which are also to be seen in the lowest: and just as\nin the lowest organisms certain rudimentary traces are found of members\nwhich are perfected in organisms above them, so the very lowest savagery\nseems to exhibit an upward tendency. In the same way the very purest\nreligions have clinging to them traces of the lowest superstitions. Not\nin Buddhism only, but even in Christianity, we find forms of Animism and\nFetichism; but the question whether both religions first manifested\nthemselves in these lower forms, with which they are still partly\nincrusted, must not be held to be settled in the affirmative because\nthese traces of them exist. Instead of being survivals which they have\nnot yet sloughed off or outgrown, they may be parasitical growths\nindicating degradation and disease.\n\nThough the researches hitherto prosecuted have not resulted in the\ndiscovery of a law regulating the development of religion,[53] they all\npoint to a common religious faculty peculiar to man, and indicate that\nthe religious instinct is co-extensive with the human race. Nothing, it\nis true, in the nature of things forbids the discovery of tribes\nabsolutely without religion; but as matter of fact, no such have been\nfound. And as Tylor remarks, \u201cthose who assert the contrary disprove\ntheir theories by the facts which they allege in support of them.\u201d[54]\nNow, if we find in all sections of humanity, even far apart from each\nother, the same groping after an Author and Governor of our being, and\nthe same forecasting of our destiny, though in most contradictory, and,\nalas! often fearfully perverted ways, we may safely infer as a\nfundamental truth that humanity, though broken up into many fragments,\nis really an organic unity, and that the Christian dogma simply\nexpresses a scientific fact, \u201cthat God hath made of one all nations on\nthe face of the earth.\u201d\n\nIf the organic unity of humanity be granted, the organic unity of\nlanguage and of religion too would seem to be deducible from it as\nsimple corollaries. But we must be careful in defining wherein this\norganic unity consists. We may assume that in regard to language it does\nnot consist in a perfect primitive speech, broken up at later times into\nnumberless forms to be used richly and copiously by some civilised, but\nscantily by barbarous peoples.[55] In regard to religion it does not\nmean a complete compendium of truth supernaturally given to the fathers\nof the human race, from which, while all men have erred more or less,\nsome have fearfully fallen away. Such a view, though held generally\nonce, would be condemned by Christian theologians now as irreligious in\nprinciple, for it would seek for the roots of religion not in the nature\nof man, but in some external enactment, and would make religion, which\nis essentially spontaneous, to be something mechanical or compulsory in\naction.[56] The unity of language does not consist in a common\nvocabulary, but in a common faculty which all men have of expressing\ntheir feelings and their thoughts; and the unity of religion does not\nconsist in a number of fundamental beliefs which all men have in common;\nbut in the universal instinct to believe in, and reverence and obey, a\npower higher and better than ourselves. The faculty, the instinct in\neach case is one; yet it has been developed, if we are to use that word,\nin very different degrees. In some tribes the faculty of reckoning is so\nweak, that they have numerals only to five, and their vocabulary is so\npoor as to express only objects around them or their own sensuous wants.\nIn the same way in some peoples the religious faculty is so stunted as\nalmost to be amorphous. It exists as it were in embryo; in other peoples\nit perplexes us by the monstrosities in which it is expressed, but the\nmonstrosity, as we are reminded,[57] may mark a further growth which\nalso points onward to something more complete, and may be in itself a\ntype of things not seen as yet. Observation therefore seems to detect a\nreligious tendency in process of evolution, and if so, the only question\nis as to whether that tendency develops by its own inherent power, or by\na process of education intelligently conducted; in other words, whether\nman grows into his religion, or whether he is instructed in it by the\nrevelation of a mind higher than his own.\n\nThe New Testament writers, while proclaiming the organic unity of\nhumanity, proclaim as clearly that the organic development of religion\nproceeds under Divine control. The phrase \u201corganic development of\nreligion\u201d may only be a modern way of designating that long continuous\nprocess by which God reveals His mind and will for the education of the\nhuman race, which culminated when He \u201cwho at sundry times and in divers\nmanners,\u201d in various ways and in different measures, \u201cspake unto the\nfathers by the prophets,\u201d spoke unto us by His Son. Holy Scripture from\nfirst to last is consistent in its teaching as to this. It tells of a\nDivine Spirit not operative only in one race or in one part of the world\nduring a few centuries of its history, but striving with human souls\nalways and everywhere. It tells us that God never left the world without\na witness of Himself; it reminds us of prophets\u2014certainly not all of the\none nation\u2014who, trained to grasp and to proclaim moral and spiritual\ntruths, were sent to lead among their fellow-men lives so pure and\nunselfish as profoundly to affect the moral progress of the whole human\nrace. In a word, it reveals Deity not as apart from man and uninterested\nin him, but as an everlasting agent in human history,\u2014working out an\neternal purpose hid as a mystery from all ages, but now manifested in\nthe last times to us; the purpose of gathering together not only the\nscattered and alienated nations, but \u201call things which are in heaven and\nwhich are on earth in One,\u201d even in Christ.\n\nThe proclamation of this universality of the Divine purpose is one of\nthe chief distinctive characteristics of Christianity. Its canonical\nScriptures from beginning to end contradict the Jewish heresy, that God,\nthough He has made of one all nations, has only taken one or two under\nHis protection, and has no care for the rest. They tell us that God\ncares for the sparrow that flits over the heads of the most degraded of\nthe human race, and for the worm that crawls under their feet; and by\nimplication they warn us that to assert that He who has provided for the\nwants of the reptile and the bird has made no provision for the\nspiritual wants of those whom He is said to have made in His image, is\nblasphemy more heinous than ever heathen or atheist has uttered. \u201cThe\nsame Lord over all is rich in mercy unto all,\u201d and \u201cHe is not far from\nany one\u201d of them. He has left none \u201cwithout a witness.\u201d Though He has\ngiven some more than others, He has left no one without something. The\nreligious instinct in some He has specially trained and illuminated, not\nbecause He regards them as favourites\u2014for He is no respecter of\npersons\u2014but because through them He would work out His beneficent plan\nfor all. A few are indeed chosen, but that many may be called, and when\none individual or one people is selected and peculiarised, it is that\nthrough them all nations may be blessed.\n\nSt. Paul, quoting to the Athenians from one of their own poets, reminded\nthem that \u201cwe are all His offspring,\u201d and as such we are all divinely\ncared for. It is true that He does not deal with all after the same\nfashion, and His dealings will always be perplexing if we apply to them\nonly the standard of man and the measures of time; but if we remember\nthat \u201cHe is God, and not man,\u201d that \u201cHis years are throughout all\ngenerations,\u201d and that we \u201ccan see only a portion of His ways,\u201d we may\ntrust that by-and-by He will show that He has wasted neither His own\npatience nor His creatures\u2019 strength. For though He may not be dealing\nwith us after the same fashion, He is dealing with all toward the same\nblessed end, the end which He has revealed in Christ, through whom, and\nby whom, and in whom, all men and things are to be reconciled.\n\nWe can only judge of His purpose by what of it has been disclosed.\nHumanity, essentially and fundamentally one, exhibits most manifold\nvariety. While the unity of the race secures its sympathy with all its\nmembers, in its variety there is secured its indefinite expansion and\nprogress. No family could always keep together in one spot: the\ndifferences of disposition and character among its members demand their\nseparation as the condition of harmony. The family of man is a scattered\none, not merely to prevent jealousy and hostility between its members,\nbut to promote their education. The training of the race seems to\nproceed on principles somewhat analogous to those which we ourselves\nhave adopted in the education of our children. We never could hope to\neducate a large number of children of various ages and mental\ncapacities, by keeping them all in one class; so we break them up, and\nisolate, and grade them, and train some of them specially for the sake\nof all, that they may be their leaders and teachers. Even so, we find\nnations widely separated by natural barriers, that the characteristic\nenergies of each may be developed, till the time comes when one or other\nof them is needed for the elevation or reformation of the rest. That the\ndivision of nations and the separate training of nations entered deeply\ninto the counsels of Providence, may be learned by a glance at the\nconfiguration of the world, and the influences which are exercised by\nsoil and climate and circumstance upon any single nation. The blessed\neffect of this division may be seen by the slightest survey of history\nin the corrective, educative, redemptive influence which they have\nexercised upon each other.[58] And yet a survey of the history of the\nlast eighteen centuries will just as plainly indicate a Divine purpose\nof drawing the nations toward unity. Babel may mark the Divine purpose\nof the primeval economy, and Pentecost may be the sign of the present.\nThe wonder in the plain of Shinar was, that through diversity of speech\nmen were ceasing to understand each other. The wonder in Jerusalem was,\nthat men of the most widely separate nationalities heard, each in their\nown tongue, Christian evangelists proclaim the marvellous works of God.\nReligion, which up till the coming of Christ, had proved a repellent and\ndivisive force, began at that time to prove an attractive, harmonising,\nand transforming power. A new spring-tide dawned upon man\u2019s religious\nconceptions, and truths after which all had been groping, but which none\nhad attained to, emerged grandly into prominence. The Fatherhood of the\nOne living and eternal God, the Divine Son, in whom all men are\nbrethren, and the Holy Spirit, dealing with every man, working upon him\nand in him to conform him to the likeness of the highest and best, began\nto be revealed; and the more that revelation is accepted the more the\nreconciliation of the race advances.\n\nIt is not our interest, therefore, to sever Christianity from all\nconnection with the manifold forms in which the religious instinct and\nfaculty of man has found expression. If it could be proved that our\nreligion stands in no relation to anything which men in other religions\nthought or believed, it would be discovered defective, and we would have\nto abandon the claim that it is the universal religion of humanity. To\nassert that all previous religious ideas must be expunged as erroneous\nor false, so that an entirely new message might be written, is to\ncontradict the evangelical doctrine as to the nature of Christ and the\npurpose of His mission to the world. The New Testament writers assert\nthat Christ is the source of all the truth that was ever uttered, the\ninspirer of all the goodness that was ever seen, and that He is the\nstimulator and educator of man\u2019s every reaching out after God. The\nnoblest thinkers, it is true, failed to comprehend the truth, and their\nhighest religion failed to satisfy them; but we must not think of them\nas divinely permitted to fail to teach us the glory of Christ as the\nultimate revelation of God. Here, as in all similar cases, failure was\nrather a partial success; for by the effort to reach it the mind was\ntrained to receive and grasp the reality when it was disclosed. Some one\nhas said that all pre-Christian religions are just Christ partially\u2014very\nvery partially\u2014realised. Certainly they all point to Him, and but for\nHim they would have been abortive. They all suggest Him, in respect that\nthey each claim something to satisfy and unite them. Christianity thus\nproves itself Divine, not in being absolutely different from, nor even\nin being vastly superior to, but in the fact that it harmonises and\ncompletes them. Instead, therefore, of being scared by the resemblances\nto Christianity which we meet in other religions, we should be thankful\nfor their discovery. The early Apologists were not frightened when\nCelsus,[59] in the second century, submitted his alleged parallels to\nChristian doctrine and ethics, in order to prove that what Christians\ncalled revelation had already been attained by the unassisted efforts of\nheathen minds. Anticipating the language of the eighteenth century\nDeists, he proclaimed that \u201cChristianity was as old as creation.\u201d His\nparallels were often found to be defective, and many of them had only to\nbe looked at to show the immense superiority of the Christian\nquotations. Augustine turned them against himself, when he showed that\nto claim entire originality for Christianity, to deny the existence of\nany light before Christ came, and the possibility of any silent\nuniversal revelation through reason and conscience, was to contradict\nHis Messiahship. To ignore what God had done before, would have cut Him\noff from God and man. We would expect the Son of Man to confirm the\ndeepest convictions of the human race. We would expect the Son of God to\nclaim and utilise all the truth God\u2019s Spirit had spoken in ages past.\n\u201cSiquis vera loquitur, prior est quam ipse veritas? O Homo, attende\nChristum, non quando ad te venerit, sed quando te fecerit.\u201d[60]\n\nThe more of Christian doctrine and ethics we find in other religions,\nthe more Divine will Christianity appear. There is not a truth which has\nverified and sustained any other religion which is not found in\nChristianity, in fuller amount and in clearer form. Christianity differs\nfrom all other religions, not because it is a purer system of moral\ntruth, but because it is the manifestation of a Divine life, and because\nin that life it reveals the _power_ which alone can reconcile the\nknowing with the doing of duty. It professes only to have one original,\none distinctive element; but how much is involved in that profession?\nfor this original is Christ Himself, and all its doctrines and precepts\nare vital only because of their connection with Christ. Whole libraries\nof moral and doctrinal anthologies would not make up for the\nobliteration of His likeness from the religious consciousness of the\nworld: \u201cIt would be like consoling ourselves for the loss of the sun by\nthe kindling of ten thousand artificial lamps.\u201d[61] He confronts the\nages, as the One to whom all religions point, of whom all true prophets\nof the human race have unconsciously testified. They, like the Founder\nof this great religion, whose alleged resemblances will be found, as we\nexamine them, to be rather point-blank contradictions and contrasts to\nthe Christian doctrines and story, may have indeed been burning and\nshining lights, and men were willing for a season to rejoice in their\nlight. They were \u201cnot that Light,\u201d but as voices crying in the night for\nits arising they came to \u201cbear witness of it\u201d: the Light not of Asia\nonly, nor yet only of Europe, but the \u201cLight which lighteth every man\nthat cometh into the world.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  _Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung_, Pref. xiii.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Professor Max M\u00fcller, Gifford Lectures for 1888, on _Natural\n  Religion_, p. 11.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, Hibbert Lectures, 1881, \u201cOn the Origin and Growth\n  of Religion as illustrated by some points in the History of Indian\n  Buddhism,\u201d p. 10.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  Max M\u00fcller, _Introduction to the Science of Religion_, p. 38.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  John v. 39.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Baring Gould, _Origin and Development of Religious Belief_, vol. i. p.\n  121.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Westcott, _Victory of the Cross_, pp. 3, 6.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids estimates the number at five hundred millions\n  (_Handbook of Buddhism_, p. 6). The previous general estimate was\n  about four hundred millions; but Dr. A. J. Happer, missionary at\n  Canton for forty-five years, reduces this number to seventy-three\n  millions. Sir Monier Williams, in his recent book on Buddhism, quoting\n  Professor Legge\u2019s introduction to _Travels of Fa-Hian_, calculates the\n  number at one hundred millions, and claims for Christianity, with its\n  four hundred and thirty millions of adherents, the numerical\n  preponderance over all others.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, pp. 4, 7; Sir Monier Williams,\n  _Buddhism_, p. 171.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Dr. Caird, _Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion_, Croall\n  Lectures, 1878-9, pp. 82 _seq._; T. W. Rhys Davids, Hibbert Lectures,\n  1881, _On the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by\n  Buddhism_, p. 7.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  To draw proper inferences from statistics of the spread and supremacy\n  of a religion, we must first investigate the circumstances in which it\n  was propagated, and the intellectual and moral conditions of the\n  peoples whom it has converted. If it has gained only the belief of\n  _one_ section of the human race, it is evidently not entitled to rank\n  with another which proves itself influential among _all_ sections. A\n  religion dominant only over _inferior_ races is manifestly of less\n  value than another which, while satisfying the wants of the lowest and\n  most degraded peoples, is yet fulfilling the spiritual aspirations of\n  the _highest_. The first, if in any way related to the second, can\n  only be so as preparatory and prophetic of the mission which the\n  second alone can accomplish.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. i. Introd.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  K\u00f6ppen, _Die Religion des Buddha_, s. 231; J. Barthelemy\n  Saint-Hilaire, _Le Bouddha_, etc., pp. 78, 144, 181; Spence Hardy,\n  _Manual of Buddhism_, p. 358.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_, p. xv, Introd.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  Alabaster, _Modern Buddhist; in the Wheel of the Law_, p. 73; Tr\u00fcbner\n  and Co., 1871.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  5th April 1885. In the Madras _Times_ for October 29, 1886, a meeting\n  of the Society for the Propagation of True Religion is advertised, for\n  reading and exposition of the Bhagavad-Gita.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  _The Light of Asia_; _The Occult World_; _Esoteric Buddhism_;\n  _Theosophy of Archaic Religions_.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  _Parerga_, 3d ed. i. 59.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  _Westminster Review_, New Series, vol. xlviii. p. 469.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  Gerald Massey, _Light_, 16th June 1883.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Among these are reckoned Adam, Fohi, Laotze, Jesus, Mohammed, and\n  Jenghiz Kh\u0101n.\u2014Kinnealy, _Commentary on the Apocalypse_, p. 685.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  Pember, _Earth\u2019s Earlier Ages_, p. 326.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  H. H. Wilson, _Essays_, vol. ii. p. 376; Huc and Gabet, _Travel in\n  Tartary and Thibet_; translated by Mrs. p. Sinnett and W. Hazlitt.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  _Buddhist Birth Stories_, translated by T. W. Rhys Davids, vol. i\n  Introd. p. xli.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Foucher de Careil, _Hegel et Schopenhauer_, p. 306.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  _Vie de J\u00e9sus_, p. 98, 4th ed.; Paris, 1863.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  The Buddhists, as Professor Kuenen remarks, do not believe in angels,\n  and they have no _Messiah_. Tathagata, which Mr. de Bunsen translates\n  \u201cThe Coming One,\u201d _i.e._ Messiah, means \u201cOne _who has gone_\u201d or \u201chas\n  arrived at\u201d (Nirvana), like his predecessors. So Oldenberg, Rhys\n  Davids, Bigandet, Edkins, Rajendralal Mitra: see too Dr. Kellogg,\n  _Light of Asia and the Light of the World_, pp. 106, 107.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  See for these and other curious instances his article on \u201cThe\n  Obligations of the New Testament to Buddhism,\u201d _Nineteenth Century_,\n  Dec. 1880.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  _Natural and Universal Religions_, Hibbert Lectures, 1882.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  _Strom._ i. 15; Porphyry, _de Abstin._ iv. 17.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  Schwanbeck, _Megasthenes Indica_, p. 20; Lassen, _Ind.\n  Alterthumskunde_, 209; H. H. Wilson, _Essays_, ii. p. 314 _seq._;\n  Reinaud, _Relations Politiques et Commerciales de l\u2019Empire Romain avec\n  l\u2019Asie Central_, Paris, 1863; Priaulx, _Travels of Apollonius and the\n  Indian Embassies to Rome_, Paris, 1873.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  The question of the disciples in John ix. 2, concerning the man who\n  was born blind, \u201cWho did sin, this man or his parents, that he was\n  born blind?\u201d is alleged by Professor Seydel (_Das Evangelium von Jesu\n  in seinen Verh\u00e4ltnissen zu Buddha-Sage und Buddha-Lehre_) to indicate\n  an idea introduced into the Gospel from a foreign source, as the\n  doctrine of the pre-existence of souls was then unknown among the\n  Jews. Meyer in his critical and exegetical Handbook to St. John\u2019s\n  Gospel has shown that no one required to go outside the sphere of\n  Jewish thought for an explanation of this part of the disciples\u2019\n  question. In addition to his quotations from the Rabbinical books\n  illustrating this Jewish belief, Kuenen in his brief criticism of\n  Seydel adduces another from the Wisdom of Solomon viii. 20, as also\n  rendering the Buddhist derivation of this \u201cthought quite superfluous\u201d\n  (Hibbert Lectures, 1882, Appendix). Many instances of agreement in\n  thought and phraseology with the Gospels in passages in Buddhist works\n  are adduced by Dr. Kellogg, _Light of Asia, etc._, p. 137 _seq._, and\n  are satisfactorily accounted for by the similarity of circumstances\n  under which Buddha and the Saviour taught and the condition of men\n  which they both perceived and described.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  Lucius, _Die Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der Geschichte der\n  Askese_, Strassburg, 1880; also _Der Essenismus in seinem Verh\u00e4ltniss\n  zum Judenthum_, Strassburg, 1881.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  Dissertation in Commentary on _Colossians_, pp. 119, 157.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  _Jewish Wars_, ii. 8. 2-13; _Antiq._ xiii. 5. 9; xv. 10. 4, 5; xviii.\n  1. 2-6.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_, vol. i. p. 325.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Hibbert Lectures, 1882, p. 203.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, sein Leben, seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde_,\n  translated by W. Hoey, 1882, p. 6; Williams and Norgate.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Dr. Joseph Edkins, _Chinese Buddhism_, pp. 250, 343; Tr\u00fcbner, 1880.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  Fergusson, _Tree and Serpent Worship_, Introduction, p. 77.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  This must be read in the light of Professor Max M\u00fcller\u2019s _What can\n  India teach us?_\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  Luke viii. 46.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  Even Kuenen and Wellhausen assume as established that Monotheism shows\n  itself with unmistakable distinctness in Hebrew prophecies of the\n  eighth century B.C. (Hibbert Lectures, 1882, p. 119; _Theological\n  Review_, 1874, pp. 329, 336; _Encyc. Brit._, art. ISRAEL). Professor\n  H. Schultz maintains that Monotheism was established in Israel from\n  the time of Moses downward, among the leaders of thought at least.\n  (_Alttest. Theolog._, 2d ed., 1878, pp. 440, 457.)\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  _Light of Asia and Light of the World_, pp. 40, 102, 161.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  Weber, _Indische Studien_, vol. i. p. 400; J. Muir, _Sanskrit Texts_,\n  p. xxxiv; Lorinser, _Bhagavadgit\u00e2_, Appendix, translated by Muir in\n  _Ind. Antiq._ vol. ii. p. 283.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  _Buddha, sein Leben, seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde_, translated by Wm.\n  Hoey, 1882, p. 292.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  M\u00fcller, Gifford Lectures, _Natural Religion_, p. 169.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  Dr. Caird, _Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion_, p. 343 _seq._\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  Sir A. Mitchell, Rhind Lectures for 1876 and 1878, _The Past in the\n  Present_, pp. 207, 214; Edinburgh, Douglas, 1880.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  Whately, _Political Economy_, p. 68.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  Max M\u00fcller, Gifford Lectures, _Natural Religion_, p. 54.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  The savagery of a great city is in some aspects more awful than that\n  of Africa.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, Hibbert Lectures, p. 10.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, vol. i. p. 380.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  M\u00fcller, _Introduction to the Science of Religion_, p. 41; _Chips from\n  a German Workshop_, vol. ii. p. 254.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  Fairbairn, _Studies in Religion and Philosophy_, p. 13.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  Baring Gould, _Origin and Development of Religious Belief_, vol. i. p.\n  109.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  \u201cNations,\u201d says Professor Goldwin Smith, \u201credeem each other. They\n  preserve for each other principles, truths, and hopes, and aspirations\n  which, committed to the keeping of one, might become extinct for ever.\n  They thus not only raise each other again when fallen, but they\n  prevent each other from falling.\u201d\u2014_Lectures on the Study of History_,\n  delivered in Oxford 1859-61, p. 71.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  Celsus, quoting our Lord\u2019s saying, Matt. xix. 24, and the exhortation\n  to forgive our enemies, Matt. v. 43, 45, alleged they were transferred\n  and coarsely perverted from Plato, _de Legibus_, and _Crito_.\u2014Origen,\n  _contra Celsum_, Book vi. chaps. 15, 16, and Book vii. chap. 61.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  _Enarr. in Psalm._ cxl. 6. Clement of Alexandria regarded Greek\n  philosophy as a \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 or preparatory discipline for the reception\n  of Christian truth, _Strom._ vi. chap. 8, and as a step to something\n  higher, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, _Strom._ vi.\n  chap. 17.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Trench, Hulsean Lectures for 1846, p. 153.\n\n\n\n\n                              LECTURE II.\n    THE HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS OF BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY, AND THE\n            EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SCRIPTURES.\n\n\nIt should be an advantage to the study of Buddhism that even in its\norigin it confronts us as the religion of a people sufficiently advanced\nin civilisation to be able to formulate their metaphysical conceptions\nand present us with their religious beliefs organised in a system. Like\nChristianity it not only inherited but also produced a considerable and\nvery miscellaneous literature, whose contents throw valuable light upon\nthe past from which it emerged and upon the course which it followed,\nand like Christianity it has left its stamp on most of the institutions\nof the peoples among whom it was successfully propagated. When all these\nsources of information have been properly investigated, we may hope that\nthe story of the rise and progress of Buddhism in the East will be\nrevealed with something at least of the clearness with which the history\nof Christianity is disclosed by the literature and art of the West.\n\nTo trace, however, the dawn and spread of Buddhism with anything like\nhistorical accuracy for the first six or seven hundred years of its\ncourse, is a task as yet beyond the literary ability of the times. It is\ndoubtful whether the materials for such a work have as yet been\ncollected, and he would be a bold man who would claim for the task of\nsifting what has already been furnished more than an earnest beginning.\nNot even Saint-Hilaire would now repeat the assertion so confidently\nmade thirty years ago,[62] that \u201cno new discoveries can change our\nconclusions regarding it\u201d; for during the past generation the effect of\nfuller information has been not only to modify, but in several instances\nto revolutionise the theories formed concerning it. Discoveries are\nmultiplying every year; and, though the knowledge thus acquired serves\noften more to reveal difficulties than to solve them, we may be thankful\nthat the examination of them is engaging the attention of the highest\norder of scholarship, and hopeful, yea, even confident that since so\nmany of the ablest and most patient minds are turned in this direction,\nthe aggregate of progress will speedily be immense.\n\nAll that we know of Buddhism, and all that we are likely to know of it,\nis to be gathered from its own Scriptures; and a comparison of these\nwith the Christian Scriptures reveals at the very outset a difference\namounting to a vast contrast between them. The original Scriptures of\nChristianity have been before the tribunal of the world\u2019s keenest and\nmost hostile criticism for 1800 years; but we are only now beginning to\nmake the acquaintance of the Scriptures of Buddhism, which have hardly\nbeen subjected to any cross-questioning worthy of the name. Those who\nhave ventured to assail have only published their inability to\nunderstand them, and those most competent to criticise may be pardoned\nif they handle tenderly the fragments which they are collecting and\ntranslating for our use. The services which they are thus rendering to\nreligion as well as to science are very great. Previously we had only\nanthologies extracted often without reference to date or authorship or\nconnection to judge from, but now these learned pundits are furnishing\nus with books containing not only the wisdom and beauties of Eastern\nliterature, but its follies and blemishes as well. Omitting only what is\nobscene and offensive to the moral sense,[63] they are giving us\nspecimens of several strata of Oriental thought and belief, vertically\nand thoroughly cut, from which a correct understanding of the essential\nfeatures of this very peculiar religion may with considerable\nprobability be ascertained.\n\nOnly a portion of the Buddhist Scriptures are as yet available, and\nthese we are certainly not at liberty to place side by side as of equal\nevidential value with the contents of the New Testament. It is said that\ntwo thousand manuscripts of the New Testament, or of portions of it,\nhave been discovered, several of which are of great antiquity, and\nnotwithstanding the immense number of various readings on points of\ndetail, the text of the oldest corresponds substantially with that of\nthe books as we have them to-day. We are informed, however, on the best\nauthority, that \u201call Indian manuscripts are comparatively modern, that\nno manuscript written one thousand years ago is now existent in India,\nand that it is almost impossible to find one written five hundred years\nago; for most manuscripts which claim to be of that date are merely\ncopies of old ones, the dates of which are repeated by the\ncopyists.\u201d[64] It is admitted, moreover, that the literary honesty of\nthese Indian translators and copyists is very questionable, that the\nbooks of the Buddhists have undergone wholesale textual alterations,\nthat none of the Sanskrit works as yet known to us are unadulterated\nspecimens of transmitted doctrines, that the oldest and most reliable\nauthorities for the life of Buddha exaggerate greatly events which are\nsaid to have happened, and ascribe to him long discourses of which the\nwriters themselves were the composers.[65] In respect, therefore, of\nliterary accuracy and faithfulness of purpose, these old compilers and\nre-editors of the Buddhist books are far below the standard which\ncriticism has inexorably applied to the versionists of the Christian\nScriptures.\n\nThe faithfulness of our English versions is vouched for by the names of\nthe translators, and yet they admit that their translations are only\napproximations.[66] From the very nature of the case they must be so.\nThe East is very far distant from the West; its ways are not our ways;\nits thoughts are not our thoughts. Some one has said that \u201cthe _Iliad_\nis separated from the _Rig Veda_ by an interval of several\ncivilisations\u201d; and if so, how vast must be the gulf separating Vedic\nand even Buddhist metaphysicians from the British philosopher of to-day!\nIt is simply impossible for the most impartial translator to put himself\nin the place of the ancient Indian sage, and to prevent his own\npreconceptions from insinuating themselves among the data with which he\nhas to deal. He has to express, as we have been reminded, \u201ca lower order\nof ideas in a higher order of terms, and use words suggesting a wealth\nof analysis and association quite foreign to the thought to be\nreproduced. Translation from a lower to a higher language is thus a\nprocess of elevation.\u201d[67] In reading these translations and the books\nfounded upon them, we have constantly to guard against giving to such\nterms as \u201csin,\u201d \u201clust,\u201d \u201csalvation,\u201d \u201claw,\u201d \u201cchurch,\u201d and many others,\nour Christian conceptions of them. We are often perplexed whether the\nphrases employed, and even the very titles of the treatises, be really\nthe equivalents of the ancient texts and titles, or nineteenth century\nconceptions of what they may be made to mean. A European scholar\ninheriting the results of ages of Christian culture may be more likely\nto interpret the reach of an old Buddhist expression than the monk who\nfirst used it; but he is always in danger of confounding that reach with\nhis own firm grasp of truth, and of expressing his conceptions by\nphraseology which, if it could be explained to the ancient, would be\nrejected by him as inconsistent with his original meaning.\n\nAnother strong contrast between the two sets of scriptures emerges when\nwe attempt to fix the dates at which the earliest Buddhist works were\nproduced. The New Testament is admitted by authorities who cannot be\naccused of prejudice in favour of Christianity and even by antichristian\ncritics, to contain the actual writings of some of the original\ndisciples of Jesus. The very latest of the books which compose it was in\ncirculation within a century after His death, while the great bulk of\nthem were accepted before half a century had passed as the testimonies\nof those who were eye-witnesses of the rise of our religion.[68] M.\nRenan admits that the three Synoptical Gospels are the \u201ctender\nremembrances and simple narratives of the first and second generations\nof Christians, written in substantially their present form by the men\nwhose names they bear.\u201d[69] The epistle of St. James and several of the\nepistles of St. Paul are almost now unanimously accepted as the products\nof the first generation. Mons. E. Burnouf therefore may safely aver that\n\u201cthe history of Christian doctrine and worship bears the crown over all\nothers in respect that its records are complete.\u201d[70] What of these\nrecords are comprised in the New Testament, though tried by the severest\nof tests, continues to-day as they were eighteen centuries ago delivered\nto the Church. Though the various readings in the mss. are said to be\ncounted by 200,000, hardly one of them can be said to affect a\nfundamental doctrinal or historical statement; and so outstanding and\ndistinct is their canonical character that it requires no external\nauthority, but only comparison with them, to disclose what of early\nChristian literature is to be regarded as apocryphal.\n\nThe evidence on which Orientalists have to rely in fixing the date of\nthe Buddhist scriptures is confessedly such \u201cthat we must not be\nsurprised if those who are accustomed to test historical and\nchronological evidence in reference to Greece and Rome declined to be\nconvinced by it.\u201d[71] For centuries after the death of Buddha his\nfollowers assure us that they had no written books constituting their\nrules of faith and manners. The earliest written collection of which in\ntheir own records we have any historical trace is that of Ceylon, and\nall that can be said of it is \u201cthat there is nothing improbable\u201d that\npart of it may have been reduced to writing about the first century\nB.C., but the whole was only fixed about 420 A.D. The Nepaulese\ncollection is said to date only from the first Christian century; but it\nis not alleged that the whole of the works now in it were even then in\nexistence. According to their own tradition, they had no written\nbiography of Buddha till about the first century of our era, and no one\nwho has examined that narrative or read the opinions expressed by\nOrientalists as to the date when it was produced\u2014opinions so divergent\nas to indicate a difference of several centuries\u2014would ever dream of\nemploying it as evidence of what is alleged in it to have happened. It\nis simply impossible, therefore, to regard the Buddhist\u2019s Pitakas as if\nthey were of similar authoritative value with the New Testament, for, in\nfact, in respect of canonical worth they do not deserve to be ranked\nwith much of our later patristic literature.\n\nA very high antiquity, however, is claimed by Buddhists for these\ncollections. According to the Dipavanso, their earliest available\nchronicle, dating only from the fifth century A.D., the doctrines orally\ncommunicated by Buddha to his disciples were by them immediately after\nhis death revised and classified under the three divisions of Vinaya,\nAbhidharma, and Sutta, in which they have always since then been\npreserved. This collection having passed through the crucible of a\ncouncil held at Vaisali a hundred years later, was fixed as canonical at\nanother held in the reign of Asoka about 242 B.C. It is urged that a\ncanon, to be authoritative, does not require to be written, and that\nIndians claim for one orally transmitted higher authority than for one\ntranscribed. The art of writing was probably unknown in India in\nBuddha\u2019s time, and so, thrown back upon their resources, memory was by\nthe Indians cultivated to an extent which enabled them to dispense with\nmethods deemed by nearly all other peoples to be essential to accuracy.\nEminent Orientalists therefore, while regarding the account of the first\ncouncil as apocryphal, are yet inclined to admit\u2014from the identity of\nthe threefold division in all the schools that have been tested, from\nthe similarity of the titles of the contents of all the various\ncollections, and especially from the quality of the writings\nthemselves\u2014that the tradition recorded in the Dipavanso is well founded,\nand that considerable portions of the Vinaya and Sutta literature may\ndate from a hundred years after the death of Buddha.\n\nIn assuming so much, however, these scholars by no means believe that\nthey have found in these texts the actual teaching of Buddha in an\nunadulterated condition. While not thinking it possible to impugn the\nsubstantial accuracy of the Vinaya texts, though given in Pali\ntranslations of the lost dialect in which they were originally preached,\nthey tell us that the oldest of the Sutta texts are \u201cnot his teachings\nnor the teachings of his immediate disciples, who could not have spoken\nof him in the manner in which he is there described. They are only\nfounded on his teachings, and record existing beliefs as to the\ndoctrines which he actually taught.\u201d[72] For \u201cthe fundamental and\noriginal doctrines they may be accepted as fairly trustworthy\nauthorities,\u201d but for the facts of his life they are even at the best\nvery questionable guides. Nearer to the origin of Buddhism and of the\nperson of its founder we are not likely to get than in the book entitled\nby its translator the Sutta of the Great Decease; but he confesses that\neven in it we are standing on anything but solid ground, and that we are\nonly able to catch a distant and most uncertain glimpse of the figure of\nthe great Teacher as he comes out at rare intervals from the mist of\nlegends which, designed to adorn and magnify, have in reality diminished\nand obscured his real personality.\n\nFor our knowledge of Buddhism, therefore, we have for centuries only\noral traditions to rely upon. Of these traditions only a portion may be\ntraced approximately to the times of Buddha, and of the fragments which\ncan possibly be traced not one contains a narrative nor any historical\nreference to passing events. On the contrary, our knowledge of the\norigin of Christianity is derived not from fragments of oral tradition,\nbut from a set of canonical writings, many of them traceable close to\nthe generation that witnessed Christ\u2019s death, in which the story of His\nministry is set in historical relation to the age in which He appeared,\nand His peculiar doctrines are so fixed that any addition to them is at\nonce recognised as spurious. Between the extremes of criticism as to the\nperiod covered by the life of Christ there is a difference of only half\na dozen years; but there is a difference in Buddhist traditions of more\nthan a thousand years as to the date of Buddha\u2019s birth, and even\nEuropean scholars, after carefully sifting traditions and writings, have\nonly been able approximately to fix dates for his death ranging over a\nperiod of 175 years.[73]\n\nFor historical accuracy, therefore, the traditions are as worthless as\nthey are for any photographic presentation of the various persons who\nfigure in them. In truth we have in them neither chronology nor\nbiography. Events and actors are equally indistinct; we have only a\nbackground without any perspective, and pasteboard puppets projected\nagainst it which might be designated by any name whatever. Even in\nrespect of transmission of doctrine, oral tradition was found very early\nto have failed. The reason given in their chronicles for resorting to\nwriting is confession sufficient that they considered that method of\npreserving the deposit of the faith a safer one.[74] So divergent had\nthe renderings and so corrupt had the texts become\u2014\u201cfor even the monks\nof the great council were blamed for turning the religion upside down,\nfor distorting the sense and teaching of the five Nikayas, for casting\naside that Sutta and Vinaya, and making imitations of them changing this\nto that[75]\u2014that the profoundly wise priests, foreseeing the perdition\nof the people (from the perversion of the doctrines), and in order that\nthe religion might endure for ages, wrote the same in books.\u201d[76] Before\nthis time the many schisms which had arisen were powerful illustrations\nof the evils which the \u201cprofoundly wise\u201d transcribers deplored, and of\nthat falling away from the original creed which this religion had\nalready suffered for lack of a secured basis of faith.[77]\n\nFor the want of an authoritative standard told very severely against the\nearly history of Buddhism. Its rapid and widespread extension was due,\nnot so much to the natural development of its own principles as to its\nassimilation of the external and foreign influences with which it came\nin contact. Its advance was the result more of compromise than of\nconquest.[78] It welcomed or tolerated, at least it could not or did not\ndefend itself against the introduction of many parasitical germs which\nwere destined to arrest its growth and pass into its life. As the ivy\ncovers and adorns the oak only to suck away with its million mouths its\nstrength, so the popular beliefs which Buddhism incorporated from\nwithout, as well as the defections from the original teaching which took\nplace within it, produced very soon upon it alterations so extensive\nthat its founder would have disclaimed or would have been really unable\nto recognise it as his own.\n\nNo temptation happened to Buddhism, however, but such as is common to\nall the higher religions. As far as observation and experience go, the\nlower types of religion continue unchanged; but those that confront us\nupon a higher level are in a perpetual flux, in which change does not\nalways indicate progress. Instead of tracing their path by the\nsuperstitions which they have outgrown, their course may be indicated by\nthose which they have incorporated. Man, in his exodus of faith, is\nalways tempted to go back to the condition from which he has emerged, or\nto fall away to the religions by which he is surrounded. Mosaism and\nChristianity had to pass through this trial, and certainly they did not\npass through it unscathed. They suffered from the corruption of popular\nsuperstitions and of Pagan rites, all of which, as in the case of\nBuddhism, were defended by an appeal to tradition. Just as every\nBuddhist innovator was ready with some forgotten saying or Sutta alleged\nto have been delivered by the \u201cBlessed One,\u201d sometimes miraculously\npreserved through the ages till the necessity for the revelation arose,\nso the Popes and the Fathers of Christendom were never at a loss for\nauthorities when, professing to develop and define, they in reality were\nadding to the faith and the worship and the claims of the Church.\n\nBut Christianity from the very earliest possessed what Buddhism for a\nlong period lacked. In its canonical writings it conserved not only a\ncheck upon this apostasy, but a security for reformation. Mechanical\nthough it seems, there was a providence in the early committal to\nwriting of such books as compose our Bibles. In the fact that their\nsuccessive disclosures of truth were thus registered there is more\nsignificance than at first appears. It is admitted by all that man\u2019s\nprogress depends in no small degree on his ability to secure and hand\ndown the treasures of his wisdom and experience. The art of writing is\nthus recognised to be one of the most moving powers in the world. The\nnations that have depended upon it for the transmission of knowledge\ninherited or acquired, have certainly made more progress in religion and\ncivilisation than those that have neglected or despised it. It is\nsignificant that the writers of the Bible have all recognised this\ncondition of human progress, and that many of them have represented\nthemselves as instructed by the Divine authority, from whom they profess\nto have received their communications, to make them permanent in popular\nlanguage and in plain written form.[79]\n\nIn the history of the Hebrews there is not a single recorded instance of\nreligious reformation in which the law and the testimony, or the scrolls\nof the prophets, did not play an important part. In like manner the New\nTestament, which embodies the ideals and perpetuates the standard which\nis to regulate its course, not only saved Christianity from the perils\nwhich threatened its earliest spread, but has often rescued it from the\ndegradation into which it has fallen. Canonical books may only give, as\nit has been said, \u201cthe reflected image of the real doctrines of the\nfounder of a religion, an image always blurred and distorted by the\nmedium through which it has to pass\u201d;[80] but in the case of the New\nTestament the Church has never developed, or thought it possible to\ndevelop, a purer reflection. Advance as it may, the Church never can\noutgrow the ideals of its youth, and change what it pleases, it never\ncan improve them. Whenever the Church assumed supremacy over its law,\nand whenever tradition superseded its testimony, it yielded to the\ndisintegrating influences of heathenism. It was rapidly lapsing into\npolytheism when Mohammed rose with a spurious and mutilated version of\nthe Scriptures to recall it to the witness of true Scriptures to the\nunity and sovereignty of God. Later on, when sinking through formalism\ninto superstition and sorcery almost as degrading as any Indian, Luther,\nby the re-discovery of the Greek Testament, brought about a reformation\nwhich not only saved Europe, but has created a new Western and Southern\nworld. In every revival and every advance which has taken place since\nthen there may be traced, directly or indirectly, the regenerative\ninfluences of the Christian originals. On its human side the Christian\nChurch will always be in danger of losing its pure conceptions and noble\naims in grosser forms of belief and in lower ambitions; but high over\nall its degradation towers in its early Scriptures the majesty and\nspirituality of its Divine authority, and we have only to look up to be\nfirst convicted, then attracted and redeemed. The purest sections of the\nChristian Church, the surest and the first to outgrow all unworthy\nexpressions of Christianity, are those which adhere most closely to the\noriginal rule of faith and worship. It is quite possible that we \u201cmay be\nonly too apt to make a fetich of our sacred books\u201d;[81] but somehow the\nChristian communities that most revere their sacred books show that they\nare least likely to fall into this danger. The more we obey the\nScriptures, the less likely are we to idolise them. The New Testament,\nso far from attaching any mystical or talismanic value to its contents,\ntells us that the letter killeth, and the spirit alone giveth life. It\nis otherwise with the Buddhist Tripitaka. Its authors claim meritorious\nefficacy not only for the repetition of its sentences, but for the very\nsound of its words, \u201cas if they were capable of elevating every one who\nhears them to heavenly abodes in future existence.\u201d Sir Monier Williams\nhas illustrated this by a legend long current, not in northern Buddhist\ncountries, but in Ceylon, where a purer Buddhism prevails. According to\nit, two monks were heard by five hundred bats reciting in a cave the law\nof Buddha, and they by merely hearing gained such merit that in death\nthey were re-born as men, and ultimately through successive re-births\nwere raised to the fellowship of the gods.[82] Of course this is simply\na legend, a thing of hay or straw that has got mixed with the purer\nprimitive faith; but it indicates that the course of the current flows\nin quite an opposite direction from the faith which allows itself to be\ndominated and guided by the canon of Holy Scriptures.\n\nThe quality of the contents of the two sets of writings is not under\ndiscussion, but we cannot help remarking one characteristic of the\nChristian Scriptures which is not likely to emerge in our longest\nacquaintance with the Buddhist books. No one ever expects that the\ngenuineness of the contents of the Tripitaka will ever be discussed with\nanything like the intensity and acerbity with which we have discussed\nthe genuineness of the books of the Bible. The long and fierce\ncontendings that have been waged over each portion of the Gospels will\nnever take place over any of the Suttas. We have been working for five\ncenturies to secure a proper English translation of the Holy Bible, and\nwe are not satisfied with it yet: does any one expect a similar\nexpenditure of labour to secure a proper version of the Tripitaka? It is\npossible that scholarship will by and by exhaust this particular field\nof Oriental research, and \u201chaving catalogued its discoveries will put\nthem aside and proceed to more interesting studies\u201d; but though men have\nquarrelled about and questioned the Holy Scriptures for eighteen\ncenturies they are not likely to come to a term of their hostility or\ncuriosity. The ceaseless endeavour to disprove, refute, shows that we\ncannot get rid of them. There must be something either in the history of\ntheir production or the quality of their contents, or the range of their\ninfluence, which separates them from all sacred books of the type of the\nBuddhist Tripitaka. Certainly we cannot conceive it possible that any of\nthese so-called Bibles of other religions will ever among any civilised\npeople supplant the Christian Bible. \u201cOne chapter of Isaiah,\u201d says\nQuinet,[83] \u201chas more in it than a whole Republic of Plato.\u201d One Psalm\nof David will outweigh all the religious lore of the Vedas. One sentence\nof Moses, \u201cThe Lord our God is one Lord: I the Lord am holy,\u201d is worth\nall the speculations of the devout and learned authors of the\nUpanishads. Not that the Republic, the Vedas, the Upanishads are to be\ndespised. On the contrary, the more they are studied the more likely is\nthe Bible to be revered, for the truth that is in them is only prophetic\nof truth which could not then be revealed and received. We may outlive\nand outgrow the teaching of these wise ancients, but we have not yet\ntranscended the originals of Christianity, and it is not at all likely\nthat we ever shall. There is an end to the perfection of all other\nsystems, but here is \u201ca commandment exceeding broad,\u201d \u201cwhose line has\ngone through all the earth, and its word to the end of the world.\u201d\n\nFrom this slight notice of the literature which Buddhism has produced\nlet us proceed to glance at the literature which it inherited, with the\nview of catching a glimpse of the conditions out of which it arose. As\nwith man\u2019s language, so is it with his other distinctive birthright: we\ncan only understand a religion when we have ascertained its antecedents.\nChristianity emerged from a previous religion of which it professed to\nbe the complement. Our Lord appeared among a people whose spiritual\nhistory extended over several thousand years. They had a sacred canon,\nprofessing to register the successive Divine revelations made to their\nancestors, which was fixed as we have it now at least two, and perhaps\nmore, centuries before He came. Instead of breaking with the past He\nacknowledged and appropriated it; instead of abrogating their law, He\nfulfilled it; instead of disowning their prophets He claimed them as His\nwitnesses. In prosecuting His mission He brought upon Himself the fierce\nantagonism of the existing Church, whose leaders in less than three\nyears succeeded in having Him crucified; but His constant appeal was to\ntheir ever-venerated Scriptures. His apostles again record and expound\nthe incidents of His ministry and His death as realising the\npre-intimations of their ancient rites, and as fulfilling all their\nprophecies; and all along faith in the Divine origin of Christianity is\nnever supposed to be weakened but to be greatly confirmed by an appeal\nto the religion which it annulled and supplanted.\n\nNow Buddhism grew out of Brahmanism, but however divergent their\nrelations eventually became, it was originally accepted as a natural\nconsequence of it. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, there was for long\nno trace of serious antagonism between the Brahmans and many generations\nof the successors of Buddha. Brahmans formed a considerable portion of\nhis followers, and in regard to his teaching, his doctrines, where not\nidentical, were not likely to offend them. St. Paul scandalised the\nPharisees by preaching that outward Jewish connection marked by the seal\nof circumcision profited nothing, but long before Buddha\u2019s time Brahman\nteachers had declared, as he did, to that most exclusive of the Indian\nelect, that the true Brahman was not a person born within the sacred\ncaste, but only the thoughtful and self-controlled man:[84] that a bad\nmind and wicked deeds are what defile a man, and that no outward\nobservances can purify him.[85] Buddha has been designated as the best\nand wisest and greatest of Hindus; \u201ca reformer of Hinduism who ignored\nits superstitions and follies, and sought to elevate and refine its\ndogmas.\u201d[86] It is now considered very questionable whether the\ndifference between the two systems ever grew into hostility involving\npersecution of the new religion by the old. The two streams of Hindu\nbelief seem for long in their course in India to have flowed peaceably\nside by side, and if Buddhism eventually disappeared from India as a\nseparate and distinct system, it was not altogether because it was\ncrushed by persecution, but because it returned to enrich and modify the\nreligion from which it originally parted.[87]\n\nBuddhism was thus an offspring of Brahmanism, but Brahmanism was itself\nthe product of a religion older still. Behind Buddhism lies a great and\nundefined past, a past with no history in the proper sense of the word,\nand absolutely without chronology; but out of this vast and nebulous era\nthere has been extracted a rich traditional literature, and Oriental\nscholars working on principles similar to those by which geologic\nperiods are determined,[88] are endeavouring by an examination of the\nvarious civilisations reflected in that literature to establish the\nleading stages in the growth of prehistoric Indian thought. The sacred\nbooks of India disclose sufficiently in outline the social and religious\nprogress of the people from a period of great antiquity. No one can tell\nwhen the oldest fragments of them were originally composed, but some of\nthem are said to have been in circulation among the Aryans when one\nimmigrant contingent of them had arrived at the confluence of Jumna with\nthe Ganges,[89] and if so, they image for us the life and beliefs of a\npeople who must have been contemporaries with Moses some fifteen\ncenturies at latest before the coming of Christ.\n\nIt is now asserted that this Aryan immigration had been preceded from\nthe same quarter by an earlier one, in a past so very remote that the\nIndians had lost completely the memory of it, and that by the time this\nsecond wave had reached the north-west Gangetic tracts, the first had\npushed its way as far east as the delta, where first vanquishing it\nfinally amalgamated with the aboriginal tribes. It is supposed that from\nout of this earliest section arose the natural ancestors of Buddha,\nwhile in the second and intellectually superior section we must look for\nthe religious teachers from whom his spiritual lineage is to be\ntraced.[90] For with them were introduced the Vedas, revealing the\nearliest forms of civilisation and religion in that great section of the\nhuman family to which we ourselves belong. We see pictured in the\nRig-Veda a people who, in complexion, manner, and rites, were at first\nas distinct from the native Indian races as were the Israelites from\nthose of Canaan. Patriarchal in their institutions, pastoral or\nagricultural in their pursuits, they confront us as a primitive but\ncertainly not a barbarous folk. Nurtured by the invigorating climate and\nmagnificent scenery of an ancestral home \u201con the very roof of the\nworld,\u201d they had reached a social condition in which, in a language\nfitly called \u201cpolished,\u201d or \u201ccarefully made\u201d (Sanskrita), they were as\nfitly called \u201cAryan\u201d or \u201cnoble.\u201d They practised the arts of Jabal and\nJubal, venerated their sages and poets, and called their wives and\ndaughters by names of beauty and grace like that of Naamah. Their\nreligion, though polytheistic, was not inspired by dread of evil spirits\nor awe of ancestral shades, but by wonder of the world around them and\ntheir own awakening instincts. Man in these ancient fragments, as in the\nfirst pages of our Bible, is evidently a creature transcending the\nsavage, and made in a diviner image than the type from which it is\nmaintained he must have sprung. Instead of consorting with or\nworshipping the animals, he exercises dominion over them; he questions\nhimself and the heavens and the earth concerning their origin and\nauthor, and with some divine authentic instinct which he has never lost,\nhe seems to be growing into the feeling that not only the trinity of\nsupernatural powers which he worshipped, but his very self, are the\nchildren of some primordial and eternal Dyaus, the father of all.\n\nWhile the earliest light that falls upon our ancestors reveals them as a\nreligious people, whose worship, simple and rudimentary as it was,\nindicated a sense of inferiority, and also, as one who ought to know\ninforms us, \u201csome sense of flaw in the relationship, some concept of sin\nand guilt,\u201d[91] to the deities worshipped, it is to be noted that gods\nand men were felt to be too much akin to allow of spiritual aspiration,\nor of high moral significance in man\u2019s religious acts. The ethical or\nrather spiritual elements so vital to the Biblical conceptions of\nreligion may not be quite foreign to the earliest Veda, but they are\nscantily, if at all, represented in it. No prayer can be said to have\never been directed to obtain forgiveness, or growth in goodness, in the\nBible sense. The sinner was for the most part only a defaulter in\nrespect of offerings, and his guilt was that of a person who refused to\nrender homage. That the gods might be able to watch over and enrich\nmankind, they had to be fed and sustained. The worshipper was thus in a\ncertain degree necessary to the worshipped. The sense of submissive\ngratitude to the Deity which meets us in the earliest fragments of the\nBible is not expressed, for religion was conceived of as a kind of\nexchange in which men purchased a right to divine help by service\nrendered, and \u201ceach man satisfied his higher instinct according to his\nown conception of the character of the being on whose favour his welfare\nwas thought to depend.\u201d[92]\n\nCenturies later, in another strata of sacred literature, composed in\nprose, dogmatic and liturgic in character, and designated Brahmanas,[93]\nwe behold the same branch of the Aryan family in a further stage of\ntheir history. Their patriarchal age has vanished, and their heroic\nseems passing into the aristocratic and hierarchic. Caste has appeared\nas the invariable attendant upon conquest, when the victor is separated\nfrom the vanquished by language, complexion, and religion. It is not so\nmuch caste, however, in the ordinary sense of the word, as class,\nsternly prohibiting marriage not only with the aboriginal tribes, but\nbetween persons of unequal rank, and anticipating the organisation of\nEuropean society in the middle ages. In the nobles, who were subordinate\nonly to the Church, the burghers or merchants socially distinct from and\ninferior to the nobles, and in the villeins or serfs of the conquered\nterritories, we have an exact parallel to the old Indian system, in\nwhich Sudra, Vaisya, Kshatrya, all formed steps in a social pyramid, on\nthe top of which the Brahman was throned.[94]\n\nThus early in the history of the Indian people emerged that sacerdotal\ninstitution which was to exercise so powerful and eventually so sinister\nan influence upon their religious progress. In Vedic times the father of\nthe family and the rajah of the clan were the celebrants of the\nreligious rites, but as life became more complicated ceremonies became\nmore laborious, and men who had preserved the knowledge of the old\nhymns, and the religious formularies which had died out from the common\npeople, gradually took the rajah\u2019s place. As thought widened, men\nrefused to be satisfied with guardian deities that could be fed with\nrice and butter. The sense of human law reflected itself in the\nconception of divine rulers governing men, and penalties inflicted by\nman for wrong-doing suggested expiation for the infringed laws of deity.\nThis idea of sacrifice, of which there is said to be no trace in the\nflesh feasts of earlier times, becomes prominent in the offerings of the\nperiod. \u201cThe shedding of blood, the burning of a limb of the victim in\nthe fire, by some at least was believed to atone for transgression, and\nit is probable that at one time the religious instinct expressed itself\nin human sacrifice.[95]\u201d In any case, the development of the idea of the\ngreat efficacy of sacrifice as a means of compelling the gods to do the\nwill of the worshipper\u2014yea, of elevating the worshipper to their\nprivileges and rank,\u2014must soon have had the effect of making a\npriesthood, at first only helpful, to be necessary as the sole agents\nbetween man and deity. By preserving the memory of what had faded from\nthe vulgar, by transmitting to their families a lore which became the\nmore sacred the more it was forgotten, the professional liturgists or\nsacrificers, at first satirised by the poets as was the Romish friar by\nthe minstrel in the middle ages, imperceptibly grew into an order whose\nprivileges were more exclusive and whose pretensions were higher than\nwere ever asserted in Israel by the descendants of Aaron. Among the\nHebrews the priesthood was never allowed to gain complete ascendency.\nIts representatives were subordinated to the king, who was the fountain\nof all law, and they were kept in check by the prophets as the ministers\nof Divine revelation; but the Brahmans came to be regarded as not only\nthe guardians of religion, but the teachers of all knowledge and the\nsource of all authority. They owned no superior, were subject to no law\nin the state: each one was a pope in himself, more independent of the\ncrown and the commonwealth than a Christian pope ever pretended to be,\nand had a faith in his personal infallibility which no Christian pope\naffected to have. In India there resulted from the ascendency all the\nevils that were manifested in Judaism and in Latin Christianity; and in\nIndia far worse results were produced. For, left to themselves as\nsuperior beings apart from the actual world, who never could err, they\ngave their minds that licence which too often in the history of thought\nhas been confounded with liberty, and, as always happens when\nself-restraint is disregarded, the result in this instance was the\nproduction, not of a system of philosophy, but a crude conglomerate of\nincongruous phantasies more resembling a chaos than a cosmos.[96]\n\nLet us not suppose that the Brahmans were originally, or even\neventually, the vain and greedy and self-seeking bigots which the name\nunfortunately suggests to a European. They gained the ascendency because\nthey cultivated the power to rise; they represent what many are inclined\nto revere as the ideal aristocracy, that of Intellect. They were not\nignorant priests, but learned philosophers, from whom sprung again and\nagain the reformers who headed the revolt from an overdone ritual, and\nfrom a faith which expressed itself wholly in metaphysical speculations.\nBy them were excogitated the Upanishads and the laws of Manu, two of the\nmost wonderful literary productions of mankind. From there too came the\ngreat epic poems of the R\u0101m\u0101yana and the Mah\u0101bh\u0101rata, poems in some\nrespects equal to the Homeric, and in cleverness of purpose, which is\nsaid to be that of arresting the progress of Buddhism, equalling\nanything which the Society of Jesus ever produced to counteract the\nReformation. In its complexity and adaptability and many-sidedness\nBrahmanism is unrivalled by any human system, and the men who first gave\nit expression and directed its earliest movements must rank among the\nmost original and daring of thinkers.\n\nBut they were Indians living in the period beginning about the tenth\ncentury B.C., in a land as completely cut off from the rest of the world\nas they were severed from the practical life of their countrymen. They\nhad the same earnest and inquisitive mind which their westward-moving\nkinsmen had inherited with them from their trans-Himalayan ancestors,\nbut in them it had to work out its advances in more adverse conditions.\nThe tribes that went westward marched along the uplands, in zones of\nclimate and through scenery and conditions stimulating effort, both\nmental and physical. Consequently they went on improving their beliefs,\ntill they apprehended the truth which lies at the base of all true\nsystems of faith, the immortality of the soul, and developed a\nphilosophy which represents man\u2019s most successful attempt to grasp that\ndivine unity after which man in his polytheism is ever feeling. It was\notherwise with the branch that went southwards. They had to live under\nphysical conditions not conducive to energy, under burning skies which\nrepressed, and on soils which rendered industry unnecessary. As they\ngained ascendency over the aborigines the vices of the vanquished race\ntold fatally upon them. Their sensual worship, customs like polygamy and\nsutteeism, ascetic practices and sorcerous rites, took possession of\nthem; and, most marked of all, a belief very widely spread among the\nlower tribes of mankind so terribly bewitched them that to this day the\nIndian mind has never been able to break away from its fascination.\n\nThis belief in transmigration, with the pessimism which is its\ninevitable concomitant, was wholly absent from their ancient Vedic\nfaith. At intervals from the times of Pythagoras it has infected the\nreligion and philosophy of the Western Aryans, but never to any extent\nor with any serious result. Its true habitat and breeding-place, like\nthat of the cholera, is among the degraded and broken-down populations\nof the East. It was communicated from the native Indian races to the\nHindus, who unfortunately were prepared to receive it through the\ndepressing and degenerating influences of tropical life on a\nnorthern-born family. Anyway, while their more fortunate brethren were\neagerly groping after, in their westward progress, the truth of\nimmortality, and thirsting for more life and fuller, they in their fat\nGangetic plains, wearied of life as something not worth having, yet\ndreading death because it was appointed unto man not once but many times\nto die, were seeking some way of deliverance from this inherited curse.\nAnd the Brahmans professed to point to it. Their earliest popular\nconception of deliverance was simply that of re-birth in a happier\nworld, perchance secured by sacrificial rites and religious acts, but\nsuch a conception could not long satisfy, and eventually it gave way in\nthe higher class of minds to nobler views. In India, as elsewhere, men\nsoon became conscious of the more solid security of merit procured by a\nlife of justice and mercy. Man\u2019s future was in his own and not in the\nhands of a priest: its happiness or misery would be no accident, but the\nsure result of good or evil done here and now. Therefore the wise man\nendeavoured laboriously and continuously to collect merit by good deeds,\n\u201cas the white ant builds her house, for with these as his guide he could\nhope to traverse a gloom hard to be crossed.\u201d\n\nBut by and by even this belief ceased to satisfy them, for how could man\nhope to liberate himself from the bondage of endless change as long as,\nseeking only a happier existence, he was content to be a citizen of the\nchangeable? Let him seek reunion with Brahma, of which he is an\nemanation. So here again, while the Westerns were finding the path which\nwould lead them from polytheism to theism, and were growing into nobler\nconceptions of what the individual self should be, the speculative\nascetics of the East, in a life of meditation far apart, were trying to\nsubside rather than rise into Brahma the Absolute as a river reunites\nwith the ocean. In their earlier Brahmanas their fathers knew nothing of\nBrahma as deity, and at no time did Brahma mean to the Indian what deity\nmeant to the Western Aryan. Polytheism in India never became theism in\nthe old Greek sense, nor even Pantheism in our nineteenth-century sense.\nThe mysterious all-pervading Presence was indeed early detected by the\nIndians as the \u201cBreath\u201d of all things, but the name employed by them to\ndistinguish it signified only the universal self. In no sense was it the\nconscious author, but only the irrepressible source of things because\nreflected upon by illusion. Brahma Atman was neither the infinitely\nintelligent nor the perfectly blessed, in our sense of the word. It was\nsimply thought without cognition, beatitude without consciousness. \u201cThe\nHindu never thinks of asserting that Brahma knows or even has\nconsciousness, but always that Brahma is knowledge.\u201d \u201cIt is simply\nimpersonal being, absolute unity contrasted with disruption, from which\nexistence, as an emanation wholly and only evil, because originating in\na mistake, must move through endless cycles of change, until the way of\nescape be discovered and followed by which the erratic spark may be\nabsorbed in the central fire.\u201d[97]\n\nSuch a speculation was manifestly an advance upon Vedic materialism,\nwhich sought to bring down the gods to the side of man as useful\nguardians, and upon early Brahmanism which sought by sacrifice to force\nthem to do man\u2019s will, and by and by to elevate man to their level. In\nendeavouring, however, to abstract its disciples from the superstitions\nof the priests, it tampered with the foundations of religion. It never\nattempted to propitiate the gods\u2014for, even if superior to man, they were\nas much involved in the labyrinth of transmigration as he was\nhimself,\u2014but it professed in a universe of illusion to have discovered\nthe only real. It dared to name the Absolute; so, withdrawing from the\nworld, it practiced austerities for the sake of illumination, gave\nitself up to meditation to reduce the personal self to an abstraction,\nand endeavoured thus to escape from the necessity of existence in time\nand space into \u201cpassionless, characterless being.\u201d\n\nAll this is expounded in the Upanishads, the special scriptures of\nphilosophical Brahmanism.[98] Though translated by Professor Max M\u00fcller,\nand lucidly interpreted by Professor Gough, readers of ordinary\nphilosophical culture find them very hard to understand, and in spite of\nthe high commendation of them by Rammohun Roy and Schopenhauer, they\nwill be inclined to question whether these \u201cbeginnings of thought,\u201d\n\u201cconceptions hardly formed,\u201d though essential to a proper knowledge of\nIndian philosophy, \u201cshould be ranked among the outstanding productions\nof the human mind.\u201d[99] Throughout their long and most tedious verbiage,\nhowever, one dominant idea is ever discoverable\u2014that the chief end of\nthe wise man is to know, not the forms of things, but the great self of\nall things, and seek his deliverance not by practice of religion but by\npursuit of Gnosis.[100] Religion would indeed secure rewards, but they\nwould only be transient; religion might regulate and modify the course\nof migration, but only Gnosis could break its adamantine chain. \u201cThe\nvision of Atman is the only deliverance, for by it all ties are\nloosened\u201d; \u201cthe vision of the self is the light of the world, to which\nonly the purest minds attain.\u201d To reach it not only the bonds of desire\nmust be broken, but of ignorance too. \u201cFor Atman is highly exalted above\nall reverence and effort, above holiness and unholiness.\u201d \u201cIt, the\nuncreated, is beyond all good and evil,\u201d and upon rewards and\npunishments, upon both good and evil, the sage must turn his back, for\nhe alone who knows the Universal is free, from Karman and from K\u00e2ma\n(action and desire) which hold captive the self in the net of the\nimpermanent.[101]\n\nThis is said to be the last outcome of Brahmanic belief, and \u201cindeed the\nhighest point reached by Indian philosophy.\u201d[102] Manifestly, it can\nnever be designated a gospel. It was a deliverance impossible for the\nmany, and possible only for the few; a promise not to the suffering\nmillions, but to the mystic and the sage, and to them it came not with\nthe hope of a nobler character to be attained, and of a purer, higher\nlife to be reached, but only with that of a dreamless repose\u2014\u201cthe sleep\neternal in an eternal night\u201d\u2014when the soul ceases to be soul, merged\n\u201clike the weariest river\u201d in a shoreless and waveless sea. And this was\nthe system in which the wisest and saintliest in Buddha\u2019s days were\nnurtured. He was no Brahman by caste, but as pure Kshatrya he would be\ninstructed in his youth by Brahmans, and in early manhood he for long\nconsorted with them. He had mental capacity, and spiritual energy, more\nthan adequate to the task of comprehending as fully as they did their\nvery abstruse theosophies. From their speculation he derived much of his\nterminology, like Karma and Nirvana; and even Buddha, words which, till\nrecently, it was considered he had to coin. Many doctrines which were\nonce regarded as peculiarly his own were taught in their jungle schools\nby learned Brahmans centuries before he was born. Without the Brahmans\nhe could not have been produced, and yet his system will be found to be\noriginal and distinct. They furnished the phraseology in which he\nexpressed himself, the methods by which he wrought, the institutions\nlike that of the wandering Bikkhu, by which his system was spread; but\nin essentials we will find that his teaching was not only different from\nbut antagonistic to theirs, and that, had the principles which he\nenunciated been truly accepted and consistently carried out, this\nnoblest of the Reformers of Hinduism would have reformed it out of\nexistence.\n\nDuring this pre-Buddhistic era, much longer, perhaps, than is generally\nsupposed, another process of development was going on among one section\nof the Semitic stock, in a small handbreadth of a land on the eastern\nshore of the Mediterranean. The several stages of that development have\nalso been unconsciously recorded in a literature so peculiar in its\nmotive, and method, and character, as to separate it from the national\nliteratures of all the world. It is not that it claims to be inspired,\nfor the same claim is advanced by the Indian, and indeed by or for every\ncollection of religious writings extant; but while in the literature of\nIndia we see represented the struggles of man to reach the Deity, that\nof Palestine professes to represent the endeavour of Deity to reach and\nto communicate with men. Intensely patriotic as a people, the sacred\nliterature of the Hebrews is essentially religious. Their historians are\nnot permitted to record, and the poets are not allowed to sing their own\nnational achievements, but only the mighty works and the praises of\nJehovah their God. The shame of their many defeats, and of their final\ndestruction, is ascribed always to their own sin, but any national\nsuccess or prosperity is due to the Divine favour. Alike through all\ntheir victories and disasters, an Almighty Hand is acknowledged to be\nshaping their destiny, and to be working out a purpose which, often\nentirely hidden, and at best only very imperfectly understood by them,\nis seen toward the close of their sad and eventful history, to\ncomprehend the larger destinies of mankind in a salvation of God which\n\u201call the ends of the earth\u201d were to see.\n\nThe relative antiquity of the Hebrew and Indian scriptures is not a\nmatter which we are called upon to discuss. It is possible that some\nhymns in the Rig-Veda may be older than anything which we possess in the\nBible, but it is almost absolutely certain that most of the books of the\nHebrew Bible were in circulation as scriptures, and that the whole of it\nwas in the shape in which we have it now, before any ancient Indian\nsacred book was reduced to writing. The Pentateuch, in the form in which\nwe have it now, is probably not the most ancient of the Hebrew writings.\nIt appears to be a very composite production, containing works of\ndifferent authors, written originally at different places and at\ndifferent times. The most destructive criticism, however, admits that it\nembodies very ancient traditions\u2014many of them not peculiar to the\nHebrews,\u2014which were open to a succession of very talented narrators.\nThese traditions may indicate their derivation from a once common\nancestral home, or acquirement by later contact with foreign nations,\nbut they are in nowise incorporations; for in the Hebrew books they are\nnot only presented in forms far more refined, but they are employed to\nsuggest or to unfold a spiritual teaching quite beyond the capacity of\nthe peoples among whom it is alleged they originated. No one denies that\nwe have in the Pentateuch writings as old as the time of Moses, and\nprobably fragments of writings much older still. Ewald[103] ascribes an\nimportant portion of it to the times of the later judges, another still\nmore important section to a priest of Solomon\u2019s reign, and the Book of\nDeuteronomy to the time of Hezekiah. Even if we are compelled to accept\nlater dates than these, it follows that they are older than any\nUpanishad, or even any of the Brahmanas. There was a Law, a Book of the\nCovenant, a Book of Origins, in currency probably before the authors of\nany of the Brahmanas was born; and even if we are to regard the contents\nof these works as only traditional, we may surely assume that the Hebrew\ntraditions are as credible as the Indian. It is quite true \u201cthat\nreligion exists long before it is expressed in a canon, and that law\nruns and rules long before it is written in a code,\u201d[104] but in regard\nto accuracy neither suffers from being so definitely registered.\nHitherto the maxim affecting such matters has been, and for a long time\nhenceforth we may be certain it will be, not _litera locuta_, but\n_litera scripta manet_.\n\nAgain, we are not called upon to maintain in this lecture the\nchronological exactness or the historical faithfulness of the sacred\nannals of Israel; all that is asserted is that in them we have as\nfaithful a mirror of the ages which they profess to reflect as we have\nin the Indian. The characters in the scenes which they produce are\nneither puppets nor shadows, but very living and substantial realities.\nThe personages at least are men whose idiosyncrasies are sharply but\nnaturally defined, and whose speech, and manners, and conduct, and\nbeliefs, accord wonderfully well with the places and the periods in\nwhich they meet us. We have to examine the Hebrew annals however, not to\nverify the details of ancient transactions which they record, but simply\nto ascertain the beliefs which they contain and illustrate. The truth or\nthe error of these beliefs we need not discuss, for the beliefs\nthemselves are facts of great importance, and so are the consequences\nthat flowed from them; and when we compare these beliefs with those\nwhich we have been considering, we will find a development parallel\nindeed, but of an entirely different class of ideas or religious\nthoughts.\n\nIn the Rig-Veda we have reflected the immigration of a higher race into\nwhat has been called the Holy Land of India. The Rig-Veda dates from\nabout the times of the Exodus or the invasion of the Holy Land of\nPalestine. The Hebrew traditions, like the Indian, tell of an earlier\nimmigration of their fathers into the same Palestine some five centuries\nprevious. When we examine the narratives in which this earlier\nimmigration is recorded, we find the patriarchs moving along among\nsimilar conditions, but representing a much higher level of religious\nthought than the Aryans when they reached the Ganges. Though everywhere\nliving among nature-worshippers, and though showing the taint of that\nworship in their own conduct, their religion is neither that of\nphysiolatry nor idolatry.[105] Abraham was not a polytheist; he came out\nof Ur of the Chaldees\u2014whether that be a designation of a geographical\nregion or a description of a religious state\u2014not as one who trembled\nbefore the forces of Nature, afraid to inquire what they meant or whence\nthey came; not as one who had discovered behind them the Infinite Self,\nout of which, because of ignorance or illusion, he and they had\nemanated, but as a man who believed in a Personal Deity who had created\nand continued to control them, and who, though El-Elion and Shaddai, yet\nwatched over and communicated with Abraham as his best of friends. We\nneed not ascribe to the patriarch an intelligence which he did not\npossess. God may have been in his thought too much the almighty\nProtector of himself and of his descendants\u2014for in that age the family\nof the chief would be all-important, and the idea even of the nation had\nnot yet germinated,\u2014but that he apprehended God under a strictly moral\naspect is vouched for by his life, as the founder of a new epoch to\nwhich his latest descendant looked back with thankfulness.[106] We may\nnot be able to prove that Abraham\u2019s conception of Deity was monotheistic\nin our conception of the word. It lacked the sublimity of Isaiah\u2019s\nconception and the definiteness of that of Moses. There was naturally a\ngreat deal of darkness clinging about it, but his ideas of duty and\nreligion and worship were far higher than entered the thoughts of a\nVedic or Brahmanic sage. The rite of Blood Covenant, universal in the\nSemitic tribes, he felt divinely impelled to offer Godward; and the same\nimpulse is said to have led him to offer in proof of his allegiance to\nhis unseen and almighty Friend the sacrifice of his only son. But there\nwas unmistakably imparted by Abraham to the ancient rite of circumcision\na far higher and more spiritual idea, and it is noteworthy that while\nthe spiritual part of his awful sacrifice was accepted, the slaying of\nthe son was rejected, with the effect of stamping, in the very morning\nof Hebrew history, the Divine abhorrence upon that form of propitiation\nto which the unrestrained instinct of man has everywhere been prone. His\nworship, his sacrifice, his whole service, instead of being regarded as\na means of making Deity serviceable to man, or of raising man to the\ncomfortable condition of Deity, meant the surrender of the heart and of\nthe whole life to His will, not as only mightier, but juster and more\nmerciful than he was himself, and therefore perfectly worthy of trust\nand love. And so it is plain that whether the patriarchs represent a\nrace fallen because of sin, from purer knowledge and more intimate\ncommunion with God, or one providentially educated from the very lowest\nanimalism, they indicate a religious stage to which the greatest things\nbecame possible. They are stammering at least the glorious Name,\ncomprised in three letters, whose significance millennial ages of study\ncan never exhaust. They believe in God, who, behind and beyond Nature,\nand greater than it, is revealing Himself as one infinitely worthy of\ntheir allegiance and adoration, and their faith becomes righteousness.\n\nWhen we reach the Mosaic period we find that though clouds and darkness\nare round the throne of the Eternal, the light that streams from it into\nthe minds of men reveals, just more clearly, the same one living and\ntrue God. According to the Book of Origins, a period of four hundred and\neighty years separated the patriarchal from the Mosaic age, and during\nthat period the Hebrew tribes had first been sheltered, and then for\nlong enslaved, by the most civilised of all peoples in the ancient\nworld. Astonished by the grandeur of Egypt, they at last succumbed to\nits religion; and while oppression in the pent-up Egyptian cities\ndeteriorated fearfully their physical condition, slavery and idolatry\nwrought with terrible effect upon their character. They came out of\nEgypt a cowardly horde, leprous in body, childish and brutish in their\ndisposition. Their children however entered Palestine, more than a\ngeneration after, a powerful and consolidated and victorious force,\nwhose fear was upon all the surrounding tribes; and their annals ascribe\nall this to revival and reformation due to Divine revelation and\ntraining under the plastic genius of one of Egypt\u2019s wisest men, and one\nof the greatest prophets of the human race.\n\nThe oldest Hebrew historian states that Moses wrote two tables of the\nCovenant, and one entire, though small, Book of Laws besides; and though\nit were proved to universal satisfaction that he never wrote anything\nelse than the Ten Words, and the preface[107]: \u201cHear, O Israel, the Lord\nour God is one,\u201d it will be admitted that no one in all the old world\nhas ever contributed more than he did to man\u2019s stock of the highest of\nall knowledge. The truth communicated by the patriarchs in the word\nCreator was of supreme moment and promise for the human race, for by it\nman was saved from the sin and folly of confounding the Deity with His\nworks. The idea of a Creator occurs indeed in the Vedas,[108] but not as\nan idea that ever got hold of the popular mind, or ever ripened into the\nconception of Creator which we have in the Bible. The Brahman expounders\nof Vedic thought made deity the sum of all that is, a being that is ever\nbecoming, a universe that is never completed. The Hebrew, on the\ncontrary, conceived of the universe as God\u2019s work\u2014not God. It was but a\npart of His ways, and as nothing before Him. In the Indian creed\nemanation continues indefinitely, and their sacred books record a\nnever-ending genesis. In the Hebrew Bible two pages suffice to relate\nthe genesis of the world and man. Between the deities of the Vedas and\nthe Jehovah of Moses there is no natural progression, and we never in\nany series, however prolonged, can reach from the one to the other. The\nIndian deities are simply one with Nature, and like its forces they are\nmultitudinous, capricious, evanescent; but the Deity of Moses is One,\nSupreme, Invisible, not to be likened to anything we can see or\nhear\u2014eternal as One who alone is, and causes to be: \u201cI Am that I Am!\u201d\nThe effect of such a belief was to raise all men who learned of Moses\nabove the worship and tyranny of Nature, before which so many of the\ntribes of mankind have prostrated themselves. It made them regard the\nanimal creation especially as existing not for their adoration but for\ntheir use; and Nature itself and all its forces as powers to be studied,\nsubdued, and governed. The germs of man\u2019s faith in his own\nimperishableness, implanted from the first, began to sprout the moment\nhe found himself capable of knowing and serving this Eternal and\nInvisible One as the Author and Controller of his being.\n\nComparisons are often instituted between the Mosaic ethical code and\nthat of other religions, with the view of showing that there is nothing\npeculiar in it, and that instead of being fuller it appears to be even\ndefective when placed side by side with some of them. The peculiarity of\nthe Mosaic code is in its first table, which nearly all the others lack.\nThe Mosaic is an interpretation of the law written in men\u2019s hearts by\nthe light of religion: it is the manifestation of religious truth as the\nreal foundation of ethics. Morality has so long been associated with\nreligion in our thought that we speak at times as if it had been always\nso; but among no ancient people, save among the Hebrews, did any\nworshipper expect morality from their deities. On the contrary, they\nconceived of them as having all their own appetites and passions and\nvices, so that as civilisation advanced men were often far nobler and\npurer than the gods which they worshipped. When we remember that\nphysiolatry, from its lowest to its highest form, tolerates and even\nconsecrates the vilest impurities by its worship, we can realise what a\nnew and creative power was communicated when the conviction had laid\nhold of man that Deity is one who is Himself all that man ought to be,\none who can only be propitiated by righteousness and appeased by truth.\nHuman progress became not only possible then, but it was secured. So\npure an idea of God meant a loftier idea of man. It involved the poorest\nand the humblest of men in vast responsibilities, and therefore it\nimplied for them rights and dignities equal to those of the highest of\nmen; for the supreme all-holy Lord God was no respecter of persons, and\nthe beggar on the dunghill was in His eyes as precious as the prince\nupon the throne.[109]\n\nFrom the period when Vedic speculation first began its course to that in\nwhich it produced its earliest Upanishad, these moral and spiritual\ntruths were not kept secret among the philosophic few, but were\nprophesied in the gates and streets of every Hebrew city. No one can say\nthat they were thankfully received and loyally obeyed by the people of\nIsrael; on the contrary, their whole history represents the struggle of\na stubborn and rebellious race against a revelation too pure and\nspiritual to be acceptable to them. Their religion was always higher\nthan themselves, but while towering above them, it perpetually hovered\nround them, contradicting their most cherished inclinations, and\ncondemning their most deeply rooted habits. The invisible God, of whom\nno likeness was to be tolerated, who was not to be worshipped even in\nthe greatest of His works, was too far removed from their sympathies. It\ntook centuries of severe handling to uproot their strong tendency to\nNature-worship; yea, the Divine detestation of it had to be branded in\nthe national conscience by their final overthrow. Eventually, however,\nthe truth got rooted in the mind of a \u201cremnant\u201d of them that God is not\nto be worshipped under any symbol, and cannot be enshrined in temples\nmade with hands; that the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him; that in\ngifts and offerings He takes no pleasure, but that He dwells with the\nmeek and lowly, and finds a pleasing sacrifice in the contrite spirit\nand broken heart. The divinity of the revelation seems attested by the\nfact that it continued all throughout their history above them, rebuking\nand condemning, but never suffering them altogether to fall away from\nit. And this is still its relation to ourselves: it is a creed\ncontradicting our life, a Divine law in direct opposition to all that\nclaims to be popular; for where even yet is the Christian who can be\nsaid fully to realise all that is summed up in the truth, \u201cGod is not to\nbe worshipped by man as though He needed anything;\u201d \u201cGod is a spirit,\nand they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth\u201d?\n\nThe universality as well as the purity and spirituality of this\nfundamental article of the Hebrew faith separates it from and elevates\nit above the Indian beliefs. Nature-worship has always been local and\nethnic in its range; the gods of the hills are not the gods of the\nvalleys, and the deities of Assyria command no reverence in Egypt. To\nthe Hebrew was first communicated the catholic faith that the one Lord\nover all is rich in mercy unto all. The treasure was received, it is\ntrue, in an earthen vessel, by a people who could only apprehend as\nchildren what we are expected to hold in the comprehensions of men.[110]\nIn patriarchal times by the people generally the One Lord was conceived\nof too much as just the protector of the family. In Mosaic times the\ngreat and terrible God who avenged Himself on Egypt was thought of too\nmuch as the champion of the tribes. Under David and the kings He was too\nmuch the sovereign of the nation and of the Holy Land; and so it was\ndown to the times of the Captivity. All throughout this period, however,\nthere were perpetual protests against this attempt to ethnicise a faith\nessentially catholic. They were reminded that the Holy One was Lord over\nall the earth; that though they were a peculiar people, they were not\nHis only people. The prophets of other nations were brought to testify\nto them; their own prophets were sent to warn the heathen that they\nshould not die. All through their history they were admonished that\ntheir gift was too large for their little nation to contain; that it was\ntheirs only in proportion as it was imparted or shared, and that as a\nnation they could only exist if all nations were blessed in them.\n\nAlas however for them, all this seemed in vain in its effect upon the\nnation at large; the treasure was forgotten in their estimate of the\nvessel; their own destiny loomed largest in their conceptions of\nProvidence. It was not the holy Lord God who was to have universal\ndominion, but they His favourites, and therefore their king would reign\nover all lands and keep his feet on the neck of their foes. Out of this\nfatal error, and out of the childish superstition akin to it, that\nmaterial prosperity was the sole or chief reward of devotion, came all\ntheir unbelief and apostasy, and so when the succession of prophets had\nin vain testified to them that the Lord alone was to be exalted\u2014that\nbefore Him, not before them, must all peoples bow,\u2014the threatenings long\nuttered were fulfilled: the nation was shattered, its palladium, the\ntemple, was destroyed, and they were driven beyond the Euphrates.\n\nThen however ensued a course of events which must be regarded as among\nthe greatest surprises of history; for just when they and their religion\nmight have been expected to vanish as completely as the ten tribes\npreviously deported had vanished, they are found to be preserved; and\nthe worship of Jehovah, instead of being extinguished by the dominant\nworship of Babylon, is seen to emerge in the course of two generations\nmore vigorous and considerably purer than ever it had been before. It\nwas during the Exile that the real nature of the religion of Israel, as\none adapted and destined to enlighten and sanctify far more than a\nsingle people, began to be truly discerned.[111] The Jewish people had a\ngreat deal to learn from Babylon and Persia, and they returned to their\nown land with clearer conceptions of immortality, the resurrection, the\nspiritual world and judgment to come, than any of their forefathers had\ngained. Scholars, however, who enlarge upon their indebtedness to their\nconquerors, seem to forget how much they had to communicate to them. In\nthe psalms of the pre-Exilian period, and in the doctrines of Moses and\nthe prophets, they carried with them a treasure richer than the whole\nwisdom of the East. So though they learned much from Babylon, they also\nlearned in it to appreciate the gifts which they had previously\ndespised. Sorrow and penitence helped to clear their spiritual vision,\nand prepared them for the prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah.\nThey learned that though banished from the Holy Land they were not\nthereby cast out\u2014as their fathers imagined\u2014from the presence of Jehovah;\nthat, though the temple had been destroyed and sacrifice had been\nsuspended, God could still be worshipped with sincerity and truth. The\nteachings of their prophets brought home with conviction to them the\noracles of their earlier seers, that obedience was better than\nsacrifice, and contrition than sin-offering,\u2014\u201cthat he that doeth\nrepentance, it is imputed to him as if he went to Jerusalem, built a\ntemple and altar, and wrought all the sacrifices of the law.\u201d[112]\n\nWith the destruction of the temple there arose the synagogue, which,\nwith its reading of the Law and the Prophets, its chanting of the\nPsalms, its offering of prayer, and the giving heed to the voices of the\nelders, represented a far higher and more spiritual service than temple\ncourts reeking with sacrifices and steaming with incense. It is true\nthat they were still fascinated by the material splendours of the former\ndays; for after their return they restored Jerusalem, rebuilt the\ntemple, and re-appointed its services. A revival led to a reformation,\nwhich, following the old lines as closely as possible, assumed the form\nof a retrogression rather than advance. The new energies of the nation\nwere repressed by a Levitical domination as rigid and intolerant as\nBrahmanism ever was in India. It was not the spirit of the Living God\nbut the hand of the long dead Moses that was to rule their conscience\nand mould their history. The consequence was just what might have been\nanticipated. Human nature revolted from subjugation to a system which\nhad served its day. Religion, where it was earnest, stiffened into\nformalism, and formalism in many cases congealed into hypocrisy, and, as\ninevitably happens, intellect raised its protest against this\nirreligious religion in many anti-religious and even atheistic forms.\nMeanwhile synagogues rose all over the land, promoting doctrine rather\nthan ritual, stimulating rather than repressing discussion, and thus\nconserving and propagating the truths that prepared the ways of the\nLord. Only a handful however, had returned; the majority of the exiles\nprospered and multiplied, and, unlike the ten tribes, were not absorbed\namong the Gentiles. At the beginning of the Christian era, for one Jew\nliving in Palestine there would be a hundred living beyond it, not only\nin Babylonia, but in Greece, and Egypt, and Italy, and all over the\nEmpire. There were many Jews in Spain, in Britain, and in the dark\nterritories beyond the Danube; and though they adapted themselves to\nforeign ways, and became all things to all men, in regard to their\nreligion and their intimate connection with Jerusalem they still\ncontinued to be Jews.[113] As their nationality declined their faith\narose. By and by, not content with the heathen toleration for their\nreligion as only one of the many in the world, they began to spread it\nabroad. Judaism, with the temple and the Levitical law, would in\nPalestine eventually have petrified, but the Diaspora, with the\nSynagogue and the Septuagint, enabled Israel to play their proper parts\nas the religious teachers of mankind. Proselytism gradually became very\nvigorous and successful; devout men and women everywhere, unable to find\npeace of conscience in the intoxicating and demoralising rites of Pagan\ntemples, turned from them to take hold of the skirts of the man who was\na Jew. In a manner and to an extent which even the youthful Isaiah never\ncould have dreamed, Jerusalem began to attract out of every nation under\nheaven the kind of people who were found in its streets at\nPentecost,\u2014Parthians and Medes, and dwellers in Pontus and Arabia, and\nthe eunuch of far distant Ethiopia.[114]\n\nAs we have noticed the highest outcome of Vedic thought in pursuit of\nAtman, let us also notice the highest development of Hebrew belief in\ntheir hope of Messiah, whose germs are traceable in their faith from the\nfirst. For example, one of the earliest and most lasting effects of\ntheir conception of Deity was the conviction of their own unworthiness\nand inability to live in the presence of the holy God. Though they were\nto be a kingdom of priests for other nations, they dared not enter into\nthe relationship which priest implied. They required a mediator like\nMoses, who could speak to the Holy One for them, and receive for them\nHis message. Their whole worship was based on this feeling, and the\npurer and higher rose their conceptions of God, the more intense became\ntheir self-abasement. Between Him and the noblest of His creatures there\nwas an impassable gulf. Though He was far, far off from them, He was far\ntoo near\u2014so near that they could not go anywhither from His presence,\nand yet in their dread there was a yearning to come near to Him and to\nsee Him face to face. The Brahman aspired to lose himself in the\nAbsolute, in the pure light of characterless knowledge; the Hebrew,\nmastered by the personality of God, longed to see Him as He is. And\nnever more earnest was this longing in the Hebrew to behold the beauty\nof the Lord, and to be satisfied with His likeness, than in the times of\nhis deepest self-humiliation and keenest contrition. \u201cI pray Thee,\npardon the _iniquity_ of Thy people;\u201d \u201cI beseech Thee, show us Thy\n_glory_;\u201d \u201cand these two pangs so counter and so keen,\u201d shame and\nreverence akin to dread, aspiring love, were to prove not only the\npurification of their own faith, but the birth-throe of a better hope\nfor the world.\n\nFor their dread and shame sprang from their consciousness of their own\nevil, and their aspiration from an instinct which whispered that evil,\nthough deeply ingrained in, was not essential to the being of man. Their\nsense of sin was very poignant, more so than in the case of any other\npeople. The Hindus had a conception of merit, but a very poor and weak\nconception of sin. They were more impressed by life\u2019s suffering than by\nthe taint of which it was only the consequence. But the Hebrews felt the\nshame and the curse of that taint as no people ever felt it. They had\nquite a vocabulary to express the many shades and degrees of the feeling\nof it; yet in their speculations they were led to believe that this\ntaint was not inherent in their nature nor ineradicable from it. There\nwas a time when sin was not; there might be a time when it would not be.\nThe dominion of evil was an interlude, and though terribly prolonged in\nhuman experience, it might have an end. That was the central ideal of\nthe Fall which they pictured on the first page of their Bible, and\nconserved in their seventh-day Sabbath.[115] In the fact of man\u2019s\ncreation they felt that his redemption was involved, and so the Hebrew\ndread of and longing for God were reconciled by a hope that though to\nman belongeth shame, to God belongeth mercy as the God of salvation.\nThere was another and a better covenant than that which had been\nconcluded with their ancestors at Sinai, or with the first father of\ntheir tribes long before. It was made not with Moses or Abraham for\nIsrael, but for all nations with a Divine Mediator, who, behind all that\nwas of man, though yet the seed of the woman, would, in a way that\nneither Moses nor any of the prophets could understand, eventually make\nan end of sin.\n\nThe history and the literature of the Hebrews would be a perplexing\nenigma without this hope. Like their faith, it was too pure and\nspiritual for them to receive, and to the very latest it always appears\nwith something of the defilement of their religious condition clinging\nto it. During the Exile, however, this hope became purer and stronger,\nand the imagery in which they embodied it became more evangelical and\nspiritual than that employed by earlier poets and prophets. The section\nof the Hebrews that returned to Palestine held it in increased strength,\nbut with the old national taint upon it. Their own restoration and the\nfavour of Persia kindled anew the foolish dreams of their ancestors,\nand, alas! when Persia disappointed them, and its favour was supplanted\nby oppression, and the kingdom, instead of rising Ph\u0153nix-like out of its\nashes, became the battlefield or the gage of foreign nations, there\nbroke out in Palestine the bitterest plague of unbelief and apostasy\nthat had ever assailed the nation. For idolatry, for overlaying or\ncorrupting the worship of Jehovah, their forefathers had often been\nseverely chastised, but no prophet had as yet complained of a temple\ndeserted and an altar defiled by unworthy offerings. And this was\nbecause men professed to have discovered in the destruction of their\nnational hopes that after all religion was vain, and there was no profit\nin serving God.\n\nAny one who has intelligently read Malachi, or the sayings of Agur the\nproverb-collector,[116] or the Book of Ecclesiastes, will see to what a\ndepth of scepticism, if not indeed of atheism, their perverted Messianic\nhopes had brought the Jews of Palestine. We appreciate the criticism\nwhich regards Coheleth, so alien to the healthy and joyous spirit of the\nHebrew religion, as the natural outgrowth of this period.[117] When\nfaith in Israel\u2019s imperishable kingdom seemed to be completely wrecked,\nwhen ministers of religion led the revolt from it, and unrighteous\nrulers and corrupt society made life in Palestine, as in Rome in Nero\u2019s\nday, not worth the living, it is not to be wondered that this one which\nhas survived, but that \u201cmany books\u201d[118] should have been written to\necho the cry, \u201cAll is vanity.\u201d We may listen to it as a note of despair\nfrom a pessimist in whose people religion had died, because disappointed\npolitical ambition had shown them that \u201cno earthly good\u201d came of serving\nGod; or we may read it as the protest of some healthy-minded Jew against\nthat orthodox asceticism which after the Captivity invaded religion, and\nled to the rise of Pharisaism and Essenism. In any case, it seems to\nmark the proper close in Palestine of an age of national perverted faith\nand hope. The Essenes like the Indian ascetics had hope neither for the\nnation\u2019s recovery nor for the establishment anywhere of a kingdom of\nGod. The Pharisees, on the contrary, had hope, but it was the old\npolitical hope, and in them, though Egyptian and Syrian and Greek and\nRoman had trodden the nation under foot, and though the Maccabees had\nsuffered and poured out their blood in vain, it seemed to grow stronger\nand stronger. Ready to believe any impostor, and to rise at the faintest\ncall, their fanaticism more than once betrayed the people into\nineffectual and most sanguinary revolts; but it had one result that was\nnot wholly evil, for they drew after them the multitudes to the desert,\nwhen the thunder of the Baptist\u2019s cry reached Jerusalem, \u201cThe kingdom of\nGod is at hand.\u201d[119]\n\nSo was it in Palestine; but among the Diaspora all over the Empire the\nhope of Messiah assumed a purer and more catholic form. Everywhere it\nwas strong, but the broader horizons by which they were surrounded saved\nthem from the delusions which intoxicated the Palestinian Jew. In\nclassical literature there are tokens that it had filtered into Gentile\nminds. It was undoubtedly vague and shadowy even at its brightest, but\nin the Sibyl and Pollio its fulfilment signified something more\nimportant than a successful revolution in Palestine. It meant mighty\nchanges impending that would bring good to all the world, the augury of\na star that would soon glimmer in the eastern horizon, and grow and\nbrighten till it would be seen to be not a light for Asia only, but the\nSun of Righteousness with healing in His beams for every nation under\nheaven.\n\nWe have thus been following two lines of religious movement, perfectly\nindependent of each other, far apart geographically, still further apart\nin the beliefs which inspired them. We have seen how the melody of joy\nand health which the Indians brought with them from our common primeval\nhome ended in a sigh of despair. Individual existence, at first so full\nof wonder and delight, lost soon its freshness and glory, and came to be\nfelt to be such a burden that emancipation from it by absorption into\nthe Absolute was hailed as a boon. The human mind, leaving its childhood\nbehind it, and advancing to question itself and the universe, after a\nseason of movement and sense of freedom and power, somehow lost or\nmissed the way. Oppressed in the toils of the jungle, and wandering ever\nfurther from practical life as it proceeded, it lay down vanquished,\nlonging only to be at rest and in quiet as infants that never saw the\nlight.\n\nThe other line of development marks not the course of a speculation, but\nthe growth of a faith laying hold of mankind with creative and\ntransforming power. This faith, never dissociated from, but seeking to\ndominate and reform actual life, condemned inertion, and fostered hope\nfor a race working out its salvation, because convinced that God is\nworking in them both to will and to do. We see a light streaming from\nabove into the darkness of man, paining and blinding at first the organs\nwhich it seeks to purify. We see a struggle on the part of the creatures\nto bring the Most High down to their level, and make Him their servant,\nand a striving of the Divine Spirit to train them as children. We see a\nmighty Hand laid ever on a peculiar people, at times so softly that they\nhardly felt it, at times with conscious guiding and sustaining power; at\ntimes chastising them sorely by the sword of the enemy and the\nheart-hunger of exile, but never giving them over unto death. Not for\nforty years, but for twice forty generations we see Him leading and\nhumbling and proving them, till in the souls of the aptest\u2014though only\n\u201ca remnant\u201d of them\u2014He had rooted ideals of human destiny which never\ncan perish. Then, that all might be ready in the fulness of time, He\nscattered them among the nations, and lo! when required they are\neverywhere, crying in the crowded capitals of the East and of the West,\nin the darkness of the North and the brightness of the South, \u201cPrepare\nye in the desert an highway for the Lord.\u201d\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  Introduction to _Le Bouddha et sa Religion_; Paris, 1858.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  M\u00fcller, Introd. to _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. i. p. xxi.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  A. Burnell, _Indian Antiq._, 1880, p. 223, quoted by Prof. Max M\u00fcller\n  in Introduction to vol. x. of _Sacred Books of the East_, p. xi.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  Frankfurter, Appendix to Wordsworth\u2019s Bampton Lectures for 1881; _The\n  One Religion_, p. 340; Eitel _Lectures on Buddhism_, p. 44; Edkins,\n  _Chinese Buddhism_, p. 232.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  Prof. Max M\u00fcller, Introduction to vol. i. of _Sacred Books of the\n  East_, p. xxvii.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  A. E. Gough, _Philosophy of the Upanishads, etc._, p. 5; Tr\u00fcbner\u2019s\n  Oriental Series.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  This statement is hazarded, notwithstanding the recent reply of the\n  author of _Supernatural Religion_ to Bishop Lightfoot\u2019s Essays. It\n  will be generally conceded that he has adopted an untenable position,\n  and that, though his rejoinder to the learned Bishop may be a vigorous\n  assault, it is weak criticism. Sanday\u2019s work on _The Gospels in the\n  Second Century_ is on the whole a better reply than the Bishop\u2019s to\n  the allegations of the author of _Supernatural Religion_, whose\n  extreme scepticism of literary evidence is quite equalled by his\n  dogmatic extravagance of statement.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  _Vie de J\u00e9sus_, Introd. pp. xv, xvii, 4th ed.; Paris, 1863.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  _Science de Religions_, pp. 12, 20.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Professor Max M\u00fcller, Introd. to Dhammapada, _Sacred Books of the\n  East_, vol. x. p. x.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xiii. p. 37; Introd., vol. xi. p. xx.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, p. 27.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  Mahavansa, by Turnour; Dipavansa, xx. 20, quoted by Professor Max\n  M\u00fcller in _Sacred Books of the East_, vols. x. p. xxiv, and xiii. p.\n  xxxv.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  _Buddhist Birth Stories_, vol. i. p. lvii; Tr\u00fcbner\u2019s Oriental Series.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  Weber, _Indian Literature_, p. 294; _ibid._\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  We may safely assert that in the mass of Buddhist literature already\n  available nothing has been found, nor is anything at all likely to be\n  found, corresponding in character and evidential value to the\n  Christian Scriptures. What would the New Testament have been, asks\n  Professor M\u00fcller, \u201cif the spurious Gospels, the pseudo-apostolic and\n  post-apostolic productions, the debates of the Councils, the\n  commentaries of the Fathers, and the lives of the saints, had all been\n  bound and mixed up with it\u201d? (_Sacred Books of the East_, vol. i.,\n  Introd., pp. xv, xvi.) And yet this is a parallel to the confusion\n  represented by the so-called Buddhist Bible. In truth, it is not a\n  Bible, but a library, containing not only the earliest treatises, but\n  the commentaries upon them made in later ages, and extracts and\n  repetitions from itself so extensive and numerous that were they\n  omitted this portentous collection\u2014four times as voluminous as our\n  Christian Bible\u2014would be found to be much shorter than it. When the\n  original Bible of Buddhism has been disinterred from this pile it will\n  be found to resemble almost in nothing our New Testament, but it may\n  present many analogies to the Talmud and Targums, and perhaps some\n  very interesting resemblances to isolated portions of the Old\n  Testament. As far as it has been translated to us, the Tripitaka\n  contain neither prophecy nor history; but one division of it presents\n  suggestive coincidences with portions of the apocryphal Scriptures;\n  and scholars may find a comparison of some of the texts of Job,\n  Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes with those of the Dhammapada and some of\n  the Suttas an agreeable and not unprofitable study, without in the\n  least being tempted to transfer their allegiance from the Hebrew to\n  the Indian sages.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  Eitel, _Lectures on Buddhism_, p. 6; Hunter, \u201cHistorical Aspects of\n  Indian Geography,\u201d _Scot. Geog. Mag._, Dec. 1888.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  Rogers, _Superhuman Origin of the Bible_, Lecture v.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  Professor Max M\u00fcller, _Introduction to the Science of Religion_, p.\n  103.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  Professor M\u00fcller, Gifford Lectures, _Natural Religion_, p. 564.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  _Record of Missionary Conference in London_, 1888, vol. i. p. 39; also\n  his _Buddhism_, p. 558.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  _Le G\u00e9nie des Religions._\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Sutta Nipata, translated by Fausb\u00f6ll in vol. x. of _Sacred Books of\n  the East_, Part ii. pp. 23, 76, 109, 113.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  _Ibid._ vol. x., _ibid._ Part ii. p. 40. We are also reminded that a\n  man is not a Bikkhu because he puts on yellow robes, unless he has\n  cleansed himself from evil (Dhammapada, i. 9, 10).\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, pp. 5, 145.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_, pp. 162, 163.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  \u00c9mile Burnouf, _Science de Religions_, p. 24.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  M. Vivien de St. Martin, _M\u00e9moires sur les contr\u00e9es occidentales_.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, p. 10.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. i. p. xxii.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, vol. ii. p. 338; Weber, _Indian\n  Literature_, p. 38; Sir Monier Williams, _Religious Thought and Life\n  in India_, p. 18.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  See Satapatha-Br\u00e2hmana, translated by Professor Eggeling in vols. xii.\n  and xxvi. of _Sacred Books of the East_. Max M\u00fcller places the age of\n  these books within the ninth and seventh centuries B.C.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  E. Quinet, _Le G\u00e9nie des Religions_, p. 185; Paris, 1857.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  Sir Monier Williams, _Religious Thought and Life in India_, p. 24,\n  referring to the Aitareya-Brahmana, vii. 13.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, p. 15; T. W. Rhys Davids, Hibbert Lectures,\n  p. 25.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  Gough, _Philosophy of the Upanishads_, pp. 41, 42.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  _Sacred Books of the East_, vols. i. and xv. No one has dated any of\n  the Upanishads earlier than 600 B.C., and some of them are very late.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. i. p. lxvi.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  Svet\u00e2svatara-Upanishad, iii. 7, iv. 14, 16, v. 13, vi. 7, 9, _Sacred\n  Books of the East_, vol. xv.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, pp. 47, 48; Gough, _Phil. Upan._ pp. 61,\n  67.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, Hibbert Lectures, p. 28.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  _History of Israel_, vol. i. pp. 41, 47.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  Gifford Lectures, _Natural Religion_, p. 563.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  It is significant that in the beginning of the Bible Nature-worship\n  seems stamped as accursed in its symbol, the serpent, and that the\n  whole Bible from beginning to end is a Divine protest against that\n  worship in all its forms. Mankind in all ages is tempted to become as\n  the gods, and in a low condition he has almost everywhere succumbed to\n  the temptation. He feasts his gods, compels them to serve him, is\n  really higher than they, and thus he degrades himself or falls from\n  the ideal of one made in the image and after the likeness of God.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  Ewald, _History of Israel_, vol. i. pp. 320-322.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  Some ascribe it to the Deuteronomist, ch. vi. 4.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  Professor M\u00fcller finds the first traces of a Maker or Creator in the\n  Vedic deity Tvashtar, the carpenter\u2014the clever workman, even smith,\n  forging bolts for Indra therein, Rig-Ved. iii. 55. 19. \u201cTvashtar, the\n  enlivener, endowed with many forms, has nourished the creatures and\n  produced them in many ways; all these worlds are his.\u201d Of another god,\n  latterly called Prag\u00e2pati, he quotes Rig-Ved. x. 81. 2, as one who,\n  \u201ccreating the earth, disclosed the sky by his power.\u201d Very\n  significantly, however, he reminds us that the same poet loses the\n  idea, and speaks of the secret of creation as undiscoverable.\u2014M\u00fcller\u2019s\n  _Natural Religion_, p. 245. Also Introd. to Upanishads, _Sacred Books\n  of the East_, vol. xv. p. xxiv.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  Fairbairn, _Religion in History and in the Life of To-day_, pp. 39-51.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  It was only by their very highest and greatest souls that the Godhead\n  was conceived in anything of its spiritual glory. To Abraham God was\n  the Creator, distinct from and greater than the earth and heavens\n  which He had made; to Moses He was a righteous Lawgiver, training upon\n  eagle-wings a peculiar people; to David He was a tender and wise\n  Shepherd of a foolish and helpless flock; to Isaiah and the later\n  prophets a Father dealing with rebellious people, whom He pities,\n  knowing whereof they were made. These conceptions, however, cannot be\n  said to have been those of the mass of the people.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  Kuenen, _National Religions and Universal Religion_, Hibbert Lectures,\n  1882, p. 187.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_, vol. i. p. 275.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  Jos. _Contra Ap._ ii. 30. 32; _Antiq._ xviii. 1. 1; _Jewish Wars_, ii.\n  8.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  Uhlhorn, _Conflict of Christianity_, chaps. i. ii.; Jos. _Antiq._\n  xiii. 9. 1, and 11. 3, and _Contra Ap._ ii. 10. 39; Kuenen, _Religion\n  of Israel_, iii. 273 _seq._; Renan, _Les Ap\u00f4tres_, pp. 253, 260.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  The truth on which the Sabbath is founded is the majestic truth of a\n  completed creation, and one conform to the latest discoveries of\n  science. During the whole course of human observation no new creative\n  effort has been displayed in the production of a new type. The animal\n  and vegetable worlds stand to-day as man first beheld them. The\n  creative spirit has passed into the soul of man, in whose world is the\n  progress which nature has long ceased to manifest, and under whose\n  handling nature itself improves. But God, though resting from His\n  works of creation, is not in Scripture said to be resting from His\n  works of mercy: \u201cMy Father worketh hitherto, and I work.\u201d\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  \u201cThe words of Agur the son of Jakeh,\u201d Proverbs xxxi. 1.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  H\u00fcber, _Der Pessimismus_, 1876, p. 8; Holdheim, Preface to vol. iii.\n  of _Predigten_, quoted by Cheyne, _Job and Solomon_, pp. 250-253.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  Eccles. xii. 12.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_, vol. i. p. 276;\n  Keim, _Jesus of Nazara_, vol. i. pp. 316-325; Kuenen, _Religion of\n  Israel_, vol. iii. p. 177.\n\n\n\n\n                              LECTURE III.\n      THE BUDDHA OF THE PITAKAS: THE CHRIST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\nThe condition of Palestine and the progress of events in it at the\nbeginning of the Christian era, are set in the clear light of history,\nand defined by an accurate chronology. To the superficial observer it\nappeared to be a prosperous land, for it was fertile and carefully\ntilled, populous, and, in the northern regions especially, teeming with\nthe fruits of industry. It had reached the commercial stage of\ncivilisation, and everywhere, in well-built cities adorned with palatial\nbuildings, many of them the abodes of merchants who rivalled the Italian\nnobles and Herodian princes in the costliness of their manner of living,\nit yielded indications of the luxury which successful commerce brings in\nits train. But as always happens when wealth abounds in a land, there\nwas a corresponding amount of poverty. While the rich were lavishing\nfortunes upon selfish and gigantic follies, an increasing multitude,\nborn and bred in squalor, were struggling for very existence. In the\ndays of the Son of Man their numbers were vastly increased by political\ntroubles which disturbed trade and depressed agriculture. So to an eye\nthat looked beneath the surface this seemingly prosperous Palestine was\ndiseased and in a dangerous condition, for pauperism and discontent were\nrapidly maturing the seeds of anarchy, and preparing for the successive\nrevolutions in which so many perished before the Roman eagles swept down\nupon the carcass of a State politically dead, because morally and\nsocially corrupt.\n\nUnder the Herodian dominion, secured as it had been by the destruction\nof an illustrious royal house and the sacrifice of their bravest\npatriots, the sympathies of the people revolted from the throne to\ncluster for a time around the temple; but just as the dignity of the\noffice of the high priest was rising in their estimation, successive\nnominations to it by the king and procurator of men odious to the good\nturned the tide in a different direction. The hierarchy was represented\nby the Sadducees, a party small in number and far from popular. Though\nwearing names of ancient and honoured families, they were obviously\ncareless alike of the sanctuary and of the interests of the nation.\nStrict observers of the law of their Davidic ancestor, they rejected the\nprevalent interpretations of it, and all the new-fangled doctrines\nconcerning angels and spirits, and the resurrection of the just, which\nhad been formulated since the Exile. Especially opposed to the belief\nthat the keeping of the law would procure for a man recompence in a\nfuture state, they held that the law must be kept to the letter just\nbecause it was God\u2019s will, even though the soul died with the body.\nTheir wealth and position as the aristocracy brought them into\nconnection with the representatives of the great foreign powers of the\ntimes, whose manners and fashions they copied; but the nearer they drew\nto the Roman and Asmonean nobility the further they drew apart from the\npeople whom they never pretended to love, and who, equally alienated,\nregarded them with similar dislike.\n\nWithdrawn from the temple, the affections of people were freely given to\nthe synagogue leaders as the representatives and fosterers of the\nnational ideals and hopes. In these days every small town had its\nsynagogue, while in Jerusalem alone there were said to be four hundred\nand eighty. These were not only places of worship, but schools in which\nthe Law was made the common possession of all without distinction, and\nalso arenas for exciting discussion, in which was nursed that love of\ndialectics to which so many striking analogies exist both in India and\nGreece. They were dominated by the Scribes, the sole copiers for the\never increasing synagogues of the ancient Scriptures, and the true\ninterpreters of the law. Pedantic and self-important though they\ngenerally were, they were revered so by the people for their piety and\ngifts that from them were chiefly selected the members of the court of\nthe Sanhedrim, which represented all that was left to the nation of\nexecutive power. Their Cabbala, revealing the secret doctrines to be\nfound in names, of which we have specimens in the writings of St.\nPaul,[120] and the mystic significance of numbers, of which we have\ntraces in the Apocalypse, may be only interesting now as curiosities,\nbut we must never forget that they rendered undying service to the world\nin preserving from corruption, by many arts carefully studied and\napplied, the texts of Holy Scripture.[121]\n\nThe Pharisees, the Nazarites of the nation as their name implies, the\ndemocratic antagonists of the aristocratic Sadducees, the staunch\nopponents of the Gentile, the believers in the coming kingdom of the\njust, were deservedly the most popular of all the religious sects in\nPalestine. More liberal than the Sadducees in their interpretation of\nthe law in its bearing upon the people, they never thought of exacting\nfor faults or transgressions the ancient penalties; but they were far\nmore severe in their personal observance of it.[122] To the mass of them\nit was a ladder by which they might climb into the kingdom of heaven;\nand out of it, to make sure of this end, they evolved a most\ncomprehensive system of bye-laws, as sacred to them as the original\nprecepts by which every action and word and relation of life was\nregulated. Pharisaism was just Brahmanism, and though more ethically\napplied it was in its spirit and aim as selfish. Bent only upon\naccumulating merit, in character it became eventually as morally impure.\nForgetting in their attention to petty details the weightier obligations\nof life, disregarding their neighbours that they might provide for their\nown recompence, the Pharisees became as a class so corrupt as to draw\nupon them the most scathing of all the denunciations of our Lord.\n\nMore Pharisaic than the Pharisees, said to be an offshoot or secession\nfrom them, the Essenes in their desert communities sought by the worship\nof Jehovah in the spirit of the prophets, and yet apparently by prayers\nto the sun, and by an ascetic and celibate life, to deliver the immortal\nsoul from material impurity, to educate it to enjoy the beatific vision,\nand to prophesy the secret things of the future. In these communities of\npious people, the very flower of Judaism,[123] the only ray of light in\nthe deepening darkness, some may be pardoned in professing to find the\ndawn of Christianity\u2014not in its external arrangements, but its inward\ndispositions and beliefs. In its avowal that morality was superior to\nlegal observance, in its endeavour to prepare the mind by calm to\nreceive the Divine instruction, in its sabbatic sanctification of all\ndays of the week, in its estimate of all work as religious, and of every\nmeal as sacramental, it pre-intimated the teaching of the coming gospel;\nbut while its arrangements may have suggested the monastic institutions\nof Christendom, we can never regard it as the matrix of Christianity.\nIts life was just the last flickering ray of Judaism, a bright gleam\nirradiating the features of a moribund age, but not that of a new birth\nwith promise of a mighty future. It was not the rush of a new force into\nthe battle of the redemption of humanity, but the _sauve qui peut_ of a\nrout which it believed to be universal. As pessimist as Brahmanism in\nits views of life, though more Buddhist than Brahman in its methods, its\naim was the same\u2014that of rescuing the individual from a world nigh unto\nperdition and really not worth the saving.[124]\n\nIn the virtuous Pharisee and the pious Essene Judaism found its best\nrepresentatives;[125] but at most there were only six thousand\nPharisees[126] and four thousand Essenes[127] in all the nation, and,\nalas! the majority of the Pharisees were not sincere; and the Essenes,\nthough really in earnest, had abandoned the nation to its fate. Among\nthe religious classes piety and morality had become so dissociated that\na man who in the matter of belief or of worship would strain at a gnat,\nmight in practice without condemnation swallow a camel. The result of\nthis fatal divorce between creed and conduct was seen in a social\ncorruption which augured everywhere the gathering of the storm-clouds of\nretribution. At that time Greece was dead, and what was best in its\nspirit had passed into Alexandria. There, blending with the more robust\nspirit of the Hebrew religion, it was forming that Hellenism which,\nthough it never could account for the origin, was yet powerfully to\ninfluence the unfolding of our religion. In Hellenism we have the\nnatural resultant of the conflux of Eastern and Western thought, which,\naccording to some, will explain the birth of Christianity. In it\ncertainly the Aryan and the Semite were seen contributing their very\nbest thoughts, and the product was\u2014Philo; but Philo-Jud\u00e6us is neither\nSt. Paul nor St. John, and the Christ of the Gospels is further beyond\nhim than the heavens are above the earth.\n\nIn Alexandria Greece might be said to live, but Rome was hopelessly\ndying. Drunk with the cup of the sorceries of all nations, embruted with\nevery lust, it was staggering to a doom which neither law, even the best\nconceived and most thoroughly administered, nor philosophy, even the\nwisest and most consistently illustrated, could avert. The civilisation\nof the Western world was marvellous: it was a world not only of poets\nand artists, of brave soldiers and subtle statesmen, but of sound\nmoralists too; but civilisation, powerless to save, could only cover\nwith broidered robes the leprous body, or adorn with golden trappings\nits bier, and morality could not restore what was sick unto death. When\nRome and Palestine were alike corrupt, there was no hope for the world\nin man; yet when all help in man faileth, there never lacketh help in\nGod, and so, just when the night was blackest, and despair had seized on\nall save a few aged people in the courts of Zion, and a few thoughtful\nMagi in the distant East, lo! over a Babe in the cattle-crib of a leewan\nin Bethlehem was descried the shining of the Star of Hope.\n\nWhen we turn from Palestine to the holy land of Magadha, the cradle of\nBuddhism in the sixth century B.C., we find no light of history\nstreaming upon it. All is dim and shadowy, with no chronology to define\nevents, and no incidents to distinguish personalities. It is like a land\nof dreams to our modern conception, but it is not a chaos. We can trace\nto a certain extent movements in it, and as we follow them there emerges\nin outline sufficiently clear a real civilisation, which, though lacking\nthe stir and endeavour, the commerce and the art of the West, and really\ninferior to it, is yet most interesting in its pathetic resemblances,\nand all the more instructive that its beliefs and institutions were\nformed out of antecedents and predispositions very different from any of\nwhich the Western world had experience.\n\nIt is evident from the very cursory survey already made that religious\nbelief in India and in the West must have passed through phases\nsignificantly similar. In both it proceeded from faith in a revealed\nsystem of truth\u2014in India in the inspired Vedas, in Palestine in the\ninspired oracles. Human speculation in both cases was begotten, and for\nlong it was educated in faith in revelation, then beginning to\nrationalise; in both cases it unintentionally undermined what at first\nit only endeavoured to explain. Turning from ancient scrolls to the\nstudy of the book of human nature, whose pages, though often tattered\nand defiled, are always fascinating, it was staggered by the\ncontradiction between man\u2019s ideals of goodness and justice and the\nrealities of human history. Out of this collision arose the Promethean\ndemand that the divine powers that govern life \u201cshould either explain or\nabdicate.\u201d In Palestine this wrestle with the inequalities of providence\noriginated early, and continued all along; but it was confined within\nlimits by faith in the personality of Deity as one so infinitely greater\nthan man that only a part of His ways could be understood. Indian\nspeculation never reached the approaches to this idea of God: it\nwandered into a Pantheism of a grosser type than ever the West was\nacquainted with, and once it reached that stage it could not stop. Just\nas in Greece pantheism ripened into the materialism of the Epicurean and\nthe atheism of the Stoic, so in India, even before the days of Gotama,\nmay have begun that open revolt against Deity, in the perilous attempt\nof reason to explain by itself the universe, with which his name has\nsince then been most closely associated.\n\nThe religious world in India in the times preceding his birth, like the\nreligious world of Palestine, had a hierarchy represented by the\nBrahmans, the indispensable functionaries in all sacrificial services.\nCorresponding to the Scribes were the Teviggi, the reciters and\nexpounders of the sacred and still unwritten books. The Rabbin had their\nanalogies in reforming Brahmans, who alone or in communities that had\ngathered round them professed to teach the higher discipline which could\nsecure deliverance. If a multitude of sects be an indication of\nintellectual movement, there was as much stir in Brahmanism as in\nJudaism. In the Pali books there are mentioned as contemporaries of\nBuddha six noted teachers of great schools, the most formidable of whom,\nor at least the most hated of his soul, was the head of an ascetic sect\nwhich, like the Essenes, had renounced the world to make good their own\nsalvation. This Niggantha sect, still represented in India by close upon\nhalf a million of adherents in the district of Rajputana, claims not\nonly to have preceded the founder of Buddhism by two hundred and fifty\nyears, but to have anticipated the essentials of his system.[128] Its\nphilosophical and ethical doctrines are almost in accord with his, while\nits cosmogony and ritual incline more towards those of Hinduism. Its\nadherents apply to their founder the titles \u201cVictor\u201d or Jina, and\n\u201cEnlightened One\u201d or Buddha, which many imagine were ascribed solely to\nGotama; but whether Buddhism sprang from it or gave birth to Jainism is\na question still undecided. The only solid fact as yet ascertained is\nthat from the earliest traceable period their mutual relations are\nmarked by that pronounced intolerance[129] which prevails when kinsfolk\nquarrel.\n\nCollision and antagonism between sects in India was neither so sharp nor\nso fierce as in Palestine, and Buddha ministered in conditions much more\nfavourable to the propagation of his system than did Jesus Christ. The\nSadducean opponents of Christ represented a powerful hierarchy, the\nPharisees a popular democracy, and the Scribes an influential Sanhedrim,\nwith power of inflicting a sentence of death. The Essenes never mingle\nin the scenes of the Gospel, and it is questionable if they are ever\nreferred to in them. Over all and dominating all was a most jealous and\nvigilant Roman despotism, ever ready to turn even a religious quarrel to\nits own account, so that it was the most natural of things that an\nopposition thus represented should nip, as it were, Christianity in the\nvery bud by crucifying its Founder. In Magadha, however, it was\notherwise. The broad distinction was between Brahmans and Sramans,[130]\nthe latter a general title covering many secessions from Brahmanism, and\nthe popular favour was equally bestowed on both. The Brahmans, though\ndominant, had not the power, and to their credit do not seem to have had\nthe will, to persecute. It was not from them, but from the scholastic\nand conceited Teviggi and from the ascetic sects that Buddha encountered\nmost formidable opposition; and yet even in these cases opposition was\nnot rigid. It was a war not of blows, but of words, in which an appeal\nto the secular arm or to force was out of the question. A new sect,\ntherefore, especially one that had donned the yellow robes and alms-bowl\nof the mendicant, protesting against the debasing belief in the efficacy\nof Brahmanic rites, or the virtue gained by extravagant Yogi\nausterities, would obtain from the people at large more favour than\nresistance or disdain.\n\nThe intellectual movement in India appears thus to have been extensive\nand many-sided. In the multitude of sects there is a guarantee for\nfreedom,[131] and competition in the proclamation of truth is better\nthan monopoly; but in religion, as in trade, the competition of\nover-multiplying sects tends to increase adulteration. So in early\nBuddhist literature, while there is incontestable evidence of the\nexistence of honest instructors, there is also unquestionable evidence\nof the abundance of quacks, who trifled with truth simply to make a gain\nof it, and of shallow but clever professionals, who dealt with gravest\nthemes in the spirit of the mere debater.[132] So there, as in Palestine\nin the days of Coheleth, through over-discussion the old faith was\nrapidly evaporating. In the Brahmans, religion had degenerated into\nformalism; in the Teviggi, into traditionalism. In the philosophic\nSramans it was in many instances passing into blank atheism; and among\nthe ascetics, into despair. While this was the condition of the learned\nand of the few, the masses everywhere, like the Amm\u00e9 Ha-\u00e1rets in\nPalestine, were wandering\u2014no man caring for them\u2014further and further\ninto the idolatries and sensualities of Hinduism. Morality was\nperishing, the writing on the heart was getting more indistinct, and\nconscience becoming more confused. Then, just as five centuries later,\nwhen faith was almost gone, Christ came to restore it by communicating\nnew life, so when divine law was in danger of fading from the\nconsciousness of men, there arose one to assert its eternal supremacy;\npreaching the creed of Coheleth without his fear of God, and enforcing\nthe keeping of the commandments, not as expressed in Vedas or\ninterpreted in Brahmanas, but as written in every fibre of the body and\nevery faculty of the being, as the only way to safety.\n\nWho was he? Like the Author of Christianity, he has had to contend, as\nit were, for the recognition of his personal existence. Even to-day it\nis maintained that neither Christ nor Buddha ever existed, that they\nwere merely incarnations of popular conceptions, and that all the\nlegends concerning them can be reduced to a combination of anterior\nmythological elements. These mythical theories, however, in regard to\nthe origin of Christianity, may be considered among the curiosities of\ncriticism;[133] and in regard to the origin of Buddhism, though more\njustified by the confessed uncertainty as to dates, they have been\nsatisfactorily dispelled as another instance of refining overdone.[134]\nBrahmanism and the successive phases of Hinduism can be traced to no\nindividual founder, but in investigating the origin of Buddhism we\nbreathe a very different atmosphere. There is a human and moral\ncharacter about it which the other Indian religions lack: something real\nas in Mosaism, and palpable as in Islam.[135] We may rest assured that\nBuddhism had for its founder a real person, and though our best\nauthorities have had to search for their facts through a vast amount of\nfabulous materials, we may accept the dates which they have\napproximately fixed for his birth and death, and the outlines which they\nhave sketched of his life and ministry.\n\nGotama, a name still found among the Rajput chiefs of Nagara, was born\nin the north-eastern region of India, about a hundred miles from\nBenares, about the year B.C. 557. His father, a Sakya, a name unknown in\nany native Indian family, and said to indicate descent from a race of\nnorthern nomad immigrants, was rajah of Kapila, and his mother was a\ndaughter of the family of Koli.[136] His principalities, of very limited\nextent, seem to have been eventually swallowed up by the greater Indian\nmonarchies, for when Fa-Hian visited the country Kapila had become a\nvast solitude, and there for ages its very name has perished from the\nliving speech of men. Even though his royal pedigree be an embellishment\nof the later legends, there seems no reason to doubt that his father was\nnoble and rich according to the standard of the time, and sufficiently\nindependent of Brahman domination to train his son in his own way. It\nseems not to have been in their studies, but in the exercises befitting\na warrior prince, that Gotama was educated, though a disposition\nthoughtful and melancholy, and strongly sympathetic, appears to have\ndisinclined him from such a mode of life. Even as a youth the darker\nsides of existence threw a shadow over him; the sufferings of mankind\nwere among his earliest impressions, and he brooded over them till his\nmind, poisoned by the contemplation of them, threw its gloom over\neverything around him, and made the very air hang heavy with the weight\nof woe.\n\nTo one driven as he was to the conclusion that existence was a burden\nrather than a blessing, death, according to the belief in which he had\nbeen nurtured, could afford no relief; but hope seemed to dawn for him\nas he thought of the happy yellow-robed sages who, freed from his\nhorror, were tranquil and dignified, abstracted alike from pleasure and\npain. So after a period of irresolution and struggle, in the very prime\nof his manhood, he stole away from his wife and his new-born child, and\ncast in his lot with the forest recluses. Having lived some time with\nthem, and having found that their ascetic discipline failed to satisfy\nhis aspirations, he left them, and joined two philosophic Brahmans, who\ntaught him the science of meditation in its lower and higher degrees.\nThough he had profited so much by their instruction and discipline that\nhe rose in six years from being a disciple to a teacher, he confessed\nthat he had not found by their methods the imperishable and permanent\nquietude which he coveted. So, abandoning all his disciples, he withdrew\ninto solitude, and plunged into fasting so rigorous that he nearly\ndestroyed himself; then, finding that the secret of deliverance was not\nthus to be obtained, he returned, amid the contempt of his former\ncompanions, to a more genial mode of life. Then, all alone in the\njungle, its manifold discomforts, the memories of home, and the\nfruitlessness of all his endeavours, assailed him with the force of a\ntemptation to desist from the quest; but rallying all his powers for one\nsupreme effort, he eventually, under a banyan-tree at Bohimanda,\ntriumphed\u2014awoke as one before whom all illusion had vanished, and who by\nno divine illumination, but by his own personal energy, had attained to\nknowledge of the causes of all things, and had at last become the\nBuddha, the Enlightened One.\n\nWe need have no difficulty in accepting this outline of the man\u2019s\nspiritual history as substantially correct; and assuming it to be so, we\nsee at once that it is contrasted in every point with the early history\nof Jesus of Nazareth. In the Indian narrative, _e.g._, we have long and\nprolix details of the youth and manhood of Gotama; in the Christian\nGospels very few incidents, one pregnant saying, two or three words of\ndescription, sum up the whole record of Christ\u2019s biography till He\nappeared before the Baptist. This silence is surely suggestive, for it\ncould not have been the result of ignorance or forgetfulness. \u201cIt is\nsilence, where, to a moral certainty,\u201d as is indicated alike by the\napocryphal Gospels and the Buddhist legends, \u201cmen left to themselves\nwould have used much speech.\u201d In the Gospels the things which we are\nnaturally curious to know are concealed from us, and there is disclosed\nonly the spiritual reality in which Christianity consists. Where He was,\nhow He looked, what He did during these long years of waiting and\npreparation, the Evangelists have not told us; but they have revealed\nenough to show what He was. Scenery and circumstances are as nothing,\nbecause the life that was revealing itself in them was everything; and\nof the unfolding of that life, the few and slight but most suggestive\ntouches of the Gospels enable us to form clearer conceptions than we are\never likely to form of Gotama\u2019s from the abundant incidents of the\nBuddhist story.\n\nThus while the son of the Indian rajah did not require to keep from\nhimself anything that his heart desired, Jesus of Nazareth in the home\nof Galilee had to deny Himself, and to endure in the commonest kind of\nlabour a hardness which the Indian youth, in the inertion of his class\nand race, regarded as part of the curse of existence. Still, Jesus had\nmeat to eat which the other knew not of; He had bread enough and to\nspare, while the other was perishing of hunger. Rich in poverty, while\nGotama was poor in his abundance, Jesus the carpenter appears highly\nexalted in what the other would have called humiliation. There, while\nGotama, having everything which he could desire at his call, had\ndiscovered that human life was worse than vanity, Jesus,\nself-surrendered in faithful service of others, was learning how full of\nblessedness and how rich in power of blessing the life of any man might\nbe. The angels of nature and providence, by the lilies of the field and\nthe children in the market-place, instructed him in a wisdom which no\nIndian sage ever dreamed of; and though He saw the wretchedness of this\nevil world as Gotama never saw it, and felt for the misery of men as\nGotama never could feel, He saw what even Buddha the Enlightened never\ncould descry, the face of a Father in Heaven not frowning in wrath but\nyearning in pity over all. So, instead of repelling, the suffering and\nevil of the world drew Jesus closer to it, till, finding His grace, not\nas Gotama found His wisdom, in desire to be delivered from it, but in\nthe depth of His longing to save it, He gave Himself to it and for it,\nas for a joy that was set before Him.\n\nAgain, the enlightenment of Gotama was the result of a painful struggle,\nfirst between inclination and duty, and then with great perplexities of\nduty, but in Christ it was painless and natural, like the growing of the\ndawn into the day. His pure and at first joyous life unfolded itself\nlike a beautiful morning under the animating impulse of love to God and\nto all His creatures. As He grew in consciousness of the heaven within,\nHe became more conscious of the disorder without, and more sensible of\nHis isolation in regard to it. As year by year the sense not of the\nworld\u2019s misery but of its guilt increased within Him, there would also\nincrease the longing that it should be taken away. Very early the\nconviction took possession of Him, that He was not here to win His own\nway to deliverance, but to be about His Father\u2019s business. Gradually the\nFather\u2019s business was revealed to Him, and when the preaching of the\nBaptist had made it clear, without any wrestle like Gotama\u2019s, Christ,\never close to His Father, and ever clear in His duty, set Himself at\nonce to fulfil it.\n\nIt is often alleged that the temptation in the wilderness, which marked\nthe close of our Lord\u2019s long period of silent preparation, is an exact\nparallel to the fasting and temptation which preceded Gotama\u2019s\nenlightenment at Bohimanda. There is doubtless an external similarity\nsufficient to arrest our attention, but the internal contrasts disclose\nexperiences of quite different characters. In the light of their\nrespective histories, these occurrences, though often referred to as\nmiraculous, were in reality most natural. They represent experiences of\nwhich there could be no witnesses, and which, indescribable in plain\nwords, could only be suggested by a kind of parable. The temptations are\nrecorded not as they were presented to the persons tried, but in the\ncharacter which they assumed when their drift was discovered and their\naim was detected. Both were assailed by suggestions, raising in them a\ntumult of emotion, which, if unresisted or yielded to, would in Gotama\u2019s\ncase have been equivalent to abandonment of his quest for deliverance\nfor the sake of sensual indulgence offered by M\u00e2ra and his daughters,\nand in the case of Christ, to refusal to live by obedience, to tempting\nthe Holy One of Israel, and to worshipping the splendid majesty of\nwrong. The temptations were real, assailing the will, seeking to\nparalyse or to change it; and their force in each case would be in\nproportion to the depth and purity of the natures assailed. Gotama,\nthough unmistakably a man of high spiritual aspiration, was attacked by\nsensual visions,[137] which could not possibly have been a temptation to\na nature like Christ\u2019s. He had \u201cto repel as evil what to other men would\nhave appeared as ideals of good, and had to turn away from what the\nnoblest of men would have cherished as innocent dreams or splendid\nchances,\u201d[138] because to His pure eyes they were Satanic temptations.\nHe suffered, being tempted, but His trouble and suffering were caused\nneither by irresolution, nor vanity, nor fear, but by His own lowly\nhumility and to the sense of the exceeding greatness of His mission.\n\nGotama, sorely concerned about himself, went apart to fast and meditate\nand wrestle for his own deliverance, but Christ went apart not to\nfast\u2014fasting was an unheeded incident in and not the aim of His\nretirement, and in no perplexity about His own salvation, for that was\nassured and made the basis of assault,\u2014but that in quiet meditation He\nmight see more clearly the way by which the salvation of God could be\nbrought to mankind. Christ was forced to acknowledge that absolute\nsurrender to His Father\u2019s will in His mission meant absolute antagonism\nto the world, and He was tried by suggestions as to the mode of\nprosecuting His mission, all the more seductive that they were confessed\nto be natural. Might He not, as the Beloved of Heaven, to carry the\nworld along with Him, and to save multitudes from suffering, swerve just\na little from His high ideal, and accommodate His ways to suit their\nprejudices? These temptations in the beginning continued His temptations\nto the very close of His ministry. Not once, but all His life, as He\nhungered for the sympathy and trust of those whom He sought to save, was\nHe tempted, as in Capernaum, when many fell away from Him, to \u201cchange\nthe stones into bread.\u201d Not once only did He stand on \u201cthe battlements\nof the temple,\u201d nor once only was He offered \u201call the kingdoms of the\nworld and the glory of them.\u201d Again and again was He in peril when He\nstood high in the opinion of the crowds, and heard them in their Hosanna\nentreating Him, through His very sympathy with and love for them, to\ngratify their wishes; yet in every case the temptation was rejected\nwithout the slightest wavering the moment it was understood. \u201cGet thee\nbehind me, Satan.\u201d \u201cThou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.\u201d \u201cThe cup\nwhich my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?\u201d\n\nFor again, Christ conquered because from the beginning to the closing\nagony He stood firm rooted in obedience and in submission to the will of\na Higher than self; but the Buddhist writers want to impress the very\nopposite of this upon us in regard to Gotama\u2019s victory. He is said to\nhave conquered M\u00e2ra by the force of his own will, and won his way to\nlight by his individual energy alone. After he became Buddha he\nhesitated whether he would preach the way of deliverance to men, not\nbecause, like Moses and the Hebrew prophets, he had no confidence in\nhimself and required the assurance of a divine strength not his own. He\nhad perfect assurance in himself, but he had no confidence at first in\nthe ability of others to comprehend and to follow him in a way so\ndifficult to find and so hard to tread.[139] He asked no deity to help\nhim, for he was greater and wiser than all the gods. In the legends\nBrahma is said in intercession to have pressed him to preach the way,\nand moved eventually by no intercession, but simply by his own pity for\nmen lost in the vortices of miserable existence, he went forth in no\nstrength but his own to preach and to teach in a ministry, not of shame\nand humiliation and death, but one of great exaltation and honour.\n\nThis conception colours the narrative of his whole career. In the later\nscriptures he is designated the Tath\u00e2gata (He who has gone or arrived at\nNirvana), the very reverse and point-blank contradiction of Christ the\nMessiah, He who was sent. There was no higher to send him, no wiser to\nteach. He came in his own name; but Jesus, as one sent by Him into the\nworld, went forth in the name of His Father. Though He made demands upon\nthe faith of the world compared with which the pretensions of Gotama are\ntrivial\u2014for at the highest he only claimed to be Buddha the Enlightened,\nwhile Christ spake of Himself as the \u201cLight of the world,\u201d\u2014yet in\nChrist\u2019s claim there was ever a sense of dependence expressed or\nimplied, as of one who of His own self could do nothing, and who only\ntaught what His Father had showed Him. Both spake with authority, and\nnot as the scribes; both superseded the traditional domination of what\nwas said by men of old times with the emphatic \u201cI say unto you\u201d; but\nthere is a vast difference in the quality of this authority in the two\ncases. The authority of Buddha sprang from his acknowledged intellectual\nsuperiority, but the authority of Jesus sprang from spiritual insight.\nThe deliverances of Buddha were given after the manner of a Socratic\ndialogue, and he won his converts and vanquished opponents by his\ndialectic skill.[140] But in all the encounters of Christ with His\nenemies there was no forcing of their reason to gain His end. His\nreplies and counter questions were brief and direct and incisive; they\nwere like the fiat of a king or the sentence of an unchallengeable\njudge, from which reason and conscience alike confessed that there could\nbe no appeal.\n\nCertainly in the two ministries was fulfilled a saying of Christ, \u201cI am\ncome in my Father\u2019s name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come\nin his own name, him will ye receive,\u201d for after a very short period of\nimperfect success the public career of Gotama became a continuous\nvictorious progress. Disciples, drawn mostly from the highest\nclasses\u2014the Brahmans, the nobles, and the wealthy merchants\u2014flocked\nround him wherever he appeared. He journeyed followed by admiring\ncrowds, he had only to show himself to impress, and he had only to\npreach to convince. The most stubborn resistance became fluid under his\nspell, and those who approached to confute were sure to succumb to his\nsweet reasonableness. He was supported by powerful rajahs, and those who\ndid not show him proper reverence were punished according to their\nedicts. He was lodged in parks and gardens and palaces, several of which\nwere gifted to him for the use of his Order. Accessible always to people\nof all castes, and of every condition, and of both sexes, he received\nthe attention of the courtesan, and shared her feast and accepted her\noffering,[141] but he always maintained the nobility and purity of an\nirreproachable character, and wherever he was found it was as the\nprophet of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come. Rejoicing\nthrough his long and honourable ministry, sometimes loath to die, as\nforeseeing the troubles which would befall his Order after his decease,\nhe at last, when over fourscore years, in a sickness alleged to have\nbeen induced by partaking too freely of some rich food, with the quiet\ndignity and composure of a saint, fell asleep, and was buried with the\nfuneral obsequies which Indians then bestowed on the bodies of their\ngreatest kings.[142]\n\nIt would be impossible, in every respect, to find a more absolute\ncontrast to all this than the story of Jesus of Nazareth. If He was\npopular, it was only for a little, and then only with the masses. The\naristocracy and the religious classes stood aloof, and soon entered into\na conspiracy to get rid of Him. He had a few disciples among them, like\nJoseph of Arimath\u00e6a, and Nicodemus, and the family at Bethany, but the\nwords of the prophet accurately sum up the narratives of the Gospel,\nthat He was \u201cdespised and rejected of men.\u201d To follow Him meant joining\nin no triumphal procession, but in a struggle against storm and tide\nwhich was sure to end in death. Suspected from the first, and speedily\ndenounced, He was watched and tracked and driven from place to place,\ntill at last the toils of the hunters closed successfully around Him,\nand at the age of thirty-three He was crucified as a malefactor between\ntwo robbers on Calvary.\n\nBut the grand and crowning distinction between the import and effect of\nthe two ministries emerged at the close. After Gotama died and his body\nwas burned, and his relics had been reverently gathered, and\ndistributed, and enshrined in costly dagobas erected in the various\nscenes of his labours, there was an end of him. He had gone out into the\nvoid, according to his own theory of the hereafter, and, no longer\ncapable of being of use to his disciples, he exhorted them to be \u201ctheir\nown refuge, their own law, and to work diligently out their\nsalvation.\u201d[143] But when Jesus had been crucified there was manifestly\nnot an end, but rather a new beginning of His personal influence, a\nrising in fuller power, a coming again with greater authority. From the\nvery morning of His ministry He took His death into His plan, as the\nconsummation of one stage of His mission, without which His plan would\nhave been a failure. All His teaching centred in His death, as a moral\nand spiritual necessity in Divine providence. Instead of complaining of\nit, He pointed to it as the seal of His Messiahship, \u201cthe cause for\nwhich He was born, the end for which He came into the world,\u201d \u201cthe hour\u201d\nof His glorification. The very setting of crime and passion which His\nenemies sought to give to the manner of it only made it in His\nestimation more divine. Instead of evading it He went straight to meet\nit, when the time had come, as one who had a purpose to fulfil by it.\nThat purpose He announced to be the development of His personal\nresources, the liberation of the creative energies of His being. As\nuncrucified He might be weak, as crucified He would be so mighty as to\n\u201cdraw all men unto Him.\u201d The event amply fulfilled the prediction, for\nshortly after the crucifixion Christ again confronted the world in\nanother form and in far greater power. The followers of Buddha went\nforth testifying to his law, and they prefaced their preaching by the\ninvariable formula, \u201cThus have I heard, when the Blessed One lived in\n\u2014\u2014.\u201d Their mission was simply to recall and declare and expound the\nsystem of a master who had been absolutely lost to them, but the\napostles of Christ from the very first testified not of a doctrine, but\nof Christ Himself, as one who having died still lived, was reigning in\nmightier power, and would be with them always, even to the end of the\n\u00e6on.\n\nFor we must bear in mind that Buddha and Christ stand in very contrasted\nrelations to the systems of belief which they each founded. Soon after\nBuddha\u2019s death, if not before it, the formula of admission into his\norder began with the phrase, \u201cI take refuge in Buddha,\u201d which\nconsequently has been described by some as the \u201cfirst article in the\nBuddhist creed.\u201d We must not for a moment however suppose that this\nexpression is of equal or even of similar significance to our\nconfession, \u201cI believe in Christ.\u201d Gotama in the whole course of his\npreaching never asked his hearers for faith in himself as essential to\ntheir emancipation. All that he demanded was obedience to the law,\ndisposition to enter, and determination to follow the paths which he had\ndiscovered. He could not give them Nirvana, nor even bring them to it;\nhe could only tell them the way to it, which he had found, and as he had\nsucceeded so might they by their own individual energy.[144] We are thus\nnot free to explain Buddhism from and by the person of its founder; it\nis perfectly explicable apart from him, as if he had never lived; but\napart from Christ, and without the light thrown upon it by His person,\nChristianity would be an enigma. Christ from the first demanded faith in\nHimself as essential to salvation.[145] Belief in what He taught was\nalways subordinated to trust in Himself. Consequently the apostles never\nsaid, \u2018Observe the precepts; follow the paths, and you will find the way\nof escape,\u2019 but always \u201cBelieve in (_or_ on) the Lord Jesus Christ and\nthou shalt be saved.\u201d They pointed to Him as the sole object of faith\nand worship, as the only rule and example and inspiration. Their creed,\ntheir theology, their ethical code, were not elaborated in systems; they\nwere all comprehended in a Person who required neither apologists nor\ndefenders, but only witnesses who would manifest and declare Him.\n\nThis must be borne in mind when we consider the miraculous elements\nwhich are common to the presentation, given in both religions, of their\nrespective Authors. The story of Buddha, as we have hitherto followed\nit, tells of a great renunciation, but of one that can hardly be called\nunparalleled in the history of religion. He was probably neither the\nfirst nor the last noble Indian youth who \u201cfor the sake of that supreme\ngoal of the higher life went out from all and every household gain and\ncomfort, to become a houseless wanderer.\u201d[146] But the story as we have\nit in the Buddhist books is very different.[147] Had any one asked a\nyellow-robed missionary, about the time when the last Gospel was being\nwritten, what he meant by the Buddha, he would have begun by telling of\none who, thousands of ages back, in the shining world of the gods, out\nof pity for the miseries of men, resolved to become a Buddha that he\nmight teach them the way of deliverance, and who through many\ntransformations\u2014in which he was baptized into all experiences, even\nthose of rat and a clod of earth\u2014at last reached the point when, coming\ndown from heaven, and entering, in the form of a white elephant, the\nside of the wedded wife[148] of a great king,[149] was born as Buddha.\nHe would tell of a mysterious baptism, when two full streams of perfumed\nwater fell from heaven upon him, while all the gods in all the worlds\nraised in responsive harmony the heavenly song; of a holy sage who\ndescended from heaven to greet him with predictions of his glorious\ncareer;[150] of many prodigies displayed by him in his illustrious\nyouth; of his mighty struggle with and victory over M\u00e2ra, Lord of all\nDesires, and of his going forth as a great king, at the urgent request\nof the great god Brahma, to preach Nirvana and deliver the world.\n\nThen he would tell how when he set \u201ca-rolling the wheel\u201d of the \u201ckingdom\nof righteousness,\u201d[151] he did so with such effect that not only\nmultitudes of men, but eighty thousand gods and angels, \u201chearing, each\nin their own tongue, though the language was that of Magadha,\u201d[152] were\nby one sermon imbued with saving knowledge and converted; how during his\nlong and holy ministry, by discourses and parables and miracles, he\nbrought countless millions of men and women, and gods and sprites and\nfairies, to find the right way; how the great devas came to worship or\nto ask counsel from him;[153] how, inviolable and invincible, there\ncould not be found, either in this world or in the world of the devas,\nM\u00e2ras, Brahmans, \u201cany who could either scatter his thoughts or cleave\nhis heart\u201d;[154] how he was transfigured,[155] and at last, when the\ntime was come, accompanied by a disciple very dear to him, how he lay\ndown like a king between two trees. Then when winds were hushed, and\nstreamlets silenced, and flowers from heaven shed their blossoms over\nhim like rain-drops, and a great earthquake rumbled, and the sun and\nmoon hid their faces, and the great Brahma lamented, rising through\nlight to light he achieved the full Nirvana.[156]\n\nIt is not wonderful that Christians who have only read or heard of the\nstatements current as to the remarkable coincidences between the\nmiraculous incidents recorded in the Buddhist legends and the Christian\nGospels should be perplexed, and that not a few of those who are\nanti-Christian in their attitude should have almost jumped to the\nconclusion that the biographers of the two lives must have known of each\nother\u2019s works and borrowed each other\u2019s traditions. Examination of the\nalleged coincidences, however, reveals that there is no occasion for the\nperplexity in the one case, and no ground for the jubilation in the\nother. By no honest process of manipulation can we turn the supposed\nsimilarities into even probable identities. The incidents illustrate\nvery widely contrasted lives, and enforce dogmas utterly contradictory\nto each other. If any one is desirous of ascertaining the coincidences\nwhich are stated to exist, he will find them clearly set forth and\nclassified by Professor Seydel in his so-called Buddhist Harmony;[157]\nand if he require any more than his own common sense to guide him to an\nopinion concerning them, he had better consult the Appendix to Professor\nKuenen\u2019s Hibbert Lectures on _National Religions and Universal\nReligions_, Dr. Kellogg\u2019s _Light of Asia and Light of the World_, and\nDr. J. Estlin Carpenter\u2019s article in the _Nineteenth Century_, December\n1880, \u201cOn the Obligations of the New Testament to Buddhism.\u201d These\nauthorities will confirm the judgment which any unbiassed and\nintelligent juryman would form, from considering the evidence adduced in\nsupport of the theory of borrowing, and from a simple comparison of the\nalleged parallels themselves, that Buddhism had not the smallest direct\ninfluence on the origin of Christianity. So fundamentally unlike are the\nalleged \u201csimilarities\u201d that the hypothesis of the derivation of the\ncontents of the Gospels from Buddhist sources is as ridiculous as would\nbe the supposition that the Venus of Milo was copied from the rude idol\nor hideous fetich of an aboriginal tribe.[158]\n\nWhen the missionaries of the two religions first came into actual\ncontact has not yet been ascertained, and the influence of the Christian\nideals of self-oblivion upon the most essentially selfish system of\nsalvation ever promulgated to the world has yet to be traced. The\nconception of self-renunciation which is set forth in the legends may\nhave originated in the memory of the kindness and gentleness and\ngoodness of one whose life was far nobler than his creed, and it may\nhave assumed greater strength and clearness when the teaching of the\nGospels came to be reflected upon it. It may or it may not, but of this\nwe may be positively certain, that the writers of the New Testament and\nthe composers of the earliest Buddhist traditions knew positively\nnothing of each other\u2019s productions. This is a conclusion accepted by\nthe very best authorities on the subject, and it is maintained with the\ngreatest firmness by those of them who discount the miraculous\noccurrences found in the scriptures of both religions as only the fond\nfancies which their affectionate disciples gradually wove around the\nmemories of their respective teachers. They hold that working\nindependently of each other, but under similar influences and in similar\nconditions, it was simply natural that they should have come to adorn\nwith wonders somewhat alike in character the story of two lives so pure\nand beneficial.\n\nThe learned author of the Hibbert Lectures for 1881 has made some very\ninteresting and important suggestions as to the rise of the Buddhist\nlegends, and as he seems to imply a similar growth of the \u201cChristian\nlegend,\u201d it may be advisable to consider both accounts in their relation\nto the literary sources which profess to authenticate them. Let us\nassume, therefore, that the Lalita Vistara was actually in circulation\nabout the beginning of the Christian era,[159] and let us take for\ngranted that one of the oldest Suttas,[160] professing to relate a\nportion of Buddha\u2019s ministry, was extant in the form in which we have\nit, some three centuries earlier, or a century after Buddha\u2019s death. A\ncomparison of these two productions reveals at once the fact that in the\nearliest there is no reference to the divinity, pre-existence, or\nsupernatural birth of Buddha, and making allowance for the usual\nexaggeration of language, that there are very few miraculous incidents\nrecorded in it. It has been asserted that Buddha never professed to work\na miracle. Certainly the fragments of his original teaching which\nsurvive indicate that he would be the first to repudiate all such as\nhave been ascribed to him. Be that as it may, it is a literary fact that\nin the supposed earliest books only a few miracles are recorded. We may\ninfer therefore that by the time they were composed his orthodox\ndisciples had not formed those conceptions of his person and mission\nwhich their pious descendants later on learned to believe and to\nproclaim.[161]\n\nThe Gospels are not the earliest Christian writings, and not several,\nbut many, \u201cnarratives concerning those matters which had been fulfilled\nor established among\u201d Christians, even as they \u201cdelivered them who were\neye-witnesses and ministers of the word,\u201d[162] were probably in\ncirculation before the Gospels were written. Some of the Epistles of St.\nPaul also, in all probability, preceded those collections of \u201cthe words\nand deeds of the Lord\u201d; but the substance of the three first Gospels was\nvery early produced, and we may be morally certain that they contain the\nbeliefs which the very first generation of Christians entertained\nconcerning Him. The truth of these beliefs is not now under discussion,\nbut only the fact of them, and the kind of people who were influenced by\nthem. It is averred \u201cthat the outward conditions in which Buddhism and\nChristianity arose were similar, and so were the mental qualities of the\ndisciples of both religions\u201d;[163] but the conditions were most\ndissimilar in this respect, that Buddhism originated in the dimness of\nan unhistoric age, and Christianity in an age and land so irradiated by\nthe light of history that we know more clearly what was happening then\nand there than we do of what occurred in Europe a thousand years after.\nThe mental qualities of the disciples of both religions again seem to\nhave been most unlike. About Ananda and his companions we know really\nnothing but the names, for they meet us in the Buddhist records as mere\nlay figures, completely resembling one another, and with no\nindividuality to distinguish them.[164] We may assume, however, that\nthey belonged to one or other of the many sects of Brahmans or Sramans,\nand if so, that they were dreamy and contemplative men, withdrawn from\npractical life, and finding in the life of meditation a sphere more\ncongenial to them than the actual world of which they were parts. They\nappear to have been directly and thoroughly unlike to the very marked\npersonalities represented by the Evangelists and the other apostles of\nChrist, who were all drawn from practical life to be His followers. They\nwere the very reverse of speculative; they had little imagination and\nalmost no poetry in them; they were very dull of comprehension in regard\nto truths higher than the few which they inherited, and very incredulous\nabout any unwonted occurrence said to have taken place outside the\nlittle circle of their own observation. In their conscientious,\nmatter-of-fact way of looking at things they were the very last men to\ndream dreams or weave legends around the memory of one whom they\nrevered; and we have their own confession, not of their slowness of\napprehension merely, but of their unbelief at first in regard to all\nsupernatural manifestations.\n\nNow while the supernatural only rarely meets us in the most ancient\nBuddhist productions, where we would naturally have expected it to have\npredominated, it meets us in the very earliest writings of Christianity,\nwhere we would not have expected it at all. Christ to His first\ndisciples and apostles was a miraculous being. The claim formulated in\nSt. John\u2019s Gospel, which is probably the latest book in the New\nTestament, is that advanced for Christ by St. Paul in his earliest\nextant letter to the churches. The Christ of St. John is not a new\nPerson, but the same Divine Being of whom St. Paul says, \u201cHe being in\nthe form of God\u201d was \u201cfound on earth in fashion as a man.\u201d He may have\nbeen all wrong as to the ground of his belief; he may have been an\nepileptic, a visionary, a man subject to trances, whose intense\nspiritual affinities disqualified him from judging calmly of matters of\nhistory; but there is no mistake as to his own belief and that of the\nother evangelists and writers of the New Testament. The teaching of St.\nPaul and St. John concerning Christ is set forth in St. Matthew with a\nclearness which no language can improve upon.[165] St. Mark dwells\nprimarily upon the humanity of Jesus, a most important fact, presenting\na historic basis without which Christian truth would have been little\nmore than a mystic speculation; but even in St. Mark that humanity is\nnot described as unfolding under conditions which are merely\nnormal.[166] The life to which he testifies is not just that of Jesus of\nNazareth, but of the Christ of God, who speaks with more than human\nauthority. The development which is traceable in the theology of the\nEpistles is the expansion of the significance of the events recorded in\nthe Gospels. The latest writings may more fully interpret the teaching\nof the earlier ones, but in them we find no other Gospels, but only\nanathemas pronounced on those who pretend to have them. In them a larger\ndomain is seen expanding beneath our gaze, but it is visible only in the\nlight of the central figure that meets us in the first. Plainly,\ntherefore, while the earliest Buddhist witnesses account for their\nmaster and his teaching in the ordinary ways, and while their successors\nmuch later on in their attempts to embellish his portrait have produced\nquite a different person from the man of whom they first testified, the\nvery earliest Christian writers could not account for Christ in any\nother way than by regarding Him as a supernatural being, who did not\ncome into the world and did not leave it in the way of all other men. It\nis possible that they may all have been deluded, but if so, they vouched\nfor their sincerity by their martyrdoms. The delusion, moreover, was at\nleast universally and most consistently maintained, and it is the first\ninstance in the history of mankind where a delusion has produced\nintellectual activity and expansion so wonderful as to have changed the\ncurrent of history, and originated the great throbbing ever-enlarging\nworld of Christendom which confronts us now.\n\nAnother significant contrast between the two sets of writings is found\nin the fact that while we can dissociate the miraculous elements from\nthe Buddhist Pitakas without detriment to their other contents, we find\nit impossible to apply the same process with the like results to the New\nTestament. No one questions that primitive Buddhism is improved by being\nfreed from the portents which subsequently gathered around it, for\nprimitive Buddhism is an intellectual and moral system, a theory of the\nuniverse more likely to be obscured than elucidated by an appeal to the\nsupernatural. Christianity, however, while appealing both to intellect\nand conscience, does so as the revelation of a life which, as a new\nthing, might break through all men\u2019s conceptions of what was ordinary or\nnecessary. The first appearance of life on this planet as an unwonted\nphenomenon would be accompanied by manifestations miraculous to all who\nonly judged by experience of what had already been. So would be the\nfirst appearance of man to those who judged of things by what was\npossible to the actual animal world. That the manifestation of One who\nhad come that men might have life, and have it more abundantly, should\nbe accompanied with phenomena new and strange to mankind might have been\nexpected. Christ, as revealing an ideal of excellence to which things as\nthey are in nature, and men as they now are in society, do not conform,\nwill in truth contradict the present working of both. This at least is\nthe impression inevitably produced by the reading of the New Testament.\nIts teaching is throughout founded upon, and it would be quite\nunintelligible without reference to, the supernatural. To dissociate the\nmiraculous portions from the rest of its contents would be not only to\nmutilate but to destroy it.[167] Not the theological and metaphysical\nelements only, but even \u201cthe ethical, are so interwoven into one fibre\nwith the supernatural in the New Testament that it is impossible to\ndetach them without destroying the whole fabric.\u201d[168] Verily a Gospel\nwithout the miracles and all that accounts for them would be a very\nstrange book.\n\nAnother very distinctive feature in the New Testament accounts is\ndisplayed in the character of the wonders there recorded. Indeed, this\ndistinguishing element is found in all the miraculous narratives of the\nBible. If it be true that the ancient writers or redactors of Scripture\nhave employed the legends of other nations to illustrate their works, it\nmust be conceded that they have immensely improved, and made a much\nbetter use of them. The story of the creation of the world, of the\nprimeval paradise, and of the deluge, may be only myths common to\nseveral nations, but somehow, while all other writers just lose\nthemselves in these myths, the Hebrews alone have laid hold of them to\nenforce the sublimest views ever formulated in human speech concerning\nthe origin of the world and of man. The narratives of the Old Testament\nare evidently not constructed to startle the reader with portents, but\nto disclose the providential dealings of a holy and merciful God with\nman to enlighten and save him. The Gospels in like manner are not\nwritten to record miraculous occurrences, nor are miracles introduced to\nglorify Christ: they are simply referred to as incidents in His\nministry. When we compare the prodigies ascribed to Buddha during the\nmany changes of his pre-existence, or during his ministry, with the\nmiracles of the Gospels, they are like the rough casts in clay or wood\nmade by a rude or childish people contrasted with the perfect\nproductions of nature in the world of animals or of men. They may endure\ncomparison with the portents found in the Apocryphal books, or in the\nLives of the Saints, but placed side by side with the Gospel miracles\nthey serve only to illustrate the difference between what is artificial\nand grotesque, and what is original and natural. There is a marked\nsobriety in the Gospel accounts totally lacking in the Buddhist legends.\nThe latter serve no other end but to exalt and magnify Buddha,[169] but\nthe Gospel miracles are all founded in some great human necessity which\nthey are intended to supply. The Buddhist marvels are simply produced to\nstartle us, the Christian are recorded as signs to instruct us. What a\ngulf separates the conception of Buddha leaping high in air amid the\nsounding of the bells of the heavens and the plaudits of all the gods,\njust to prove that he was Buddha, from the account of Christ\u2019s refusal\nto work a miracle to win the adherence of the crowd, or give the sign\nfrom heaven to vanquish Sadducean unbelief! The Gospel miracles are few\nafter all, but they all flow from and are in harmony with the original\nidea of Christ as Messiah which is assumed in all the Gospels. The\nmighty works done by Him are all such as might be expected to be done in\na world like this by the Son of a heavenly Father. The cure of all\nmanner of disease, the exorcism of all the evil spirits that have\nafflicted humanity, the victory over death, the control of all the\nforces of nature, were all in the scope of one who came hither to\nestablish the kingdom of God. Christ\u2019s miracles were all signs of man\u2019s\npresent and prophecies of his future relations to all the evils that\nafflict him. They all remind us of the Divine original ideal that man,\nperfectly obedient to God, must exercise dominion over His creatures in\nthis world. Man\u2019s present antagonism to nature, and the disorder seen in\nhis own social relations, are alike due to his refusal to merge his will\nin God\u2019s, and the miracles of our Saviour are all prophecies that when\nthrough obedience to or faith in God he shall be restored to holiness,\nhe will find his social and external relations improved, and will regain\nover nature that spiritual authority which even already the winds and\nthe waves in part recognise and obey.[170]\n\nAgain, the New Testament writers claim for Christ what the early\ndisciples of Buddha never dreamed of claiming for their master, and they\ninsist upon their claim, though it is associated with the meanest and\napparently most contradictory of elements. It is not the glorification\nbut the humiliation of Christ which constitutes the marvel in the\nGospels. It was very natural that the Evangelists should imagine that\nthe angels should sing over the birth of a Saviour, but it was not\nnatural that they should conceive of them singing over a babe in a\nmanger. It was not wonderful, again, for Jews to believe that the coming\nof their Messiah was divinely announced, but it is very wonderful that\nthey should believe that this annunciation was made to unknown\nshepherds. It was certainly not in that way their Messiah was expected\nto come. Had He come in the way they expected, the miracles might\nnaturally have been accounted for which they associated with His coming;\nbut, as matter of fact, it requires the miracle to account for their\nbelief in Him. And so it is all through in the Gospels. That the Messiah\nshould be discovered to be the Son of God need not surprise us, but that\nthe Son of God should be recognised by Jews in the form of a servant,\nenduring patiently the contradiction of sinners, submitting to trial, to\ntorture, to death on the cross, is one of the greatest marvels in the\nwhole history of religion. This combination of glory and shame was a\ndifficulty in the way of faith, not a help or support of it. The claim,\nwe must remember, was not advanced for Christ by the Evangelists after\nHe died; it was formulated by Himself, and by Him it was asserted more\nconspicuously, and with greater frequency and emphasis toward the close\nof His earthly life. It was the only charge on which He was condemned;\nall other accusations brought against Him broke down; but this one He\nadmitted\u2014that He called Himself the Son of God. Questioned upon it, He\nwould not retract. \u201cThou sayest,\u201d was all His reply, and for the saying\nHe was ordered to the cross. Yet upon the cross His assertion was\nstrengthened. Had He been a pretender, He would never have so comported\nHimself before Pilate and Herod; had He been self-deluded, He never\nwould have said to His fellow-sufferer on Calvary: \u201cTo-day shalt thou be\nwith me in paradise.\u201d The torture of crucifixion was sufficient to expel\nthe hallucinations of the maddest brain, but the Evangelists show that\nwhile faith in His Messiahship was, during His crucifixion, fading even\nfrom His disciples, in Himself it was stronger than ever, and at the\nvery last it was communicated to a dying robber, who trusted that He had\npower to absolve him, and to open to him the gates of a better life.\nNow, all this surely never could naturally have occurred to Jewish men\nto conceive, and if their records be only fictions, the devout creations\nof over fond imaginations, then their legends are miracles themselves.\n\nSome one has said that it is possible to find in the Buddhist books a\nparallel to every incident in the Gospels; if so, these parallels will\nbe found to be very far apart; but to the incident of the Crucifixion\nthere can be no parallel. That one historical event separates not only\nthe two systems of thought and belief, but marks off Christianity from\nall other religions in the world. Till the crucifixion of Jesus was\naccomplished, the idea of associating with Deity humiliation, and of\nconceiving of God as dying the death of a slave upon the cross, would\nhave been regarded as the grossest impiety. The fundamental idea of the\nIncarnation was not wholly foreign to the mind either of India or of\nGreece; to the Jew it was not a natural thought, but one so anti-Semitic\nthat Jew and Moslem alike have rejected Christianity because of it;[171]\nbut the incarnation of Deity represented in the Gospels, the humiliation\nof the Godhead implied in the Crucifixion, is an idea which never could\nhave originated in the mind of either Gentile or Jew. It is one of the\nthings of God which the natural man cannot conceive, a mystery hid from\nall ages until it was revealed, and apparently, unless we admit the\nreality of the revelation, we never can account for the faith.\n\nThe miraculous personality of Christ is thus the outstanding and\ndistinctive feature of the Christian writings. As the mists clear away\nin the East, Buddha emerges more and more in the stature of a good and\ngreat man, but Christ rises upon us as one who cannot be accounted for\naccording to the measure of any man, nor even that of an angel. It is\nnot as a teacher, a guide out of the difficulties of life, that He meets\nus, but as a Revealer and Saviour. It is thus He has been accepted by\nHis disciples, and upon their faith He has reared His Church. It is thus\nHe conceived of Himself, and His conception is not more astounding than\nare the simplicity and lowliness and meekness of His character. He is\nHimself thus the miracle of miracles, wholly inexplicable on any human\ntheory devised to account for Him; and till that one miracle is solved,\nall questions as to the miracles which are ascribed to Him can afford to\nwait for their solution.\n\nWe have no desire to exaggerate the value of the miraculous elements in\nChristianity, but it does not appear to be true wisdom that would\ndepreciate them or ignore them altogether. Miracles by many have been\nwrongly considered, and they have been often expounded by the advocates\nof Christianity in such a way as to create instead of removing\ndifficulties connected with the faith. On the other hand, many who\nreject or refuse to consider them seem afflicted by a kind of mental\nsemeiophobia which in its own way may be as dangerous an affliction as\nhydrophobia is. The proper way is to consider them in relation to the\nnature and purpose of the Revelation with which they are associated. The\nmiracle may sometimes be found only in the form of the narrative, as a\nhieroglyph whose purpose we are too lazy to search for, whose meaning we\nare too stupid to elucidate. The theory that miracles are only\nfigurative expressions of spiritual truth is not true, as it is\ngenerally expounded; but it has a truth in it which must never be\noverlooked. Every miracle is a parable, and every parable is a miracle.\nIt is the spiritual reality revealed by both which gives them value, and\nnot the wonder in them by which we are at first arrested. Yet without\nthe wonder to arrest us we might never have received the revelation.\n\u201cWhat did the apostle mean,\u201d asks Robert Elsmere,[172] \u201cby death to sin\nand self? what the precise idea attached by him to being risen with\nChrist? Are this death and resurrection necessarily dependent upon\ncertain alleged historical events, or are they not primarily, and were\nthere not, even in Paul\u2019s mind, two aspects of a spiritual process\nperpetually re-enacted in the soul of man, and constituting the\nveritable revelation of God? Which is the stable and lasting witness of\nthe Father? the spiritual history of the individual and of the world, or\nthe envelope of miracle to which hitherto mankind has attached such\nimportance?\u201d The envelope certainly would be as worthless without the\nmessage which it carries as a husk from which the kernel has dropped.\nWould St. Paul, however, ever have conceived the spiritual truths\nreferred to, if they had not been suggested by historical facts? Could\nhe ever have conceived of a death to sin had the world never witnessed\nthe death of the Holy Christ upon the cross? Could he ever have dreamed\nof rising again in the power of a new life if the tomb in the garden\nnigh Golgotha had never been found empty of its crucified occupant? Is\nhe not just suggesting the significance of very exceptional historical\nevents? He may be wrong in his interpretation, but there can be no\nmistake that the interpretation is founded upon the history, that it was\nthe event which originated his theory, and not his theory that produced\nthe story of the event. Christian theology, instead of giving this\nmiraculous character to the tragic story of the life and death of\nChrist, has been called into existence by man\u2019s endeavours to account\nfor it as a fact not only marvellous, but simply unique in the\nexperience of mankind.\n\nIt is not likely that the miraculous elements in the Christian religion\nwill be found to be \u201cthe produce of its primitive theology, which will\nfade out of the conception of men as theology advances and becomes\npurified.\u201d The demonstration of this must not be assumed to be complete\nbecause the miraculous is also found in other religions. We must be able\nto account for it in all of them. It is, indeed, the natural tendency of\nhumanity to magnify and eventually to deify its heroes, to embellish\ntheir careers with similar marvels, to apply to them figurative language\nvery liable to be misunderstood, which in later generations hardens into\nerroneous beliefs. That Christians as well as Buddhists have done so is\nsufficiently attested by the apocryphal Gospels, but we must not\nconclude that because there are so many fictitious and counterfeit\nwonders in currency there can be no real miracles. We must examine each\nreligion on its merits, and its miraculous elements in the light of\ntheir purpose and of their actual genesis; and if we do so in the case\nof Christianity, we will probably discover the one supernatural reality\nfrom which the shadows in all other religions are reflected, and to\nwhich they all point.[173]\n\nDr. Rhys Davids, in the Hibbert Lectures, informs us that the early\nBuddhist conception of Gotama was dominated and transformed by two\nideals, neither of which had any necessary connection with the man\nhimself. One of them, due to political experience, made him finally\nassume in the popular imagination the office of a Universal King; while\nthe other, due to philosophic speculation, invested him with the\nattribute of Perfect Wisdom. The implied parallel between this\nconception, coloured as it grew by the sun myths which it incorporated,\nand the Christian conception of Jesus, suggested by the titles King of\nGlory and Divine Word, is obvious to everybody. Yet examination of the\nsupposed similarities only reveals essential contrasts between the two\nsets of beliefs. The political experiences in India which are referred\nto occurred about two centuries after the death of Buddha. The victories\nof Chandragupta, resulting in the consolidation of a kingdom such as\nIndians had never before witnessed, combined with his patronage of the\nBuddhist monks, may have suggested the idea of the universal monarch.\n\u201cHis achievements recalled the nearly forgotten poetry of the Vedic\nlegends, while the new and popular ethics of Buddha invested him with a\nrighteousness which made him a worthy Lord of the Four Quarters (of the\nGlobe).\u201d So in one of the Suttas, said to be early, and which may have\nbeen assuming shape at this time, words like these are put in the mouth\nof Buddha:\u2014\u201cI am a king, O Sela, an incomparable, religious king; with\njustice I roll the wheel, the wheel that is irresistible.\u201d[174] With\nthis conception of Cakka-vatti, a glorious king, was connected, avers\nDr. Rhys Davids, that of an age in which plenty and peace were to abound\nas the fruits of righteousness.[175] The idea of a golden age is common\nto most religions, and as the Western Aryans always preserved it, we may\nconclude that the branch which reached India carried it thither with\nthem. Soon, however, as the belief in transmigration took possession of\nthem, they seem to have lost it. Their book of the generations of man\ndid not mount higher than the Fall; existence was essentially evil in\ntheir thought, and belief in a golden age on earth, either in the past\nor in the future, was quite inconsistent with the creed which Buddhists\ninherited or created. The other branch of the Aryan stock so cherished\nit that it adorns their most beautiful mythologies; but even with them\nthe golden age was always placed in the past, and the world, fallen from\ngood, was supposed to be degenerating from bad to worse. And so it is\nthat the fondest glances of even the happy Greek are not forward but\nbackward cast, and that sadness mingles with his most mirthful music.\n\nIt is possible at least that changes so favourable to the fortunes of\nthe new religion, and the social reforms which followed its extension,\nmay have awakened in the pious the memories of old Vedic faith; and that\nthe victories of Chandragupta may have suggested to the authors of the\nSuttas the idea of the invincible Buddha advancing through the ages, as\nthe chariot-wheel of the sun disperses the clouds in the heavens. It is\ncertain, however, that neither Buddha nor his earliest disciples ever\ndreamed of applying the title of Cakka-vatti to or of associating the\npromise of a better time with himself. To old Vedic faith as supporting\nhis teaching or predicting his mission he never appealed; he ignored all\nprevious teaching: and indeed in ancient Indian teaching, uninspired by\neither promise or hope, there is nothing prophetic. In the case of\nChristianity it is quite the contrary. The conception of the Messiah as\nthe righteous and glorious King, under whose reign all the world would\nbe blessed, was not suggested by political experience two centuries\nafter the dawn of Christianity. It was formulated and predicted many\ncenturies before the coming of Christ. The Hebrew, like the Aryan, never\nlost the memory of a happy past, but, unlike the Aryan, he placed his\nparadise not only in the past but in the future. With far richer\nmaterials at his command than the Aryan seems to have possessed for\npainting a vanished golden age, the Hebrew poets made very sparing use\nof them. A few paragraphs exhaust all they have to say as to the\ntraditions of a paradise that had been lost, but their whole Bible is\nfull of the hope of the good time which is coming to all the world. This\nhope, centred as it was in their Messiah, Christianity from the very\nfirst took up and promised to fulfil. The ministry of Jesus was scarcely\nbegun before it was associated with Him. Among the first questions asked\nconcerning Him was, \u201cIs not this Messias?\u201d Among the earliest\ndeclarations made was, \u201cWe have found the Messias.\u201d Very soon in His\ncareer He confessed, \u201cI that speak unto thee am He!\u201d The Gospels and\nEpistles would be unintelligible without this perpetual reference to\nMessianic prediction; it is the golden thread which runs through all the\nOld Testament and unites it with the New. In its Messianic hope, Old\nTestament prophecy reached its highest and purest development, and the\nNew Testament claims that in Christ it is finding its fulfilment. It may\nbe alleged of course that the prophecy and the claim are alike\ndelusions, but the prophecy at least was a fact, and its application to\nChrist was no legendary growth of a later generation, but the original\nand essential testimony of the earliest Christian teachers.\n\nThe other conception of Perfect Wisdom represented by Buddha the\nAwakened or Enlightened One is also confessedly an aftergrowth. The\nearliest traces which we have of Gotama after his death disclose him as\na man who gained his knowledge by severe struggle, and who therefore, in\nthe estimation of his followers, was a \u201cJina\u201d or conqueror. As time went\non, and his memory rose in the estimation of later generations, the\nfaithful, guided by their belief in transmigration, projected this\nstruggle for Buddhahood further and further into former stages of\nexistence, till at last the idea was conceived that he was only one of a\nlong series of Buddhas, of whom he was not to be the last. The\ndevelopment of this interesting speculation, with its distinctions into\nBuddhas who only save themselves\u2014Paccekabuddhas\u2014and the Samm\u00e2sambuddhas,\nwho appear at very rare intervals, able and willing to save to the\nuttermost, need not here be traced. It is sufficient to note how unlike\nand contradictory is this belief to that which dominates in our\nreligion. In Christ we have the _only_ Messiah, and He, having once\ncome, we do not look for another. The hope of the Christian is fixed\nupon His coming again in glory; but it is the coming again of the _same_\nJesus. The unity of Deity colours and pervades all our thoughts of\nDivine communications with mankind; \u201cthere is one God, and one Mediator\nbetween God and man.\u201d Consequently the doctrine of the Divine Word\nformulated in connection with Christ in St. John\u2019s Gospel represents a\nvery different set of ideas from the conception of Buddha as the Perfect\nWisdom, to whom all worlds and all times were open. That conception of\nBuddha was probably an incorporation into the Buddhist creed from\nforeign sources, but the idea of Christ as the Son, \u201cunto whom all\nthings have been delivered by the Father,\u201d so that \u201cno one knoweth the\nSon save the Father, neither doth any know the Father save the Son, and\nhe to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him,\u201d was a common one among\nthe very earliest Christians of whom we have any trace. St. Matthew, St.\nMark, St. Paul, St. Luke all preach Christ, \u201cunto whom has been\ncommitted all knowledge and judgment,\u201d \u201cwho is before all things, and in\nwhom all things consist,\u201d \u201cthe image of the invisible God, in whom it\npleased the Father that all fulness should dwell.\u201d[176]\n\nAnd so it is not in the latest Gospel but in the earliest Scriptures\nthat we have the first indications of this doctrine as Christ the Word,\nthough in the latest, as we might expect, it is more clearly formulated\nand more fully expounded. Written after the fall of Jerusalem, the\ndestruction of the ancient Church, and the recognition of the Gentiles\nas fellow-heirs, by one who was quite conscious of the new intellectual\nposition which Christianity occupied in relation to the speculations of\nSyria and Egypt, and of the dangers which thereby accrued to the faith,\nits author took up a term very current at the time in theosophic and\nmetaphysical writings, and specially those of Philo, to set forth the\ntruth of the Life whose manifestation he had witnessed. That St. John\ndid not borrow the term from Philo is evident from the very different\nuse which he has made of it, and the very different purpose which he had\nin view. By it Philo expressed the conception of Divine intelligence in\nthe abstract, while St. John employed it to suggest the concrete idea of\nGod\u2019s personal action. Both found it in the Septuagint and the Hebrew\ntraditional lore;[177] but while Philo gave it a Greek, St. John adhered\nto its Hebrew significance. The first chapter of St. John compared with\na page of Philo[178] will reveal at once the difference between them,\nand convince us that the teaching of Philo concerning the Logos leads\nfurther and further away from the idea of the incarnation which is the\nfoundation-truth of the teaching of St. John. His doctrine would be\nquite unintelligible as an application or continuation of the doctrine\nof Philo, but it is intelligible and consistent as the final\nco-ordination of truths concerning the Divine Being disclosed in the Old\nTestament viewed by a man whose antecedents and modes of thought were\nvery different from those of the Alexandrian sage.[179]\n\nThe ideas suggested by the \u201cAngel of the Presence\u201d in the historic and\nprophetic books, by the \u201cWord of the Lord\u201d in the Psalms, and by\n\u201cWisdom\u201d in the Books of Wisdom, indicate the rays which converge in St.\nJohn\u2019s doctrine of the Christ. As one who tarried long after the first\ngeneration of Christians had gone to their rest, as one who had not only\npondered longer, and in deeper silence, the Life he had seen manifested,\nbut who had found its interpretation in such providences as the\nspreading of the Churches and the destruction of the State, he was abler\nto meet the necessities of a wider age, by setting the truth in rounder\nform and clearer light; but while he expands and expounds the teaching\nof the first generation, he adds and introduces not a single element.\nHis testimony is identical with that proclaimed at the Resurrection,\nthat Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, and that Christ is the only\nbegotten Son of God.\n\nIt is not as one who has acquired truth by long struggle, not as one who\nhas fought or forced His way to light, that Christ presents Himself in\nthe Gospels, but as one who can say: \u201cI am the way, the truth, the\nlife,\u201d \u201cthe light of the world.\u201d Yet along with this stupendous demand\nupon the faith of humanity there is a humility and simplicity\nundiscoverable in the Buddha of the Pitakas. Self-consciousness,\nself-reliance, self-culture\u2014these are the phrases most suggestive of the\nsystem and of the life of the great Indian sage, while not\nself-abasement, but self-oblivion, characterises the teaching and life\nof Jesus of Nazareth. Identity with the Highest, manifested by absolute\nsurrender to Him, is the essence of the Revelation of Christ. Always is\nthe Father confessed to be the source of all grace and truth, and if the\nSon asks to be glorified, it is that the Father may be glorified in Him.\nWe are certainly not contemplating similarities when we look at the\nBuddha of the Suttas and the Christ of the Gospels, but contrasts more\nwidely separated than the soul is from the body. In Buddha we have a\nhistorical personage, who can be thoroughly accounted for as the product\nand outgrowth of his past, and of his environment; in Christ we have one\nwhom no philosophy of history has ever explained. Alone and\nunapproachable, He meets us as one who is really human, because He has\nbecome man, one who has arisen among men to save them, but because He\nhas come through and to them. He is not just one of the many, a son of\nmen, the product of a divinely-trained humanity, but the Son of Man, who\nas Son of God, incarnated in the nature of all men, has become the Head\nand Creator of a new humanity. Correct, improve, embellish as we may,\nthe portrait left us of the gentle teacher of Magadha, we never can lift\nhim up to that level which would justify his being worshipped or being\naddressed, as Jesus of Nazareth has been by the consensus of all the\nChristian ages, \u201cThou art the King of Glory, O Christ. Thou art the\neverlasting Son of the Father.\u201d\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  _E.g._ Sinai = Hagar (Gal. iv. 24-31); also Claudius = \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd (2\n  Thess. ii. 6, 7); Hausrath, _Life and Times of Jesus_, vol. i. p. 77.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  Derenbourg, _Hist. de la Palestine d\u2019apr\u00e8s les Talmuds_, pp. 159, 202.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  Wellhausen, _The Pharisees and Sadducees_, pp. 8, 26-43; Greifswald,\n  1874.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  Jos. _Antiq._ xiii. 5. 9, xv. 10. 4, 5; _Bell. Jud._ ii. 8. 2, 14.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  Keim, _Jesus of Nazara_, vol. i. p. 392.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  Delitzsch, _Jesus and Hillel_, pp. 31 _seq._; Pirk\u00e9 Ab\u00f4th, Cambridge,\n  1877, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  Jos. _Antiq._ xvii. 4.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  Philo, _Quod omnis Probus Liber_, p. 12.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  B\u00fchler, _Ind. Ant._ vol. vii. p. 143; Jacobi, \u201cMah\u00e2vira and his\n  Predecessors,\u201d _Ind. Ant._ vol. viii. pp. 311-314; Kern, _History of\n  Buddhism in India_, vol. i. p. 143; Colebrooke\u2019s _Essays_, vol. i. p.\n  380.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  See \u201cJainism,\u201d by Dr. Shoolbred\u2014Report of the Missionary Conference,\n  1888, vol. i. p. 41; Wilson\u2019s _Essays_, vol. i. p. 427 _seq._\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  \u201cSramana,\u201d in Brahman speech, was a man who performed hard penances,\n  from _sram_, to work hard. There is another Sanscrit root, _sam_, to\n  quiet, and from it afterwards the popular etymology derived the word.\n  See Professor Max M\u00fcller\u2019s translation of the Dhammapada in _Sacred\n  Books of the East_, vol. x. p. 65 _note_.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  There seems to have been four great divisions of Sramanas, with as\n  many as sixty-three philosophical systems represented by them. The\n  Brahmanas were also similarly divided. See Sutta Nip\u00e2ta, _Sacred Books\n  of the East_, vol. xi. Part ii. pp. 15, 16, 88, 93.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, p. 71.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  See _Year-Book of Protestant Theology_ for 1883 for an account of the\n  views of Professor Loman of Amsterdam.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  M. Senart, _Legend of Buddha_, Paris, 1875; Kern, _History of Buddhism\n  in India_: Schoebel. _Buddh. Actes de la Soc. Philol._; Paris, 1874,\n  vol iv. pp. 160 _seq._\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  Annual Report of the Asiatic Society; Paris, July 1875.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  Cunningham, _Ancient Geog. of India_, vol. i. p. 147; Oldenberg,\n  _Buddha, etc._, p. 95; Beal, _Chinese Buddhism_, p. 67.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  \u201cM\u00e2ra eat le d\u00e9mon de l\u2019amour, du p\u00e9ch\u00e9 et de la mort,\u201d says Burnouf\n  in his _Introduction to the Study of Indian Buddism_, p. 76; see also\n  Sutta Nip\u00e2ta, _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. Part ii. p. 159, for\n  the popular conception of Buddha\u2019s temptation; the arrows of M\u00e2ra are\n  \u201cflower-pointed,\u201d like Kama\u2019s, the Hindu god of love. See Dhammapada,\n  _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. Part i. p. 17.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  Geikie, _Life of Christ_, vol. i. p. 449.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  Mahavagga, i. 5. 2; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xvii.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  This is not the place to discuss the substance of their respective\n  teachings. Their aims seemed to be similar, for both proclaimed\n  freedom to be gained by the Truth, or saving knowledge, but their\n  conceptions of the knowledge that saves are as widely contrasted as\n  are their ideas of salvation. If we put the Sermon on the Mount side\n  by side with Buddha\u2019s first sermon (translated in vol. xi. p. 146 of\n  _Sacred Books of the East_) we find contradiction in almost every\n  sentence. \u201cBlessed are the poor in spirit\u201d is an utterance not only\n  foreign to but in direct antithesis to the preaching of Buddha. He has\n  no sympathy with the \u201cpoor in spirit,\u201d if we take the phrase in the\n  light of the old Hebrew concept of it. His benediction is reserved for\n  the self-conscious and self-reliant, who are bent upon self-culture\n  and self-development. \u201cThou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy\n  heart, etc., and thy neighbour as thyself.\u201d Buddha found no higher to\n  adore, and no other than self to consider. The moral precepts in his\n  law are based on no appeal to conscience, and are inspired by no sense\n  of duty. Others were regarded as the occasion for winning merit, and\n  kindness done to them was not done for their sake, but with the view\n  of securing the safety of the doer.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  Dr. Oldenberg (_Buddha, etc._, p. 148) very properly remarks that\n  Ambapali the courtesan was no Mary Magdalene, and that she was not\n  regarded by Buddha as the woman that was a sinner was regarded by\n  Christ. Buddha had not Christ\u2019s horror of sin, and therefore felt none\n  of His boundless pity for the frailty of its victims; of hatred of sin\n  in the Christian sense Buddhism knows nothing. Its highest virtue is\n  imperturbability, a serenity that is apathetic in regard to the most\n  outrageous wrong or the most heinous wickedness. Cariya Pitaka, iii.\n  15; also _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. Part ii. p. 151.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  Bishop Bigandet, _Life of Gaudama_, p. 287; Professor H. Wilson,\n  _Essays_, vol. ii. p. 243; Wheeler, _History of India_, vol. iii. p.\n  139; Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, p. 148; Mah\u00e2paranibh\u00e2na Sutta, in\n  _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xi. pp. 71, 72.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  Mah\u00e2paranibh\u00e2na Sutta, vi. 10, _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xi. p.\n  114. Dr. Edkins, in _Chinese Buddhism_, p. 57, gives a version of an\n  appearance of Buddha after cremation to his mother, M\u00e1ya, who came\n  down from heaven to see his coffin. Professor Childers finds no trace\n  in any Pali earliest literature of any belief in Buddha\u2019s existence\n  after death (_Dictionary of Pali Language_, p. 472, note 1).\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, pp. 322, 323; Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures, p.\n  264.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  In the Bhagavadgit\u00e1 loving devotion for Krishna is demanded as the\n  only means of salvation; but Krishna-worship began very considerably\n  later than the origin of Christianity. Professor M\u00fcller admits\n  (Gifford Lectures, p. 99) that Christian influences were possible\n  then, but says that there is no necessity for admitting them. He cites\n  the passage from Bhagavad. ix. 29 (_Sacred Books of the East_, vol.\n  viii. p. 34), \u201cThey who worship me with devotion or love, they are in\n  me, and I in them,\u201d as an interesting parallel to John vi. 7 and xvii.\n  23, but we must remember that St. John\u2019s words were circulating all\n  over the world for generations before these were penned.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  Mahavagga, v. 1. 18.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  The Lalita Vistara, of which there are many versions, is the chief\n  authority for the legends. In the _Buddhist Birth-Stories_, translated\n  by T. W. Rhys Davids, in Bigandet\u2019s _Life of Gaudama_, and Spence\n  Hardy\u2019s Manual (_Legends of the Buddhists_), in the _Romantic Legend_\n  of Sakya Buddha, translated by Professor S. Beal, will be found a\n  large and interesting miscellany of the prodigies connected with the\n  coming of Buddha.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  A wife, not a virgin; _Romantic Legend_, pp. 32, 36, 37, 41.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  Lalita Vistara, p. 63, Calcutta edition; _Buddhist Birth-Stories_, pp.\n  62, 68.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  Nalaka Sutta, Sutta Nip\u00e2ta, xi. 1. 20, 21; _Sacred Books of the East_,\n  vol. x. Asita, the aged ascetic, is said to have ascended to heaven\n  after his daily repast, and upon finding the gods in joyful commotion\n  he at length returned to see the new-born wonder (_Birth-Stories_, p.\n  69).\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  Title given by the translator of the Dhanima-Kakka-ppavatana Sutta, in\n  vol. xi. of _Sacred Books of the East_.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  Spence Hardy, _Manual of Buddhism_, p. 187, quoting the Puj\u00e1waliya,\n  said to be later than the thirteenth century A.D.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  Sutta Nip\u00e2ta, _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. Part ii. p. 17.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  _Ibid._ vol. x. Part ii. pp. 31, 45.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  Mah\u00e2paranibh\u00e2na Sutta, iv. 49, 50, _ibid._ vol. xi. p. 81.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  Bigandet, _op. cit._ p. 323; Spence Hardy, _Manual_, p. 347;\n  Mah\u00e2parinibh\u00e2na Sutta, vi. 11-16.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  _Das Evangelium von Jesu in seinen Verh\u00e4ltnissen zur Buddha-Sage und\n  Buddha-Lehre_; Leipzig, 1882.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  Let any one compare the prediction of the so-called Indian Simeon, the\n  Nalaka Sutta, in vol. x. p. 125 of _Sacred Books of the East_, with\n  Luke ii. 25; the account of the Temptation by Mara, in the _Romantic\n  Legend_, pp. 204, 224, or in Hardy\u2019s _Manual of Buddhism_, p. 183,\n  with Matt. iv. 1; the so-called Transfiguration in Mah\u00e2parinibh\u00e2na,\n  iv. 49, vol. xi. _Sacred Books of the East_, p. 81, with Matt. xvii.\n  1-8; the feast of the courtesan Ambopali, in Mah\u00e2parinibh\u00e2na Sutta,\n  ii. 16. 25, _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xi. p. 30, with Christ\u2019s\n  treatment of the Magdalene in Luke vii. 36, and he will see at once\n  how improbable and even absurd is the theory that the Evangelists\n  borrowed from the Buddhist compilers. That we are dealing with quite\n  an inferior order of facts is apparent when we compare one of the most\n  touching coincidences, Buddha\u2019s last discourse to the Beloved Ananda\n  in Mah\u00e2parinibh\u00e2na Sutta, v. 34. 35, \u201cLet not yourself be troubled,\u201d\n  with John xiv. 1-6. In some of the miracles accompanying the birth and\n  temptations of Buddha, there are not only gross absurdities but\n  positive indecencies, which by the simplicity and modesty and\n  reticence of the Gospel narratives are powerfully condemned. See\n  _Lalita Vistara_, chaps. vi. and vii., and _Buddhist Birth-Stories_,\n  vol. i. pp. 58, 68.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  This is a very great assumption indeed. Foucaux, its translator,\n  assigns it to the first century B.C., but T. W. Rhys Davids assigns it\n  to some Nepaulese poet \u201cwho lived between six hundred and a thousand\n  years after Buddha\u2019s death\u201d (Hibbert Lectures, pp. 197, 204). A\n  Chinese version is said to have been in existence about 70 A.D.\n  Rajendralal Mitra, its English translator, admits this in his\n  Introduction, p. 48, but whether that was a version, or another book\n  altogether, or how far it corresponded with the _Lalita Vistara_, no\n  scholar has been confident to say. Dr. Beal also mentions a life of\n  Buddha by Asvaghosha as probably in circulation about the middle of\n  the Christian era (_Chinese Buddhism_, p. 73).\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  Mah\u00e2parinibh\u00e2na Sutta, translated by T. W. Rhys Davids, _Sacred Books\n  of the East_, vol. xi.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  The blessed Buddha rebuked Pindola Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2ga (for having won a bowl\n  of sandalwood by performing a miracle), saying, \u201cThis is improper, not\n  according to rule, unsuitable, unworthy of a Samana, unbecoming, and\n  ought not to be done. How can you for the sake of a miserable wooden\n  pot display before the laity the superhuman quality of your miraculous\n  power of Iddhi?... This will not conduce either to the conversion of\n  the unconverted or to the increase of the converted\u201d (Kullavagga, v.\n  8. 2). The danger of performing a miracle by power of Iddhi, for\n  self-glorification, is exemplified in the story of Devadatta in\n  Kullavagga, vii. 1. 2, 3. In the Mahavagga, Kullavagga, Sutta Nip\u00e2ta,\n  and similar books, however, miracles are ascribed to Buddha, and\n  conversions attributed to their performance.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  Luke i. 1.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, Hibbert Lectures, p. 128.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, p. 190.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  Matthew xi. 27; xxviii. 16-20.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  Mark i. 7-11; ii. 10-28; viii. 38; xii. 35-37.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  Pressens\u00e9, _Vie de J\u00e9sus_, p. 373.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  Cox, _Commentary on Job_, p. 19.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  See Mahavagga, i. pp. 15-20, for specimens of the \u201cthree thousand five\n  hundred\u201d wonders of Buddha. \u201cThe marvellous in the Gospels is but\n  sober good sense compared with what we find in ... the Hindu European\n  mythologies\u201d (Renan, _\u00c9tudes d\u2019histoire Relig._ pp. 177, 203).\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  Godet, _Lectures in Defence of the Christian Faith_, pp. 118-161.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  Dr. Dods, _Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ_, p. 201; Dr. Fairbairn,\n  _Studies in Religion as a Philosophy_, p. 36.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  p. 58, one-vol. edition.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  Trench, Hulsean Lectures, p. 150.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  Sutta Nip\u00e2ta, translated by Fausb\u00f6ll in vol. x. p. 102; parallel\n  suggested to John xviii. 37.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  Hibbert Lectures, pp. 144-147.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  Dorner, _Doctrine of the Person of Christ_, Introd. pp. 56-60, 64-70;\n  Liddon, Bampton Lectures, 1866, pp. 364-380; Lange, _Life of Christ_,\n  vol. i. pp. 121-124.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  _E.g._ the Targums.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  _E.g._ _De Opific. Mund._ i. 4; _De Mundi incor._ \u00a7 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  Sears, _Fourth Gospel_, pp. 220 _seq._; Westcott, _Introduction to St.\n  John_, pp. xvi, xvii; Dorner, _op. cit._ vol. i. pp. 327-332.\n\n\n\n\n                              LECTURE IV.\n         THE DHARMA OF BUDDHA:[180] THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST.\n\n\nWhat was the discovery that rewarded Gotama\u2019s long travail and conflict\nunder the Bo-tree at Bohimanda, and gained for him the title of Buddha,\nthe Awakened or Enlightened One? and what was the message of \u201cglad\ntidings\u201d which since then has made so many millions of the human race\nregard him as their Deliverer? We shall never obtain the answer to these\nquestions if we follow the legends and the later scriptures, although\nthey profess to give all the steps of the process by which he wrought\nout his deliverance. These all date from a time when the seeds which he\nhad sown among the thorns of uncleansed superstitions, had grown up into\nas gigantic and tangled a jungle of speculation as the world has ever\nseen. Had he confronted his day and generation proclaiming as the result\nof his laborious and painful inquiries the complicated metaphysical\nsystem formulated in these books, he would have made few converts. He\nmight have become the head of another sect, the founder of another\nschool, but he never would have established a religion so extensive as\nthat which for so many centuries, and among so many peoples, has been\nknown by his name.\n\nFollowing the Southern scriptures, and guided by the eminent Oriental\nscholars who have made them available by translations, we may be able to\ntrace, in the wild growth of fancy which has grown up around them, the\nleading lines of the original teaching. The real doctrine of Buddha did\nnot profess to be a philosophy inquiring into the ultimate ground of\nthings. He is represented as having despised philosophisings, and as\nhaving inveighed against profitless questionings as earnestly as did St.\nPaul against vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so\ncalled.[181] His object was avowedly practical, and he kept silent when\nasked concerning themes whose discussion did not tend to \u201cillumination\nand quiet.\u201d Notwithstanding this, there must have been from the first,\neven in the earliest forms of his teaching, ideas and thoughts beyond\nthe comprehension of the simple. For a while he hesitated, as we have\nseen, to proclaim his discovery, because \u201cthe way\u201d was too hidden for\nmen to know, and too hard, even when known, for them to follow. Like the\nJewish Scribe, he conceived that to the wise alone, and not to the\nignorant, belonged the law, and to the wise alone was reserved the hope\nof final deliverance. To children, and to the uninstructed struggling\nclasses, the preaching was not made fully known, as really beyond them.\nUnlike Christ, whose preaching was for all without exception, whose\ngospel, though full of mystery, confers illumination even on babes, the\nlaw of Buddha was in its entirety for the sages only, and instead of\nconferring knowledge on those who obeyed it, it made knowledge a\ncondition of obtaining deliverance. Nevertheless, though the deductions\nwere within the grasp only of the few, his popularity proves that his\nfundamental and principal dogmas must have been such as all could\nunderstand, and they seem to have been published, as Saint-Hilaire\nobserves, in a language so \u201csimple and vernacular\u201d as to induce even the\nchildren and the ignorant to enter the paths that lead to\ndeliverance.[182]\n\nHe entered upon his travail, in order to find a way of escape from the\nendless cycles of unsatisfying change, and he believed that he had\ndiscovered it. Leavening every part of his system is his impression of\nthe universality of suffering; and suffering, its origin, its\nextinction, and the path or method that leads to its extinction, are the\nso-called \u201cfour noble truths\u201d which constitute in Buddhism the \u201cLaw of\nthe Wheel.\u201d In Buddhism the wheel is the dominant symbol, corresponding\nto the cross in Christianity, and he who would preach or roll onward the\nwheel must present to the affectionate consideration of the hearers\nthese \u201cfour sacred verities\u201d\u2014the verity of suffering, the verity that\nconcupiscence is the cause of suffering, the verity that concupiscence\ncan be quenched in Nirvana, and the verity that the way that leads to\nNirvana is the sublime eightfold path of Buddha\u2019s law. From his first\npublic discourse at Benares\u2014corresponding to our Lord\u2019s Sermon on the\nMount\u2014on to his last words on the night on which he died, this, with\nmanifold amplifications, but ever as the one pathetic refrain, is the\nsubstance of his teaching, \u201cthrough not understanding and grasping\nwhich, O monks, we have had to run and wander so long in weary paths,\nboth you and I.\u201d[183]\n\nThe primitive creed of Buddhism was different from, though not wholly\nantagonistic to, the popular creed or theory of life of Brahmanism.\nWeighed by Brahmanism, existence was found wanting, as only illusion, a\nspecious something which truly was a mere nothing, and identity of the\npersonal with the universal self was the only reality. By Buddhism\nexistence was condemned, not as an illusion, but as wholly and solely\nsuffering.[184] \u201cWhat think ye, O disciples: whether is more, the water\nthat is in the four great oceans, or the tears which have flown from\nyou, and have been shed by you, while ye strayed and wandered in this\nlong pilgrimage, and sorrowed and wept, because that which ye abhorred\nwas your portion, and that which ye loved was not your portion?\u201d[185] It\nwas not \u201cvanity of vanities!\u201d but \u201cmisery of miseries! all is misery!\u201d\nLife was misery, because governed by the immeasurable and wretched past;\ndeath was misery, because opening up an equally immeasurable and\nwretched future. As long as man exists he must be miserable, unable to\n\u201ccease his wanderings,\u201d and \u201cstill from one sorrow to another thrown.\u201d\nThe only deliverance conceivable from this interminable evil would be to\nbreak the bands of existence altogether. \u201cSurely \u2019twere better not to\nbe.\u201d And how \u201cnot to be\u201d seems to have been the problem which Buddha\nprofessed to solve.\n\nMay we not conclude with Saint-Hilaire that this, \u201chis first dogma, was\nhis first fatal error\u201d?[186] With all his intellectual ability he never\nsought to emancipate himself from the superstition and nightmare of\ntransmigration. Though he had cast off all faith in the government of a\ndivine power, he never questioned the belief with which the lower\naboriginal races had infected the thought of his ancestors, that life\nwas governed by this law. It is averred that he found it necessary to\nsolve the conflict between his ideas of justice and the actual order of\nthings, which has exercised the human mind always and everywhere. A\nmodern Buddhist, fortunate in having Mr. Alabaster to introduce him to\nthe notice of an English-reading public, so propounds this belief, and,\npurged from some of its errors, tries to vindicate it. \u201cFor the law of\nperfect justice,\u201d he says, \u201cdemands that human conditions should be\nequalised, and that good and bad luck should be balanced sometime and\nsomewhere. If a good man be poor and wretched now, he must be reaping\nthe fruits of what he had sown in a previous stage of existence.\u201d[187]\nYet surely this is a very superficial theory for an Oriental professing\nWestern culture to formulate. It is judging of life as children and\nsavages judge of it, by the evidence of the senses, and according to a\nvery inferior and inaccurate standard of good and evil. Poverty and\nsuffering, though confessedly painful, may not be regarded by a good man\nas wholly evil in this world. Circumstances which the savage and the\nchild would covet as realising their dreams of paradise may be the\nreverse of desirable to the mature and thoughtful man. The believers in\ntransmigration make no distinction between what is evil and what is\nsimply painful. Evil is not that which pains, but that which defiles and\ndegrades and destroys, and good is not just that which pleases, but that\nwhich elevates and ennobles and purifies. The law of absolute justice\ndoes not require, as the modern Buddhist demands, that human conditions\nshould be equalised, and that all men should be treated alike; for no\ntwo human beings all the world over are absolutely alike; but it demands\nthat each should receive the treatment most conducive to his healthy\ngrowth as a moral being, and what appears to sense as the harder lot may\ncommend itself to reason as the better portion of the man to whom it has\nbeen assigned, because most suited to his need.\n\nThe dogma of transmigration is said to occupy in the Buddhist system a\nposition analogous to that of the Fall in our Christian theology; but in\nreality the two are diametrically opposed, both in their essential ideas\nand the consequences which flow from them. They are analogous only in\nrespect that they each profess to account for the conflict between man\u2019s\nideal of himself and his actual condition. The existence of evil is\nadmitted by both, but the Buddhist believes that evil belongs to the\nvery essence of man, and therefore he can find no prospect of relief\nfrom it, here or hereafter. For as long as the stream of existence\ncontinues it will always fall below its source, and evil, according to\nthe inexorable rule of nature, will propagate only evil. The Hebrew,\nhowever, did not conceive of it as essential to or as always in the\nnature of man. His ancestral beliefs carry him beyond the Fall; his\npedigree starts with the most sublime of all theories of human origin\nthat has ever been formulated in human speech: \u201cLet us make man in our\nimage and after our likeness, and let him have dominion over\u201d the\ncreature. Dominion over nature man has not, for he is too much under its\ndominion, and to this subjection much of his suffering is directly\ntraceable. The Hebrew professed to have the origin of this condition\nrevealed to him in a breach between man and his Maker, consequent upon\nman\u2019s self-assertion and selfish withdrawal of his life from the source\nof life, which must involve suffering and death. So through all the\nweary generations there is the same invariable sequence of sin entering\nthe world, and death by sin. And yet at his very worst the Hebrew\nbelieved that it was once far better with the human race, and on this\nbelief he dared to rear the structure of his magnificent hope, that\nmankind shall be restored to the original close relationship with God,\nand therefore to a grander dominion over nature, and to a happier and\neven more prosperous life than that of which his ancestors had dreamed\nas their primeval state.\n\nWhatever may be said of the doctrine of the Fall, belief in it is indeed\n\u201ca condition of hope,\u201d[188] and the belief and the hope both spring from\ntheir faith in God as Creator and Governor of the race, which\ncharacterised the Hebrew prophets. Wherever that faith is lively, it not\nonly sustains man amid the sufferings of life, but it nerves him to\nstruggle with physical and moral evil to vanquish it. The purer the\nfaith the more resolute is the struggle; the holier the Deity becomes to\nthe thought of man the stronger becomes his conviction that life is a\nblessing, and that all its struggles may conduce to peace. There is an\ninstinct which seems to suggest that there are worse things than\ntroubles, and that they may be blessings of no mean quality after all.\nChristianity has made the startling revelation that suffering is not\npeculiar to man, as the consequence of his perversity in traversing the\nDivine order; for not only is Christ presented to us as the greatest\nsufferer, but in Him God the highest and the holiest is disclosed as\ninvolved in it, and as taking upon Himself the responsibilities and the\nsufferings which our sin and need entail. But if in Christ there is\nrevealed the greatest sufferer, it is as one whose suffering is not in\nvain. By suffering He conquers that which has produced it; by enduring\nsuffering He ends it; and He reigns and finds His blessedness in making\nus partakers of His victory over it. So again Christianity, unlike other\nreligions which promise salvation _from_ suffering, offers salvation\n_through_ suffering. It alone asserts the utility of suffering; others\nregard it as evil, Christianity as evil overruled for good. Others\nreckon it as a mere loss or waste, Christianity as something that may be\nturned to profit as the condition and preparation for joy. Joy in the\nChristian conception is not the reward of suffering, nor compensation\nfor suffering, but the fruit and issue of suffering which leads to it,\nas travail leads to birth. So instead of evading or ignoring it, Christ\nwould have us recognise and acquiesce in it, and even be thankful for\nit, as necessary not for our personal profit, but for the gain of\nmankind. By His sufferings we are healed, and through our sufferings we\nfill up what remains of His for the redemption of the world. Only\nthrough \u201cthe long travail of ages yet to be\u201d will there be born in the\nevolution of God\u2019s redemptive purpose that better race from which all\nsuffering shall have passed away, because disobedience will have had an\nend. Fellowship in Christ\u2019s sufferings has thus transfigured the\nafflictions of all who believe in Him. Unlike the Indian, tortured by\nendless change, without any evolution from low to higher, from evil or\nimperfect to what is good and perfect, the Christian can endure\nsuffering not only patiently but also cheerfully, knowing that he is\nsuffering not just for his own sake, but that in ways mysterious he is\nlightening the load of many, and helping to bring to an end the long\nanguish of the whole creation.\n\nBut of this consolation which comes from faith in God the Creator, and\ntherefore the Redeemer of man from destruction, Buddha had deprived\nhimself. Unlike the Brahman who sought escape from the evils of\ntransmigration by a process of subsidence into the universal Self, he\nprofessed to find no trace of this Absolute Self. The Brahman postulated\nthe Infinite and reasoned from it, but Buddha started from quite the\nopposite pole. He professed to deal with life as he found it, and so\nreasoning from man outward, he asserted that the necessity for\ntransmigration was involved, not in the illusion of Brahma, but in man\u2019s\nown character. Instead of being a natural or divine necessity, it was a\nmoral necessity created by man, which having its cause in his own action\ncould also by him be destroyed.\n\nAnd so Pantheistic speculation, in this instance at least, ripened into\nits proper fruit. The passage from conceiving Deity as characterless\npassionless self, to discarding Deity altogether from human thought, is\na sure and generally a very rapid one. When we come to think of Deity as\nof being diffused and dispersed, we will soon omit the thought\naltogether in the recognition only of physical force. Brahmanic\nspeculation had resolved the deities of the ancient books into\nabstractions, and Buddha recognised no such abstractions in the\ngovernment of human life. His creed was fundamentally atheistic, as\ndirectly contradicting belief in a supreme ruler of the universe.[189]\nNot that he denied the existence of the gods believed in by his\ncountrymen. On the contrary, he allowed them to continue in the popular\nthought and speech, and even encouraged disciples who had not yet\nreached the highest knowledge to try to acquire merit by virtue, so as\nto secure after death a re-birth into their society. Similarly he\nadmitted the existence of devils or demons, and their influence for evil\nupon man. All through his career he was beset by Mara, the sensual king\nof all who submit to him; but Buddha was superior not only to Mara, but\nto all the gods in the popular pantheon, for they, alike with the lowest\nand the weakest of things, were subject to the law of transmigration.\nMan might rise to a higher heaven than what they occupied; they might\nfall to the lowest hell. \u201cTheir worlds must perish like that of man, and\nif ever they attained to final salvation, it could only be by the same\nway in which a worm might hope to reach it.\u201d[190] Throwing his \u201cplummet\ndown the broad deep universe,\u201d he cried, \u201cGods many,\u201d but no god able to\nsave. All alike with men were bound in fetters, because ignorant of the\ntruth he knew. Naturally, therefore, they are represented in the legends\nas profiting by his preaching and as seeking unto him for instruction,\nwhile those of them who refused, or could not walk in his ways, came to\nbe regarded with pity.[191]\n\nIn like manner his creed was as essentially materialistic. Man was no\nspiritual being, but a bundle of Sankharas\u2014a term, it is said, very\ndifficult to translate, but implying that person meant a mass of \u201cforms\u201d\nor material qualities so changing as to be never the same for two\nconsecutive moments. Belief in a soul he regarded as a heresy, which he\ndistinctly classed with sensuality and belief in the efficacy of\nsacrificial rites.[192] To the heart as the sixth sense he ascribed the\npower of conceiving ideas without form, as the eye had the power of\nperceiving objects; but this disappeared in dissolution as completely as\ndid the others, and what was re-born was not the soul but the quality,\nthe merit or demerit acquired. This startling assertion of Bishop\nBigandet\u2019s[193] has been confirmed and amplified by others, specially by\nRhys Davids, and so the question at once suggests itself, now that the\ngoverning ideas of Deity and the separate existence of the soul were\nexpelled from the human mind,\u2014What was there left to give vitality and\ncoherence to his system as a religion? A kind of religion is conceivable\nwhen something eternal and self-dependent is recognised, if not without\nand above a man, at least within him; but here is a religion vast and\ncomprehensive springing from the determination to annihilate all\nreligion, asserting not simply that man is independent of all superior\nbeings, but that as the sum-total of groups of sensations, abstract\nideas, tendencies, and potentialities, nothing of his personality can\nsurvive dissolution, and how are we to account for it?[194]\n\nThe answer is to be sought for in the working of that great moral\ninstinct which is at the root of the belief in transmigration. Though\nthere was no person, no soul to emigrate from the body, though the man\nperished, there was something which he called the Karma\u2014a word coined by\nold Brahman sages long before him, though used by them in a different\nsense\u2014that survived.[195] The aggregate of the good and evil in the life\nthat had come to an end formed the seed of another existence, so that\neach new individual and generation became the exact and inevitable\nresults of those that had preceded them. It was evidently a theory of\ncontinuity as unscientific as it was unphilosophic. It could not be\ncalled an evolution in any sense of the word, seeing it meant the\nappearance in a new individual of the mental and physical acts of\nanother who had ceased to be. The assertion, again, that though there\nwas no \u201ccontinuing consciousness,\u201d no transience of soul in any sense\nfrom one person to the other, the two persons are one, has been very\nproperly stigmatised as a \u201cpsychological absurdity.\u201d[196] From the\nfirst, though one of their stablest dogmas, this one was a difficulty to\nthe Buddhists themselves. Their learned men never professed to justify\nit to reason, but accepted it as a mystery, in open contradiction to\ntheir principle that everything was to be rejected which could not be\ncomprehended or explained. The common people again simply ignored it,\nand adhered to the belief of their fathers in continuity of life and\npersonal identity for man in the future. The sages might refine, but the\nmoral sense of the masses could not escape from the conviction that the\nevil which they had done must follow them, and the good which they would\ndo could not be interred with their bones. Even the speculation of the\nsages was a telling confirmation of the truth that man cannot get rid of\nhimself. He may make a mock at God, may demand, If a man die can he live\nagain? or how differs the life of a man from the life of a beast? but he\ncannot refine away his moral sense and the instinct of retribution which\nis inwoven in his inmost being. Buddha acknowledged no moral government\nof Deity, discarded the old belief that the same soul must receive the\nreward of the deeds done in the body; he denied even to the soul a\nseparate existence from the perishable body; but he was haunted by the\nghost of personal identity. He felt absolutely certain that there was a\nreal connection of cause and effect between past and present and future,\nand that each act of the soul must work out its full effect to the\nbitter end.[197] So it was only by profession that God was mocked; men\nwere witnesses to themselves of a Sovereign Power forcing Himself upon\nthem, even when they tried to forsake Him, compelling them to receive\nHis thoughts when they would not think for themselves. So in primitive\nBuddhism we have the strange paradox that out of Atheism there arose a\nreligion, with a demand upon conscience almost Christian, and asserting\nas Christianity does the eternal necessity of righteousness and\ntruth.[198]\n\nThe analogy which has been suggested between the Buddhist dogma of Karma\nand the Christian doctrine of heredity is a very interesting one. It is\nstrange that the law of heredity, so clearly indicated in the Bible,\nshould be proclaimed in our age as a modern discovery. Infidelity\nformerly denounced the Bible for teaching that sin and its penalty were\ntransmitted from generation to generation, forgetting that but for\ntransgression the law of heredity could only and always entail good.\nLaws are to be judged by their intention, and this one, designed to\nsecure and transmit the increment of good in each generation, is\nmanifestly perverted by conditions for which it is not responsible. The\nlaw, however, which asserts itself in humanity by entailing on the\ngenerations the blessing of good as well as the curse of evil, is now\nbeing proclaimed and interpreted, not by divines, but by men of science\nand philosophy. The twin truth of the unity of humanity, elemental in\nthe Hebrew and Christian religions, though formerly strangely forgotten\nor denounced by infidelity, is also adopted as a professed discovery of\nour century. We are all agreed that humanity is one, that each life is\npart of a larger life, and so the injury of the part is the injury of\nthe whole. Sin could not enter humanity without dragging it down, and\nholiness could not enter and conquer without lifting it up. If one could\nappear in humanity without sin, not a link in the diseased chain, but\nperfectly free from all taint of disease, is the supposition incredible\nthat he would have the effect upon humanity of a new creation? His\ncoming would imply the reversal of the drift toward evil and the\nweakening of the inherited and accumulated tendency to depravity. It\nwould be a bringing under Divine influence of this mysterious principle\nof heredity, with results for good which no human intellect can measure,\nand establish a once greatly derided assertion, that as in one Adam,\nthat is, one kind of humanity, all die, even so in Christ shall all be\nmade alive.\n\nBuddha had a clear apprehension of the truth of heredity, but he had not\nthe faintest conception of the unity of humanity. His theory of life was\nessentially atomic. Humanity was not to him one whole, but a congeries\nof individuals, each one an end to himself, and living just to himself.\nThe injury done to self by wrong-doing was always present to a\nBuddhist\u2019s thought, but the suffering thus caused to others was never\ntaken into account. He had no idea of the whole suffering in the one,\nand consequently no sense of duty to mankind. Though believing in the\npropagative power of good and evil, he did not work for the good of\ncoming generations, but solely for the rescue of the individual from the\nwhirlpool of suffering existence. It has been charitably suggested that\nhis aim finds its analogue in the offset to personal extinction so\nwinningly presented by \u201cGeorge Eliot\u201d and Mr. John Morley, whereby\nthough dead and gone for ever in ourselves, we may \u201clive again in minds\nmade better by our presence,\u201d and \u201cin pulses stirred to\ngenerosity.\u201d[199] Buddhism had no such hope; the age, the system itself,\nwere alike incapable of conceiving it. The time for that kind of\nPositivism had not come. The human mind had to undergo long centuries of\nChristian culture before it was possible for the nineteenth-century\nagnostic poetess and philosopher thus to expound their creed, for modern\nPositivism has been powerfully though indirectly influenced by the faith\nwhich it contradicts, and, like many of the assailants of Christianity,\nit owes to it the most of its strength and the best of its weapons.\n\nChristianity, starting from the conception of man as no outgrowth of\nnature, but a new creation in it, a being within and distinct from his\nbody as the driver is from the chariot,[200] has a theory of human\ndestiny contrasted utterly with that of Buddhism. Man\u2019s teeth have been\nset on edge because his fathers have eaten a sour grape, but the brand\nof pain upon past transgressions helps him to conquer the taint\ntransmitted in the blood. Though he finds heavy temptation in inherited\ntendencies, he finds in every temptation a way of escape in a call to\nyield to other tendencies which are ever drawing his soul to goodness.\nSharing a confessedly sinful humanity, he may be partaker of a sinless\none, and thus, if evil reigns over him unto death, the law of the spirit\nof life in Christ Jesus can free him from it.\n\nBuddhism had no such hope and goal for man; indeed, we may well wonder\nthat a pessimism more thorough than that of Brahmanism did not deprive\nit of all hope and sink it into fatalism. Left alone to fight his way\nthrough the universe, struggling in a maelstrom of forces with no help\nfor him in man, no hope of sympathy in God, a Buddhist would surely\ndespair. On the contrary, unlike the Moslem cowering under the thought\nof relentless will, he accepted the situation with Christian\ndetermination to improve it.[201] He could hope for deliverance, for\nsuffering had an origin, and if the cause could be removed then\nsuffering would end. The coils of misery could be unwound, the curse of\nhumanity could be abolished, if only man could procure for himself\nemancipation from the necessity of Karma. Now this the true Buddhist\nbelieved he could gain by the extinction of all desire. Plato adopting\nthe Pythagorean doctrine of transmigration, taught that the future\norganism of the soul would depend upon the cravings which it had\nfostered here.[202] Somewhat similarly Christians believe that the\nfuture of the man will depend upon his most dominant present habits, and\nthat, disembodied, the spirit will gravitate unerringly to the society\nwhich it has made of its kind. Buddhism, believing in no soul,\nmaintained that in the dying creature a particular thirst or cleaving to\nexistence caused the birth of another creature; and so he who would\nescape from the chain of existence must endeavour, by vigorous\nprosecution of the eightfold way, and the four paths or degrees of\nperfection to which it led, to attain a state in which all craving for\ncontinuity had ceased. Karma then would have no terror to him; he would\nhave reached a point whence he could look onwards without anxiety,\nbecause he would be treading a path from which he never would stray. He\nmight still be a man, liable to suffering and subject to death, but one\npurified and emancipated from all inheritance of evil, and fully assured\nof Nirvana.\n\nAnd what was Nirvana, the final refuge of the emancipated Buddhist? Ever\nsince the religion was known in Europe great diversity of opinion has\nprevailed as to the meaning of this word. It was employed by the\nBrahmans many centuries before Buddha\u2019s day, and used by them and by\nhimself and his disciples in so great a variety of senses that even the\nlearned Rajendralala Mitra, in enumerating the sects into which orthodox\nBuddhists are divided in regard to it, confessed some years ago that he\nhad given up in despair the attempt to ascertain its meaning.[203] The\nresearches and discoveries of later years have enabled the translators\nof the texts to write with less hesitation as to its significance, and\nwe are entitled to accept as solid the results of their patient\ninvestigations. To begin with, they tell us that it means the peace\nwhich ensues when all passion has been subdued, and all selfish craving\nhas been extinguished. Though practically no Buddhist hopes to attain to\nit here, but only to enter the paths leading to it, it may be reached,\nnot in anticipation only, but in fruition.[204] Buddha may be said to\nhave been in Nirvana forty years, for he entered it, not in the moment\nof dying, but when he attained perfection. This first conception of it,\ntherefore, seems a marvellous anticipation of the faith of the\nChristian, who finds his heaven and enters into his rest when he is\ndelivered from the \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, from all selfish clutching at the\nmeans of existence. In both religions, taken at their highest, the goal\nof aspiration was not extinction of sorrow, but extinction of self-love:\nin Buddhism the quenching of _trishna_, or _up\u00e1d\u00e1na_, \u201cthirst,\u201d in\nChristianity the quenching of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, \u201clust,\u201d \u201cinordinate desire.\u201d In\nboth religions the goal meant finality, a state in which there was an\nend of death; and in both, moreover, it meant a change which no language\ncould define, and to which no known standard could apply. The Christian\nbeliever tells us that he is passing from the visible to the invisible,\nfrom the temporal to the eternal, and in like manner the Buddhist Arahat\nwould only be able to allude to the great change by negations, and as\nthe very opposite of all we know or at present conceive. The Christian\nbelieves in the perseverance of the saints, and the Buddhist who has\nreally entered the path must sooner or later reach his prize.\n\nBut there the analogies end, while the contrasts between the two beliefs\nare as irreconcilable as are their postulates. The postulates of\nChristianity are the spiritual nature of man, and that his present evil\ncondition is not his normal one. Sin has gone extensively and deeply\ninto his being, for it is no mere superficial excrescence, a fault which\ncan be corrected, a smirch that can be washed away, but a leprosy in the\nblood, which is the life. Cleansing is required and provided, but it is\nthe cleansing out of the whole corrupt nature by the transfusion into\nthe soul of a Divine life so pure, and so strong because of purity, that\nit could not be holden of death. Life is the essential idea of Christian\nsalvation; it is the Divine gift bestowed by Christ, who came that we\nmight have life, and have it more abundantly. So while in the body we\ngroan, being burdened by a suffering flesh, it is not that we may be\nunclothed, but clothed upon; not that the gift of life may be recalled,\nbut that it may be secured in its completeness. It is \u201cmore life and\nfuller that we want.\u201d Sanctification in the Christian conception means a\nprocess of healing, and salvation means perfect health\u2014the condition of\na creature freed from all inordinate desire, or desire for anything\nforbidden, which is the root of all sin, and rejoicing in the untainted\nbliss of being. Deathless, sinless life, the life of eternal\nincorruption, \u201cthe perfect life of love, the rest of immortality,\u201d that\nis the Christian Nirvana.\n\nBuddhism, on the contrary, postulating the material nature of all\nexistence controlled by the universal law of transmigration, had no such\nconception of final blessedness. Nirvana in its thought meant, indeed,\nextinction in the first instance of all fleshly and selfish\ndispositions; but the thirst, the \u201ccleaving\u201d (_tanh\u0101_) which was to be\nquenched, was not lust in the Christian sense, but the natural innocent\nlove of life, and Nirvana involved the extinction of that love, and of\nlife as the going out of a flame which had nothing else to feed upon.\nDeliverance from this instinctive thirst for life is a specific germ of\nwhich annihilation is the outcome. That Buddha so expounded it was long\nquestioned, and by many denied, but Dr. Oldenberg has sufficiently made\nclear his attitude toward this dogma. He seems to have contented himself\nwith its first significance, to have evaded the necessity of deciding\nthe many discussions which were waged concerning the second as\nprofitless, and not tending to quietude and wisdom, and to have exhorted\nhis disciples to strive rather to enter the paths.[205] By the time,\nhowever, the canonical books were produced, his disciples had not shrunk\nfrom pushing his fundamental principles to their only logical\nconclusion. The most ancient expositions of his doctrine disclose one\nlong theory of Nihilism as its only legitimate inference. If misery was\ninseparable from existence, it followed that non-existence was a\nblessing, and consequently man\u2019s chief end was to aspire and strive to\nreach that state in which the \u201cvery seed of existence has withered, the\nlamp of life has burnt out for ever, and man can no more be born\nagain.\u201d[206]\n\nWhile this was the doctrine of the philosophers, the overwhelming\nmajority of Buddhists in every age and country have put a very different\nmeaning upon the word. Just as human nature has proved too strong in\nthem to accept their atheistic creed, so in popular estimation from the\nfirst, Nirvana has meant not annihilation of existence, but extinction\nof suffering. They did not comprehend its metaphysical significance, but\nthey longed, as all men do, for release from sorrow, and a happier life\nwhen this is over, and they took refuge in Buddha, because his law\npromised to convey them over the troubles of life into a blessed\nhereafter. There might be higher things for the wise to gain, but the\nsimple were contented with this inferior portion, and indeed they chose\nthe better part. For surely the conception of deliverance from\nsuffering, involving extinction of the being that suffers, was as\nchildish as that of getting rid of a toothache by cutting off the\nhead.[207] Rightly were they led by the infallible instincts of our\nmoral being to believe that the end of righteousness must be rest, but\nthey wandered fearfully in conceiving of rest as nothingness, for the\n\u201cend of righteousness is peace, and the fruit of peace, quietness and\nassurance for ever.\u201d[208]\n\nThe great question with Buddha and his immediate disciples was not how\nNirvana, the goal of human aspiration, was to be defined, but how it was\nto be attained. It was for him sufficiently expressed as the final\nextinction of all the roots of sorrow, and he taught that this\nconsummation could only be reached by knowledge. Ignorance was the\nultimate ground of all suffering existence, but, as in Christianity, men\ncould know the truth, and the truth would set them free. According to\nboth religions, this knowledge could neither be transmitted by tradition\nnor learned by a simple intellectual process. It implied a moral and\nspiritual training, and was the fruit of obedience; but there again the\nanalogy ends, for the Buddhist\u2019s idea of knowledge is as widely\ncontrasted with the Christian idea as is its idea of the Truth to be\nknown. In Christianity knowledge means Divine illumination or\nrevelation, the result of trustful surrender to Christ, the revealer of\nthe Father, and Himself the Truth. In Buddhism it meant a knowledge\ngained by man himself, through a process of moral culture and\nself-control.[209] In Christianity it was a grace that came through\nobedience to a better Will; in Buddhism it meant simply obedience to a\nLaw. That law, moreover, had no commanding power to enforce it, and\ninvolved no moral obligation in the Christian sense to obey it. It was\nnot a law like the law of Moses or the law of Christ, for it implied no\nLawgiver to make it binding. It was simply a rule, a method, discovered\nby man, and followed because he found it expedient to follow it.\nAdopting this method, observing this rule, persevering in this course, a\nman would attain to knowledge of the truth of things, but this supposed\ntruth is the very contradiction of the truth as it is in Jesus, the\ntruth by which we are sanctified, and made wise unto salvation.[210]\n\nThis should be borne in mind when in translations of Buddhist books we\nfind such words as \u201choliness,\u201d \u201csaints,\u201d \u201cpaths or degrees of\nsanctification,\u201d \u201crighteousness,\u201d and such like. The original words\nrepresent conceptions different from and antagonistic to those suggested\nby these words to us. But keeping this in view, we may well admire and\nbe thankful for the high purpose and clear moral insight which enabled\nBuddha to discover and set forth his way to Nirvana. The strength and\nglory of Buddhism, the secret of its original attractiveness, and of its\nlong continuance, is its ethical system. Its metaphysical creed may\nrepresent a very puerile philosophy, its discipline of artificial\nrestraint may have been the reverse of emancipation, but its moral code,\nin its simple and direct and powerful appeal to the conscience, is a far\nnearer approach to the Gospel than that of Gentile Stoics or of Jewish\nScribes. Avoiding sensuality on the one hand as degrading, and\nasceticism on the other as unprofitable, it mapped out a _via media_\nthat led far above that projected by any ancient school. It entered into\nevery domain of life, of thought and word and deed;[211] laid its\ncontrol, as Christianity does, on feeling and motive, and proclaimed\nthat the way to perfect peace was a way which no unrighteous man could\nenter and no unclean man could tread.\n\nIt is very interesting to catch, behind all its superstitions and\nidolatries, and crude and childish speculations, this glimpse of an\nideal like unto that of the Son of Man, calling and leading men to\nrighteousness, purity, and kindness, as their only refuge. To the old\nVedic religion, and to all the class of religions of which it is the\ntype, morality, as we have seen, was a stranger. It was the philosopher,\nand not the priest, who in old times argued of righteousness,\ntemperance, and judgment to come. The Hebrew, as we have seen, was the\nfirst and only ancient religion that demanded holiness of life as\nindispensable to the worship of God, and Christianity, as was natural,\nrecognised this old law which men had from the beginning. But Buddhism\nwas the first system in which morality was substituted for religion. It\nhad neither priests, nor temples, nor prayers, but taught men to depend\nfor safety solely upon a life of virtue and wisdom and goodness. Though\nit implied a change of heart amounting to conversion, this was due to\nthe operation of no regenerating spirit, but to perseverance in courses\nwithin the reach of any one. Anticipating, therefore, theories of life\nbroached now-a-days as if they were new discoveries, its endeavour to\ndissociate the human from the supernatural, and to substitute the\nethical for the religious, deserves very earnest study.\n\nIt meant man\u2019s earnest resolve to work out his salvation with fear and\ntrembling, for there is no God within him working both to will and to do\nof His good pleasure. It was an attempt to conceive of a morally\ngoverned universe without a Governor. Professedly atheistic compared\nwith the religion out of which it arose, it has been properly described\nto be \u201cmore theistic at its core than Brahmanism has ever been.\u201d[212] It\ndid not trouble itself about the origin of man as an emanation from the\nuniversal self, but it asserted the dignity of his nature as resting on\nreally a sounder basis. It refused to believe with the Hebrew that the\nCreator had written the law on the tables of the heart, but it found the\nlaw there written somehow, and read it almost as correctly. Like the\nChristian apostle, its founder asserted that each man was a law unto\nhimself, the judge of his own action, and the arbiter of his fate. And\nthus it came to pass that, without any conscious purpose of doing so, he\ninaugurated a moral revolution which lasted for ages. It swept away an\nenormous mass of superstitions from the Indian mind for centuries,\nabolished many abuses, and modified more which it failed to overcome. It\nhas tended to civilise many barbarous races; and if among them Buddhism\nhas been able to bear the encumbrance of their hideous idolatries which\nit assumed, it is because of the strong ethical foundation upon which it\nrests. It is the ethical element in religion that is universal and\nenduring, and there is a completeness and force and persuasiveness of\nethical teaching in Buddhism which all non-Christian religions lack;\nthere is a comprehensiveness of duty and gentleness which pre-intimate\nclearly that universal Christian rule which makes it imperative that we\nshould not only duly consider all brethren who are human, but should say\nto the worm, as within the scope of our benevolence, \u201cThou art my mother\nand sister.\u201d\n\nLet us now examine more closely this way to Nirvana as expounded in the\nSuttas of Buddha, and in relation to Christ\u2019s way of salvation. The\nChristian is very simple, but as it proceeds from a much deeper\nconception of human need, its method of meeting it is very different. It\nwas not the suffering and misdirection of men that most deeply impressed\nand most powerfully affected our Lord. He came to a race made in the\nimage of God, that had confessedly fallen from or had failed to realise\nits ideal. It was lost, as sheep are lost, by inherent tendency to\nwander; as coins are lost, by the neglect of others; as prodigals are\nlost, by sensuality; and as Pharisees are lost, by self-righteousness.\nIt was diseased and perishing, struggling not in the coils of changeful\nsuffering, but in the clutch of an evil power which had taken possession\nof it. Sorely needing, though not seeking redemption, unable to help\nitself, He had come in the name of His Father, who willed not that any\nshould perish, to seek and save it. His formula of salvation was plain\nenough for even babes to apprehend, for all He asked was that men should\nturn to and believe in Him. They could not raise themselves, but they\ncould look toward Him, and find deliverance in the look, for by trust in\nHim as the supreme object of love and worship, they would be lifted up\nout of their evil state. The deepest tides of man\u2019s being are those\nwhich are swayed by his faith in and love of persons, and it was upon\nfaith, the commonest of all powers in our nature, that Christ relied for\nthe deliverance of mankind from the dominion of evil. He offered Himself\nto man and for man, was lifted up for them on the cross in the beauty of\nsuffering holiness; and as love always attracts love, and as goodness\nbecomes a creative power in those who appreciate it, so all who believed\nHim, trusted Him, clung to Him as the weak cling to the strong, were\nuplifted, and changed, and transfigured. Love not only has a dominating\nbut an assimilating power. We become like those whom we fervently admire\nand implicitly obey. Obedience in such a case is not an obligation, but\nan inspiration; so though in Christianity we speak of the Law of Christ,\nit is not as an external code to which we must conform, but as a power\ncommunicated to and operative in us. It is a law of the _spirit of\nlife_, a grace and blessedness of disposition, which, springing from\ngratitude, will manifest itself in holiness far exceeding the\nrighteousness of a law, because vivified by a charity and mercy as\nboundless as that which it adores.\n\nSo when our Lord inaugurated His kingdom, He may be said to have\nproclaimed in the Beatitudes His Law, for He then declared the\ndispositions of those who would receive Him, and who as sons of men\ntrusting and following Him, would be saved and sanctified and glorified\nby the Son of God. Now, though from his first sermon to the last Buddha\nis represented as \u201cinstructing his disciples, inciting them, rousing\nthem, and gladdening them\u201d by discoursing of blessedness, it was not of\nblessedness in the gospel sense. It was the blessedness of the Old\nCovenant, not of the New\u2014the blessedness, not of them who love much\nbecause they have been forgiven much, but of them who keep the law, and\ntread \u201cthe path which opens the eyes, bestows understanding, leads to\npeace of mind and full enlightenment\u201d\u2014the blessedness all who, walking\nin the Noble Eightfold Way, must eventually reach Nirvana.[213]\n\nIt is almost impossible to explain all that is meant by the Noble\nEightfold Way, for translators differ very greatly as to the real\nmeaning of the terms employed, and even when they agree, they warn us\nthat the words, though similar to our own, do not suggest the same\nrealities. The word \u201crighteousness\u201d and even \u201cmorality\u201d never can have\non the lips of a true Buddhist the same signification which they have on\nours; for righteousness, apart from the fear and love of God, is an\nimpossible conception to us, and so would unrighteousness, unless as a\nsin or an offence against Him. Buddhism has no word for \u2018sin\u2019 in our\nsense, and therefore no words for \u2018holiness\u2019 or \u2018saint.\u2019 \u201cSin is simply\npain, demerit, and a saint is one freed from what causes pain.\u201d \u201cA\nrighteous act is one accumulating merit, an unrighteous act one\nproducing suffering.\u201d[214] The Eightfold Way, interpreted by the\nlegends, presents us with the Buddhist conception of the perfect man,\nand were we to take its constituents as equivalents to the Christian\nqualities suggested by the words, we should find outlined a character\nwhich here or anywhere must be its own beatitude, but whose blessedness\nis as completely beyond the reach of sinful man as flying is beyond the\npower of a bird whose pinions are broken.\n\nBut Right Views or Belief, Right Resolve, Right Speech, Right Work,\nRight Livelihood, Right Exercise, Right Mindfulness, and Right\nTranquillity, must be taken, not as we accept, but as Buddhists\nunderstand, the phrases. By right belief they unquestionably meant\nbelief in Buddha and the Four Verities; right resolve included\nabandonment of all domestic and social duties; right speech was the\nrecitation or publication of the dharma; right work was specially that\nof a monk; right livelihood that of living on alms; right exercise\ntended to the suppression of all individuality; right mindfulness was\nhabitual contemplation upon the impurity and impermanence of human\nnature; and right tranquillity was ecstasy.[215] To have substituted\neven this in the Hindu mind for a righteousness only ceremonial and\nsuperstitious was indeed reformation; but as an idea of Perfection it is\nmanifestly not only different from, but greatly inferior to, the\nChristian ideal. Perfection in the case of Buddhism meant extinction of\nfeeling and consciousness; in Christianity it meant harmonious and full\ndevelopment of being and character. In Christianity perfection meant\nconformity to an Exemplar outside and above it, the likeness of a child\nto a Father in heaven; but Buddhism could conceive of no exemplar, and\nthe man who would be perfect must strive in entire self-dependence to be\nso. In Buddhism the standard is purely human; in Christianity, while the\nmeasure required is relative, the standard is divine. So in Buddhism the\nArhat is content, and we never hear from him the confession, \u201cI count\nnot myself to have attained!\u201d but in Christianity the more saintly the\nlife, the greater the discontent with it. The higher we rise the more\nurgent is the desire to press on. Christianity therefore opens up the\navenue to perpetual improvement, and inspiring us with a motive to\nprogress which can never lose its power, it provides for the soul the\nonly rest that will satisfy it. \u201cIn life,\u201d says Pascal, \u201cwe are ever\nbelieving, we seek repose, but what we really crave is agitation.\u201d \u201cIt\nis the contest that pleases us, and not the victory; the pursuit and not\nthe possession.\u201d[216] Absolute truth and goodness is the perfection of\ndivine blessedness; the never-ceasing pursuit of it is human\nblessedness. The goal we can never reach, but the watchword, \u201cNearer, my\nGod, to Thee!\u201d seems to solve for us the problem of human destiny, for\nby directing us to the life of perpetual achievement, it assures us of a\nnever-ending blessedness.\n\nThe Buddhist goal of perfection and the law or way that led to it, was\nby Buddha himself or his earliest disciples considered to be beyond the\npower of many to attain to. His followers were soon ranged into classes\naccording to their ability to tread the paths which led to liberty. His\nlaw, therefore, unlike the Ten Commandments of the Bible, which are\nbinding on all without distinction, was not a law for all men. Each one\nwas at liberty to take on him as many or as few obligations as he\npleased, according to his resolve to continue in the world, or to\nabandon it, and having abandoned it according to his resolve to seek\nafter Arhatship and aspire to Nirvana.[217] Upon those who, conforming\noutwardly, yet remained in their secular callings, was enjoined\nabstinence from the five gross sins, of killing, theft, adultery,\nfalsehood, taking intoxicating drinks\u2014already, with the exception of the\nlast, made binding on them by the Hindu religion. By refraining from\nthese, and by serving and maintaining the monks, even the laity could\nwin for themselves a happy re-birth into some world hereafter. Those\nwiser ones, again,[218] who, convinced of the evil and danger of secular\nlife, had abandoned their homes, and entered the Order that by\nmeditation and abstraction they might further work out their\ndeliverance, bound themselves, in addition to observance of these five\ncommands, to eat only at stated times, to use neither perfume nor\nornament, to sleep only on mats on the ground, to abstain from dancing,\nmusic, and worldly shows, to own and accept neither silver nor gold, and\nto be perfectly chaste. For those wisest of all, who had not only\nabandoned the world in order to lead the better life of the religious,\nbut who had strenuously resolved, in following the religious life, to\nattain to Arhatship and Nirvana, there remained the much more severe\nobservance of what was called the \u201cSeven Jewels of the Law,\u201d[219] the\nlast and most important use to which the Noble Eightfold Way could be\nput. For by earnestly struggling, meditating, mastering their precepts,\nthe \u201cTen Fetters\u201d of Delusion, Doubt, Dependence on Ceremonial Rites,\nSensuality, Hatred, Love of life on Earth, Craving for life in Heaven,\nPride, Self-Righteousness, and Ignorance, would one by one be broken,\nand long self-abnegation involved in the process would work out its full\nreward.\n\nIt is to be observed that in all these classes or stages the practice of\nvirtue and the cultivation of purity were considered fundamental. In the\npreaching ascribed to Buddha great stress is laid on Enlightenment, and\non Meditation, which leads to it; but at the base of all this system, as\nthe first indispensable factor in securing perfection, was Uprightness.\nIn the Suttas this formula constantly recurs: \u201cGreat is the advantage,\ngreat the fruit of earnest contemplation when set round with upright\nconduct. Great is the fruit, great the advantage of intelligence when\nset round with earnest contemplation. The mind set round with\nintelligence is free from the greatest evils, that is to say, from\nsensuality, from individuality, from delusion, and from ignorance.\u201c\nAgain, \u201cRighteousness, earnest thought, wisdom and freedom sublime:\nthese are the truths realised by Gotama far-renowned.\u201d[220] The\nuprightness, or righteousness required, presents, as the Moral Law of\nScripture does, a much broader range of influence than the words would\nindicate. In prohibiting lying, Buddha enjoined avoidance of all\noffensive language, and of every word that could sever men. He also\ninstructed his disciples not only to avoid showing enmity to those who\nhated them, but to overcome evil with good. Purity again in his regard\nmeant purity not of word and deed alone, but of thought and feeling. In\nsome respects his precepts go beyond the Moral Law. The command not to\nkill included respect not for human beings only, but for every creature\nthat had life. He not only condemned drunkenness, but demanded total\nabstinence as essential. The precept \u201cDo not commit adultery\u201d was\nunderstood in our sense of it only by the laity; for the religious,\nmarriage was not an honourable estate, but one polluted and polluting.\nUnlike the Moral Law, which recognises everything that is natural and\nsanctifies it, the rule of Buddha in these respects was unnatural in its\nrestrictions. It pronounced common and unclean what God Himself has\ncleansed; and, as always happens when men add to the commandments of God\nin one direction, they are sure to take away from them in another. So\nBuddha\u2019s rule, though excellent in that it lays its control not on\nconduct only, but on thought and feeling, is essentially negative and\ndefective. It does not cover man\u2019s whole nature, nor provide for his\nevery possible relation. Ignoring God, it is therefore interpreted by no\npositive and active principle of goodness. It is inspired by no sense of\nduty, for it recognises in the universe no superior to whom anything is\ndue, and, unconscious of any benefit, it owns no gratitude. Consequently\nunrighteousness, as an offence to or an outrage upon a better or kinder\nbeing than self, is not in all its range of view. Unrighteousness is\nonly a calamity to be avoided or an imprudence not to be repeated.\nStruggling to get out of the meshes of an evil net, the Buddhist might\nbewail his mistake, his folly, or his feeble or ill-directed effort, but\nhe was totally unconscious of rebellion or ingratitude.[221]\n\nMoreover, in a universe where Moi-m\u00eame is the only god, and a man\u2019s own\nNirvana his only goal, the primary motive of action can rise no higher\nthan fear or self-interest. Apparently strong, it is really essentially\nweak in regard to the maintenance of proper relations to others demanded\nby the second table of the Moral Law. The suffering caused to others\nthrough his failure to fulfil the law, or by conscious transgression of\nit, makes no impression on the Buddhist, except in as far as it\ninterferes with his pursuit of perfection. Others are regarded only as\noccasions of acquiring merit. Instead of serving them as Christ enjoins\nus to do, the Buddhist serves himself of them. It is a religion of every\nman for himself. It has been likened to Positivism, but it falls far\nshort of it, as lacking the altruism which Positivism has borrowed from\nChristianity.[222] Positivism refuses to do anything for the glory of\nGod, but it lays great stress upon the duty of living for humanity. It\nmakes the great mistake of supposing that the claims of God must be\ndistinct from or antagonistic to the interests of humanity. It does not\nrecognise that they are identical\u2014that the more the life is reserved for\nGod, the more of it is communicated to our fellow-men, and that we must\nlove the Lord our God with all our hearts, before we can love our\nneighbour as ourselves. The Positivist scheme of morals, however, is\nvastly superior to that of Buddhism, for in it the goal is Nirvana,\nwithout any reference to the good of any other, and the decided\nadvantage of any action consists wholly and solely in the consequences\nto the actor himself.\n\nDr. Oldenberg has pointed out to us that the much-vaunted charity of\nBuddhism, illustrated in the legends by the self-immolation of Buddha to\nsatisfy the hunger of a wild beast, though it \u201csways toward does not\neven touch the law of Christian charity.\u201d[223] Buddha\u2019s Rule, though\nbenevolent to the extent that it would harm no one, and beneficent in\nrespect of doing good, knew nothing of Christianity\u2019s enthusiastic\npassionate desire to help and work for others.[224] It was the interest\nof the true Buddhist to forgive his enemies and not to hate them,[225]\nbut he never considered himself bound to love them. It was good policy\nfor one pressing on to Arhatship to do good works, and he would go far\nout of his way to do them; but he never went about doing good as one who\nfound his reward in the opportunity and power to do it. He was among men\nnot as one who ministers and gives his life to ransom others. His very\nself-abnegation had egoism at its core. Between the Christian surrender\nof self to God for the sake of others, and the Buddhist surrender to\nothers for the sake of self, there is a great gulf fixed. The first\nsprings from a sense of indebtedness, a consciousness of mercy\nunmerited, but freely bestowed; but the other, having no sense of\nforgiveness received, has no real mercy to show. The mercy of God is the\nspring of all true human compassion, for he who truly receives it finds\nit impossible to withhold it. It is, alas! bestowed upon many who are\ntoo full of themselves to take it in, and in all such cases it is lost,\nbut in every heart that is conscious of it, it becomes a disposition to\nshow kindness that cannot be counted by acts, and that never will ask,\n\u201cHow oft shall my brother offend me and I forgive him?\u201d Buddhism was\nfriendly in its benevolence, but it never was actively charitable, in\ntaking upon it the infirmities and bearing the sicknesses of others. It\nhas no passionate desire to gather the wrecked and blighted of humanity\nand to bind up their bleeding wounds and sores. On the contrary, in its\npursuit of Nirvana it passed by all such in the path of life, precisely\nas the priest and Levite passed the wounded man on their way to Jericho.\nIt not only was selfish, but even cruel in this pursuit, for a woman in\ndifficulty or in distress was not to be helped by a passing monk. The\npoor and the diseased and the lost were not to be considered, for they\nwere simply suffering the due reward of their deeds; but the\nyellow-robed monks, healthy and shining-faced, were to be the recipients\nof the bounty of the charitable and the proper objects of their\nattention. One of its beatitudes runs thus: \u201cNot to serve the foolish,\nbut to serve the wise; to honour those worthy of honour. This is the\ngreatest blessing.\u201d[226] Almsgiving was indeed encouraged; but alms were\nonly to be bestowed upon the worthy\u2014on the monk and Arhat\u2014not on the\noutcast and the leper, whose miserable condition indicated their\nunworthiness. If the animal creation profited by their charity, which\nthey refused to their suffering fellow-men, it was from a selfish\nmotive: for the parent, or wife, or child, whom by Buddha\u2019s rule they\nwere obliged to help, might be looking at them, for all they knew, out\nof the eyes of the beast, and not to fulfil the precept would bring to\nthemselves both harm and loss.[227] Tested even socially, therefore, the\nRule of Buddha is defective, and this because it is not founded on\nreligion. The cause of God is eternally the cause of man. In the\nFatherhood of God is essentially involved the universal brotherhood of\nman. Christ is before us as the representative of humanity, because He\nis the representative of Deity. Refusal to acknowledge His supremacy\nwill disturb all human relationships and throw them into disorder. We\nlearn to do to others as Christ hath done to us; the sense of our\nindebtedness will be the measure of our charity. For this end He has\nchosen the poorest and the most wretched as His memorials, and He has\nsaid, \u201cInasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren,\nye have done it unto Me.\u201d\n\nTo do justice to Buddha\u2019s way, however, we must remember that the path\nof uprightness (_sila_) was only the first part of it. Without external\nrectitude, inward integrity would be impossible; but external rectitude,\nwithout self-concentration, would be a foundation without a structure.\n\u201cA man must endeavour to keep constant watch over his thoughts, for our\nwhole existence depends upon our thinking,\u201d[228] was one of the noble\nmaxims of Buddhism. It is to its credit as a religion that it recognised\nthat only a small part of our real life can be expressed in words and\ndeeds, that the true sphere of morality and human temptation was within,\nand that it instructed men to keep the heart with all diligence, for out\nof it are the issues of life. Buddha seems to have felt, and to have in\npart at least expressed, the contrast and conflict between the seen and\nthe unseen in our life. He recognised, it is true, no soul, and the\nwarfare between the flesh and the spirit was not found in his\nphilosophy, but he had to account for the antagonism which every one\nfeels between our animality and our humanity, between what is pressing\nor dragging us down, and what in us struggles to be free. The mental and\nmoral qualities were of far more value than the physical; the invisible\nwas of more consequence, because more real, than the visible. The\n\u201cmindful and thoughtful man\u201d was the man who \u201clooked within and not\nwithout,\u201d and so Buddha\u2019s insistence upon the \u201cnoble earnestness of\nmeditation\u201d as indispensable to deliverance is a grand testimony to the\ntruth, which no philosophy of materialism can falsify, that we are far\nmore concerned with what we think and feel and imagine than with what we\ntouch and we taste, and that our thoughts and feelings go far more into\nthe weaving of our character than do our words and works.\n\nIt is alleged that in Pali literature the word for meditation\n(_samadhi_), by which alone inner purity can be attained, bears to the\nword for \u201cuprightness\u201d the same relation as that which faith in the New\nTestament bears to works.[229] By uprightness, delusion is cleared away,\nand by pondering constantly the five principal kinds of\nmeditations\u2014Love, Pity, Joy, the Impurity of the Body, and the state of\nSerene Indifference to what men think bad or good\u2014the man was supposed\nto be redeemed from all attachment.[230] It is very pathetic to note\nthis approach toward and yet rebound from the Christian conception of\nthe function of faith: for faith is the victory that overcometh the\nworld, with its lust of the flesh, its lust of the eye, and its pride of\nlife. It is that too which, because it looks to the unseen and eternal,\nquenches all sordid or inordinate cleaving to life, which is the root of\nso much evil and the cause of so much suffering. The apostles,\ninstructed of Christ, have taught us that God\u2019s precious gift of life is\nours to use: that to keep it, to will to save and to find it, as if it\nwere an end and not a means, is to miss and to lose it; while to use it,\nbe willing to lose it for some higher good, is to keep it unto life\neternal. Now Buddha had a glimpse of this truth, that lust of existence\nwas the root of bitterness in humanity. He condemned as heresies the\nworldly lust which says, \u201cLet us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,\u201d\nand the lust of other-worldliness which dreams that the life beyond will\nyield as good, or better pleasures than this one;[231] but the two last\nof his five principal meditations show how far apart and far short of\nthe victory of faith was his idea of the victory of samadhi. The\napostles\u2019 aim was to get rid of lust; but his aim was to get rid of\nlife. The apostles mortified the members which are upon the earth,\nanger, wrath, malice, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, just that\nthe higher life, the life hid with Christ in God, might grow and\nbrighten; but Buddha, in \u201ccleansing himself from all impurity, little by\nlittle, moment by moment, piece by piece,\u201d[232] sought to escape from\nthe last shadow of personal existence into the blessedness of absolute\nunconsciousness, if not of utter extinction.\n\nFor this seems clearly revealed in the last or highest stage to which\nthe paths of uprightness and meditation were supposed to conduct, that\nof enlightenment (_panna_) or spiritual abstraction, alleged to be\nequivalent to prayer in other religions. The highest Christian\nconception of prayer is that of communion with God; the highest Buddhist\nconception of _panna_ is of a state of clairvoyance or ecstatic insight\nin which \u201cmen hear with clear and heavenly ear, surpassing that of men,\u201d\nand \u201ccomprehend by their own hearts the hearts of other men,\u201d and\n\u201crecall their own various states in former existences,\u201d and \u201csee with\npure and heavenly vision the procession of other beings as they pass\nfrom life to life.\u201d[233] Buddha evidently was believed by his disciples\nto have possessed this power, and probably his own long fasting and\nsevere austerities, practised in the beginning of his career, acting\nupon a highly nervous system, made him a believer in the reality of this\nperfect insight and ecstasy of contemplation, and that it might be\nacquired by all who were sufficiently persevering in pursuit of\nArhatship.[234] It must be observed, however, that he does not appear to\nhave regarded this as an experience to be enjoyed by the Arhat in\nperpetuity; on the contrary, it was the condition preceding final and\neternal deliverance, and so it may be taken as the Buddhist conception\nof Euthanasia.\n\nThe Christian in the highest and supreme moment of life aspires, if\nconscious, after the beatific vision. It is no Brahmanic absorption into\nthe absolute that he desires, but likeness to and communion with God.\nThe consciousness of personality was never more intense, the conviction\nwas never stronger that he has been divinely created and trained as a\nseparate character. By long and prayerful use of the means of grace he\nhas sought to bring, and to keep himself under the control of the Holy\nSpirit; and he hopes that the next change will completely free him from\nevery trace of \u201csensuality, delusion, and ignorance,\u201d and purge away\nfrom the soul the last taint of selfishness. By long and sore\nexperiences he has learned that selfishness is the evil root whence\nspring all the suffering and sorrow that poison life. He can therefore\nunderstand and sympathise with the Buddhist anathema upon\n\u201cindividuality,\u201d if by that is meant the endeavour to abstract our life\nfrom the solidarity of humanity, to use it for our own ends, and to\ngrudge what of it God uses for the rest of His family. This is the\nChristian conception of the cause of death and all its woe, and from\nthis a Christian saint ever prays and struggles to be free; but it is\nnot from \u201cindividuality\u201d in this sense that the Buddhist Arhat seeks\ndeliverance. He is bent upon the very thing from which the Christian is\nanxious to escape. He wants to isolate and withdraw his portion of life\nfrom the sum of humanity, to abstract himself from the mass, to save his\nown soul; and now that he nears the goal, his whole energies are\ndirected, not to purify and strengthen and ennoble the personal self for\nbetter service, by minding what is pure and lovely, and by striving\nunceasingly after what is right and true, but by crushing out every\nfeeling into apathy, every thought into vacuity, so as to get rid of\npersonality, identity, and the very faintest germ of life.[235]\n\nAnd this is the goal of a race that has extended not only over the whole\nrange of the present, but over that of many existences; this is the\nvictory which crowns a fight that has continued throughout untold ages.\nTruly there is something very pathetic in the conception of a struggle\nafter sainthood so prolonged, by one who, now a god, now an animal, now\na man, has never lost sight of his mark, and has ever pressed onwards to\nit.[236] Probably we may have something to learn from it, by way of\ncorrecting the idea that true moral and spiritual excellence,\nperfection, saintliness, is the growth of a single life; but when the\ngoal is understood in its bare reality, as implying not destruction of\nselfishness, but extinction of being, surely the reproachful question is\njustified, \u201cTo what purpose is this waste?\u201d After millennia of\ntransformation the nebula has formed into a star, and just at the point\nwhen it can illumine an immensity, it disappears for ever from the\nfirmament. Unreckonable energy and thought have been expended upon the\nproduction of a man, and just when he has reached the highest point of\nperfection, and is most serviceable to the universe, he becomes of less\nvalue than a vapour that vanishes away. Truly\n\n                        \u201cthe crown of our life as it closes\n                Is darkness; the fruit thereof dust,\u201d\n\nand man walketh in a vain show, he disquieteth himself in vain, if\nBuddha\u2019s way be the only path of deliverance from evil, and Nirvana his\nonly goal.\n\nAnd so while we ought to be profoundly thankful for the intellectual\nculture and moral earnestness that made Buddha, in spite of himself, the\nreformer of Eastern Asia, it is manifest that even his best doctrines\nrepresent very partial and one-sided truths, \u201cdwelt upon with morbid\nintensity, to the exclusion of every fact which might have modified\nthem.\u201d[237] His fundamental error was his wild attempt to explain the\nlife of man independently of Divine control, and to guide man safely\nthrough the perils and temptations of existence by an ethical system\nfounded on no appeal to an eternal principle of goodness without, but\nsolely to self-interest. The result, which has been to identify the\nnature of man with that of the animals,[238] surely shows conclusively\nthat religion and morality can never be dissociated without damage to\nboth. A religion without morality must degrade. A system of morality\napart from religion will never upraise. Religion is for man simply\nindispensable. Deity is a necessity to him, and deity he must have,\nthough he finds his god in a tree or makes it out of a stone. Man lives\nby faith, faith in his higher self, faith in a higher than himself, who\nalone can explain the conflict between his actual condition and the\nideals which he conceives. The modern Buddhist assumes that \u201creligion is\nthe science of man, not the revelation of God, and he considers that\ncomprehensions of deity are of far less consequence than just ideas of a\nman\u2019s own self,\u201d[239] but how can a man have a just idea of himself\napart from some idea of God? According to his idea of God will be his\nestimate of himself. Buddhism, by ignoring God and preaching morality,\nhas certainly failed to make its adherents moral, and it has imparted to\nwhat is noble in their morality the melancholy of despair.[240]\n\nIgnoring God, it could only form, or could not emancipate itself from, a\nfalse conception of man, as part of a material system of things; but\nman, though considerably involved in a material system, never can be\ninterpreted by it. On the contrary, nature can only be interpreted or\nproperly understood in man as the lower in the higher. Man is an\nantagonist of nature; he is for ever condemning its ways, coming into\ncollision with its laws, refusing to live its life. Out of this\ncollision emerges his religion, while his morality originates in the\nconflict between his own sense of duty and its life of animal\ninstinct.[241] To conform to nature, he must become a brute, but he has\nin him ideals and capacities transcending it, and by exercising these\ncapacities in pursuit of his ideals he finds his life. Buddha confessed\nto an ideal, and wrought hard to realise it, but alas for humanity when\nit finds no higher than self to reverence! Buddha\u2019s theories of\nself-culture and self-deliverance reduced to practice have proved most\nmiserable failures. It could not be otherwise; no man is likely to move\nthe ship in which he sits by puffing away at the sails, or to lift\nhimself out of the mire by simply pulling away at his boots; and no\nphilosophy of self-culture, self-control, or self-rescue, can succeed,\nwhich ignores or refuses to acknowledge man\u2019s instinct of worship. What\nhe most needs is not law, not a system of morality, not even an example\nor model to copy, but inspiration. He knows already enough to condemn\nhimself, and he has examples which, though far from perfect, quite\nsuffice to confound him. The command to be perfect mocks him as truly as\na command to see would mock a man stone-blind. What he does want is a\npowerful moral energy within him, for lack of which he has to confess\nthat he cannot do the good he would, but is ever doing the evil which he\nwould not. His real wretchedness is not his suffering and death, not\neven his ignorance, as Buddha thought, but the continual and seemingly\nineffectual struggle between the animal and the man, the flesh and the\nspirit. And Buddhism was powerless to help him here. It lacked the\nsteady support of the sense of duty to the highest and best, the\ninspiration that comes from the faith that the highest and best is for\nus, and is with us, and in us. Belief in God, as Bacon reminds us, is\n\u201cessential to the consciousness of our nobility and dignity, for\ncertainly man is of kin to the beasts by his body, and if he be not of\nkin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.\u201d So\nBuddhism in unduly exalting man to the level of deity has in reality\ndegraded him. It has indeed lifted wild races out of barbarism, but it\nhas failed to civilise them. It has certainly not destroyed ignorance,\nand the worship of intelligence has not tended to its development and\ndiffusion among the peoples whom it has swayed. Judged even by an\nordinary standard, the monks of either Southern or Northern Buddhism are\nrarely found to be enlightened men, while the vast portion of the\npeoples among whom these monks are found are about the most ignorant of\nall. And just as certainly has it failed to make men free; for religion\nis the guarantee of freedom. \u201cWhere there is no place left in human\nthought for deity, there will soon be none found for human\nliberty.\u201d[242] The basis of individual right is the recognition of a\ndivine and purely moral government of man. If there be no higher than\nthe highest man regarding us, we have only the right to live under the\npower of the strongest, and the reign of terror must succeed to that of\norder and law. The history of Buddhism and the miserable governments\nassociated with it are telling comments upon and confirmation of the\ntruth that belief in God is necessary to secure the rights of man.[243]\n\nThe progress of the human race will ever be in proportion to the\nstrength of its conviction that it is governed and considered and\nsustained by a Power of infinite goodness ever making for righteousness.\nSuch a conviction means inspiration, stimulating endurance and hope, and\nresolute struggle with evil in all its forms. In it is implied the\nassurance that resistance can never be in vain, that failure at the very\nworst is only partial success, and that all things work together for\ngood. The time for this gospel had not come when Buddha called upon the\npeople of India to \u201csave themselves from this condition of\nwretchedness,\u201d and the result of his mighty and benevolent efforts shows\nconvincingly how urgent in human nature is the demand for a Faith which\nwill not only enlighten but enliven, which, recognising fully not only\nthe sufferings but the whole necessities of man, and creating strong\ndiscontent with the world as we find it, and even disgust of human life\nas it is, will quicken in us persevering and deathless efforts to reform\nthe one and to improve the other. Such a faith it is our privilege and\nawful responsibility to communicate. Our religion is higher than our\ngrasp, for it is always above us. Alas! in too many cases it is higher\nthan our aim, for we are too inclined to let it slip, and drift on the\ntides of things as they are; but mankind will never be satisfied with a\nlower. \u201cApr\u00e8s l\u2019invention du bl\u00e9 ils ne veulent pas encore vivre du\ngland.\u201d \u201cWe needs must love the highest when we see it,\u201d and we needs\nmust strive to become like the highest when we love it. The gospel\npreaches consolation and hope to a suffering world, and promises grace\nupon grace to every endeavour to heal and amend its condition. Christ\npurifies and improves the life which we have by destroying only what is\nevil, and by preserving and training and ennobling all that is truly\nnatural. Inexorably He demands the extinction of selfishness in all its\nforms, and He will not even permit us in our prayers to think and ask\nfor ourselves. He reminds us that God is our Father in heaven, and what\nHe gives is for all His family. Sternly He denounces as sinful the\nattempt to secure our own happiness here or in a better world hereafter;\nbut He offers the heaven and Nirvana which He found in assuming the\nburdens of others, and in bearing their cross. So He assures us that it\nis worth our while to live, even in a world groaning and travailing with\nsuffering, and that it will be worth our while, even in agony if we\nmust, to die. It is indeed a very evil world, but as long as we draw our\ninspiration from Him we can live in it not only without damage but with\ngreat profit. When we offer ourselves in His strength for its salvation\nwe will be saved from its sins. In the times of our deepest distress we\nwill have the peace which He left us, and when most severely beset and\ncast down with sorrow because of what seems baffled endeavours, we have\nonly to think of that hope of ultimate victory which made Him to endure\nto the end, to rise into\n\n                                  \u201cthat last large joy of all,\n              Trust in the goodness and the love of Him\n              Who, making so much well, will end all well.\u201d\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  _Dharma_, an ancient Brahman term, meaning law or order; what holds\n  things as they are, or ought to be. In later Sanskrit it also means\n  duty and virtue, _i.e._ law performed.\u2014Gifford Lectures, _Natural\n  Religion_, pp. 94, 95. _Buddha_ is also an ancient Brahman term\n  applied to one who has attained a perfect knowledge of the\n  Self.\u2014Satapatha-brahmana, xiv. 7. 2. 17. In Buddhism Dharma means\n  Buddha\u2019s doctrines, \u201cbodhi,\u201d _i.e._ knowledge self-acquired, as\n  distinguished from \u201cVeda,\u201d _i.e._ revelation obtainable only through\n  the Brahmans.\u2014Sir Monier Williams\u2019 _Buddhism_, p. 97.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, pp. 205-208; Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, p.\n  87; Spence Hardy, _Manual of Buddhism_, p. 375. His relation to the\n  philosophical systems of his day is illustrated in several Suttas; see\n  Sutta Nip\u00e2ta, in vol. x. Part ii. of _Sacred Books of the East_, pp.\n  148-152. Evidently he regarded them with aversion, and even contempt.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  _Le Bouddha, etc._, p. 79. The legends indicate that his use of the\n  vernacular was matter of principle. Two Brahmans, \u201cexcelling in\n  speech, excelling in pronunciation,\u201d complained that the monks\n  corrupted the word of the Buddhas by repeating it in their own\n  dialect, and asked permission to put it into classical or polished\n  verse. \u201cHow can you, O foolish ones, speak thus?... You are not, O\n  monks, to put the words of the Buddhas into polished (Sanskrit) verse.\n  Whosoever does so shall be guilty of a dukkata.\u201d\u2014Kullavagga, v. 33. 1;\n  _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xx.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  Mah\u00e2paranibh\u00e2na Sutta, ii. 1. 2; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xi.;\n  Mahavagga, i. 6. 18, 27; _ibid._ vol. xiii.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  Not as the Nothing, as Wuttke tries to show in _Geschichte des\n  Heidenthums_, ii. \u00a7 166. Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, p. 212.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  Samyutta-ka-Nik\u00e2ya, quoted by Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, p. 217.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  _Bouddha et sa Religion_, p. iii, Introduction.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  \u201cThe Modern Buddhist,\u201d published in the volume called _The Wheel of\n  the Law: Buddhism illustrated from Siamese Sources_, by H. Alabaster;\n  London, 1876.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  Dr. Westcott, _Social Aspects of Christianity_, p. 12; Aristotle,\n  _Ethic._, i. 1; iv. 3.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  \u201cThe Modern Buddhist,\u201d Alabaster, _Wheel of the Law_, p. 73; Spence\n  Hardy, _Eastern Monachism_, pp. 5, 339; Gogerly\u2019s translation of the\n  Brahmajala Sutta in Digha Nik\u00e2ya, _Journal of Ceylon Asiatic Society_,\n  1846.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  Preface to M\u00fcller\u2019s Dhammapada, p. xxx, old ed.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  Note at pp. 31, 32 of Dhammapada in vol. x. of _Sacred Books of the\n  East_. Frankfurter, App. _Bamp. Lect._ 1881, p. 349.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, p. 95; Spence Hardy, _Manual of Buddhism_, p.\n  388; Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, quoting Bhikkuni Samyutta, p. 258;\n  Colebrooke\u2019s _Essays_, vol. i. p. 417, Cowell\u2019s edition; Sabbasava\n  Sutta, 10, 11, 12: _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xi.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  _Life of Gaudama_, first ed., p. 321 note; Rangoon, 1866.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  Max M\u00fcller, introd. to Buddagosha\u2019s Parables, p. xxx, ed. 1870.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  The first traces of this belief are found, it is said, in the\n  Upanishads, Brihad\u00e1ranyaka, iii. 2. 1, _Sacred Books of the East_,\n  vol. xv. p. 126; Dhammapada, v. 1. 127, _ibid._ vol. x. Part i. 3. 35.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  Rhys Davids, Hibbert Lectures, p. 94; also his _Manual of Buddhism_,\n  pp. 100, 106.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  \u201cAll that we are is the result of what we have thought; it is founded\n  on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or\n  acts with an evil thought (or polluted mind), suffering follows him as\n  the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the wain\u201d (Dhammapada,\n  1). \u201cNot in the sky, not in the midst of the sea, not if we enter the\n  cleft of the mountains, is there known a spot in the whole world where\n  a man might be freed from an evil deed\u201d (Dhammapada, 127; _Sacred\n  Books of the East_, vol. x.).\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  \u201cL\u2019ath\u00e9isme devenu religion et recouvert du manteau des vertus\n  chr\u00e9tiennes.\u201d\u2014Wassilief, _Buddhism_, introd. by E. Laboulaye, p. viii.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  Professor Dods, _Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ_, p. 171.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  Nagas\u0113na\u2019s figure used in controverting the idea of the separate\n  existence of the soul.\u2014Milindapanha, p. 25, quoted by Oldenberg,\n  _Buddha_, p. 254; Hardy, _Manual_, p. 425; Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, p.\n  96.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  Oldenberg, _op. cit._, 221.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  _Phaedo_, Jowett\u2019s Introd., i. 407, ed. 1875.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  Preface to English translation of the Lalita Vistara; Calcutta.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  Sutta Nip\u00e2ta; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. pp. 33, 80.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  _Buddha, etc._, pp. 274-284; Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, pp. 111-123.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  Childers, _Pali Dictionary_, Art. NIRVANA.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  Dr. Kellogg, in his _Light of Asia and Light of the World_, pp. 223,\n  252, protests very forcibly against the use by translators of the word\n  \u201cimmortality\u201d as the equivalent of Nirvana. It meant, as he reminds\n  us, \u201cthe end of death indeed, but not because life had triumphed, but\n  because, life having ceased, death had nothing to feed on.\u201d\n  Immortality, endless bliss, and kindred phrases, applied to it, are\n  only justifiable by the popular but really un-Buddhistic use of the\n  word Nirvana.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  Isaiah xxxii. 11; James iii. 18.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_, pp. 97, 223.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  \u201cNot to know suffering, not to know the cause of suffering, not to\n  know the path that leads to the cessation of suffering\u2014this is called\n  Ignorance.\u201d Consequently knowledge of these things is saving\n  knowledge.\u2014Mahavagga, _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xiii. p. 75,\n  note 2.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  This threefold division or \u201cdoorway\u201d (Hardy, _Manual_, p. 491), once\n  considered by Weber to be peculiar to Buddhism, has been proved to be\n  common to Brahmans, Persians, Jews, and Greeks, as well as Christians.\n  See interesting note at pp. 28, 29, of vol. x. of _Sacred Books of the\n  East_, Part i.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  Dr. Fairbairn, _Studies in Religion and Philosophy_, p. 161.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  Dhamma. Sutta, 2-4; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xi. pp. 146, 147;\n  Mahavagga, i. 6. 17-20; _ibid._ vol. xiii. pp. 94, 95.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_, p. 124.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  Frankfurter, App. to Wordsworth\u2019s Bampton Lectures on _The One\n  Religion_, p. 348; Sutta Nip\u00e2ta, _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x.\n  p. 69.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  _Pens\u00e9es_, vol. ii. p. 34; vol. i. p. 205; ed. Faug\u00e8re.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  Spence Hardy, _Manual of Buddhism_, p. 506.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  Sutta Nip\u00e2ta, _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. pp. 33, 46, 67;\n  Dhammapada, 284.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xi. pp. 60, 61.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  Mah\u00e2paranibh\u00e2na Sutta, cap. iv. 4; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol.\n  xi.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  Saint-Hilaire, _Le Bouddha, etc._, pp. 149, 153, 161.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  Wordsworth, Bampton Lectures on _The One Religion_, p. 91.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, p. 289.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  Meta Sutta, _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. p. 25.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  See the story given in Mahavagga, x. 2. 3-20; also the story of\n  Kunala, Asoka\u2019s son\u2014this latter said by Burnouf, in his Introduction,\n  to be of modern origin. Quoted by Oldenberg, p. 290.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  So Dr. Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, p. 126. Fausb\u00f6ll translates, \u201cNot\n  cultivating the society of,\u201d etc. (Sutta Nip\u00e2ta, _Sacred Books of the\n  East_, vol. x. pp. 43, 44.)\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  Dr. Edkins, _Chinese Buddhism_, p. 204.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  Dhammapada, 157-8-9, 379-80; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. i.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, in the Introduction to his translation of the Keto\n  Khila Sutta (Barrenness and Bondage), _Sacred Books of the East_, vol.\n  xi. p. 222, says that in reading it he was irresistibly reminded of 2\n  Peter i. 5-9. The barrenness referred to in the Sutta is lack of\n  successful effort to be free from \u201cthe Ten Fetters\u201d which bind man to\n  existence, chief of which is hankering after immortality in any form,\n  or without form. How contrasted is this to St. Peter\u2019s thought! \u201cGive\n  diligence to provide in your faith earnestness,\u201d that it may be an\n  overcoming faith; but as faith without knowledge is superstition, and\n  earnestness misdirected will do harm, provide in earnestness\n  \u201cknowledge\u201d; and as knowledge ungoverned will degenerate into conceit,\n  provide in it \u201ctemperance\u201d; but temperance must be inspired with\n  \u201cpatience,\u201d bent on God\u2019s glory, not personal gain; \u201cgodliness\u201d thus\n  attained, \u201cbrotherly kindness\u201d will manifest itself, and then\n  \u201ccharity\u201d toward every creature\u2014that is the grace of our Lord Jesus\n  Christ, the _summum bonum_, the knowledge in which we are neither to\n  be barren nor unfruitful. No more forcible illustration of the utter\n  contradiction between the two religions could be found than this\n  verbal analogy of \u201cbarrenness and bondage.\u201d\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  Compare St. Paul, Phil. iv. 8: \u201cFinally, brethren, whatsoever things\n  are true, whatsoever things are honourable, whatsoever things are\n  just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely,\n  whatsoever things are gracious; if there be any virtue, if there be\n  any praise, think on these things.\u201d\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  Dhamma-Kakka-ppavattana Sutta, 6, note; _Sacred Books of the East_,\n  vol. xi. p. 148.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  Dhammapada, 239; _ibid._ vol. x. p. 1.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  Akankheya Sutta; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xi. p. 210.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  If the legends are to be followed, he believed in the miraculous power\n  which resulted from it (see Mah\u00e2paranibh\u00e2na Sutta, i. 33, and iii. 22;\n  also Mahavagga, i. 20. 24), but he condemned the exercise of that\n  power for self-glorification or for paltry gain (Kullavagga, v. 8. 2;\n  also vii. 1, 2, 3; _Sacred Books of the East_, vols. xi. xii. xiii.).\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  See Gough, _Philosophy of the Upanishads_, pp. 267, 268.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, p. 314.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_, p. 35.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  Saint-Hilaire, _Le Bouddha, etc._, p. 162.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  Mr. Alabaster, _Wheel of the Law_, preface, p. xvi.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n  Eitel, _Lectures on Buddhism_, pp. 59-70; Saint-Hilaire, _Le Bouddha_,\n  p. 156.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  Jackson\u2019s Bampton Lectures, _The Doctrine of Retribution_, p. 284;\n  Caird\u2019s _Philosophy of Religion_, Croall Lectures, pp. 259 _seq._\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  Saint-Hilaire, _Le Bouddha_, p. xxiii; Hardy\u2019s _Eastern Monachism_, p.\n  312.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n  \u201cPrefix the name of God to this Declaration\u201d (of the Rights of Man),\n  said Abb\u00e9 Gr\u00e9goire to the National Assembly in 1789, \u201cor you leave it\n  without foundation, and make right the equivalent of force.\u201d The\n  Assembly refused, but events soon confirmed his judgment.\u2014Baring\n  Gould, _Development of Belief_, vol. ii. p. 88.\n\n\n\n\n                               LECTURE V.\n            THE BUDDHIST SANGHA[244]: THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.\n\n\nThe designation \u201cChurch,\u201d never wholly applicable to Buddhism in the\nsense in which Christians employ it, was totally inapplicable to the\nprimitive Buddhist communities. The institution of the Church is\npeculiar to Christianity, for though we speak of the worship of Krishna,\nor the religion of Baal, we never speak of the church of the one or the\nother. Christianity is the only religion which has created a society\nwhich no political revolution can destroy, and no civilisation, however\nadvanced, can outlive. It may change its form, or express itself in\nseveral co-existent forms; but it is so adapted to the nature and\nnecessities of man that it is properly described, in its relation to his\npresent condition, as divine and everlasting.\n\nThough the Church is the creation of Christ and the fruit of His\nmission, the idea of it had been suggested to the world long ages before\nHe came. \u201cEcclesia\u201d is peculiarly a New Testament word, but there are\nfound in the Old Testament Scriptures plain foreshadowings of the\nreality represented by it. In Abraham, \u201ccalled\u201d out from his country and\nkindred, that he might be separated unto the worship of Jehovah, we have\nthe first pre-intimation of the Church. In relation to other nations,\nhis descendants were the \u201cpeculiar people\u201d and Ecclesia of Jehovah, and\nwhen as a nation they failed to embody and express the universal truths,\nwhich it is the Church\u2019s function to communicate for the blessing of all\nthe world, there was called out from them, or rather there was formed\nwithin them, \u201cthe remnant,\u201d so often referred to by Isaiah and the\nsubsequent prophets; and in this spiritual community and fellowship,\ndissociated from the national religion,[245] were conserved and\nperpetuated the truths and ideals from which they had fallen away. After\nthe Captivity, in the rise of the synagogue system of worship, there was\nprovided an organisation, whose essential details Christ and His\napostles in instituting the Church could either adopt or copy; and there\ncan be no question that from out this synagogue system the Christian\nChurch emerged, and that even to-day it reflects some of its peculiar\nfeatures.\n\nThe Church was the fruit of Christianity, but the Sangha was the root\nout of which Buddhism sprang. In a Sangha its founder lived and learned\nand taught, till as Buddha he founded his own; but just as he gave a new\nsignificance to the doctrines in which he had been instructed, so he\ngave the Sangha an application which accounts for, though it does not\njustify, the designation often accorded to it of a church. As an order\nwithout worship, a brotherhood without any recognition of the uniting\nFatherhood in heaven, a confraternity in which seniority was assigned\nonly to age,[246] and whose leaders never pretended to hold any priestly\noffice or to exercise any hierarchical authority, the Sangha at first\nand for long was not a church; yet when we examine its constitution and\naims we need not wonder that the religious instincts of Buddhists,\nproving stronger than their creed, should have developed their Sangha\ninto something like a church, with a cult which, at first consisting\nonly of veneration for his images and relics, for long has been almost\nsecond to none in the world for solemnity and dignity and pomp.[247]\n\nWe have seen that philosophic schools and religious sects originating\nin secessions from the national religion abounded in India long before\nBuddha\u2019s day. In the Gangetic valley, as in Greece, the new sages\nattracted their disciples by the fame of their teaching, but there,\nnot as in Greece, the disciples lived with their masters apart, and\ndistinguished from the world by peculiar dress and manners. Of\nMonachism, an early outgrowth of Hindu religion, and indeed its\nessential adjunct, as being the state which marked the maturity and\ncompletion of a good man\u2019s earthly life, there were already many\nforms, all held in high respect by the people. Celibacy and mendicancy\nwere common to all Sanghas, but in regard to vows of silence, and\nfasting, and self-torture, they differed greatly from one another. The\nmajority of them were Brahman in their constitution and in their\nrecognition of caste: but long before the rise of Buddhism the Sraman\nfraternities, founded on the non-recognition of caste, were quite\nequal to the purest Brahman ones in public esteem. Now in organising\nthe Sakya-putta-Samanas, the designation by which his disciples were\nfirst known by the people, Buddha adopted many features and details of\ndiscipline common to all these fraternities, while yet the peculiarity\nof his doctrines gave to the community of his own disciples a\ncharacter quite distinctive.\n\nThe Brahman Orders believed that Brahmans only could be finally saved,\nand Brahman reformers could only encourage inferior castes that came to\nthem for enlightenment by the hope of possibly securing a higher birth\nin a future state. Buddha, however, considered all men alike in respect\nof need, so, knowing of only one way of deliverance, he proclaimed it\nwithout distinction, and, like the Sramans, he opened his Sangha to all\nwho were willing to submit to his discipline. Unlike many of the Sraman\nfraternities, he discouraged the life of solitude, and prohibited the\npractice of self-torture and severe austerities. In opposition to the\nhated Nigganthas, who, aiming at perfection, went about with only the\nlight and air for their clothing, he insisted that his disciples should\nbe decently clad.[248] In respect that he required obedience from\ndisciples only as long as they continued to be so, and would not permit\nirrevocable vows\u2014indeed, exacted from them no vow at all\u2014his Sangha was\nmore like some Anglican guild than any monastic institution with which\nwe are acquainted.\n\nStill more widely did it differ, not only from many, but from all the\nexisting fraternities in the purpose for which he instituted it.\nHitherto India had never witnessed a religious sect that could be called\npropagandist. Brahmanism was essentially exclusive, for no man could\nbecome a Brahman by conversion. The Sraman sages again, left the masses\nto ripen in evil ways for worse lives in more degraded spheres of future\nexistence, in order to deliver themselves by ascetic practices and\nmeditation. At best they taught those who resorted to them, and were\nprepared to consort with them. Buddha, however, by laying upon the\nbrethren the obligation of extending the knowledge of the law,\ninaugurated a revolution in the monastic system which anticipated that\nof the great Mendicant Orders of Christendom. Just as St. Francis\nemptied the monasteries and sent forth their inmates to find their own\nin seeking the salvation of others, so Buddha broke down the barriers\nbetween the Indian recluses and the world, by ordaining the members of\nhis Sangha to teach their fellow-men the way to liberty. \u201cTherefore, O\nbrethren, to whom the truths which I have perceived have been made known\nby me, having thoroughly mastered them, meditate upon them, practise\nthem, spread them abroad, in order that the pure Dhamma may last long\nand be perpetuated, in order that it may continue to be for the good and\nhappiness of the great multitude, out of pity for the world, to the\ngood, and gain, and weal of gods and men.\u201d[249]\n\nThis was the original element[250] in his conception, and while one of\nits effects was to save the members of the Sangha from some of the evils\nbesetting the life of the recluse by balancing the duty of contemplation\nby that of active itineration, its chief and immediate result was to\ngive Buddhism an expansive power marvellous to Indians. Religious\nfraternities depended upon the presence of their teachers, and\nconsequently the members were few, but Buddha commanded the brethren to\ngo forth. \u201cLet not two of you go the same way\u201d was the original\ninstruction, and preach the doctrine \u201cwhich is glorious in the\nbeginning, glorious in the middle, glorious in the end, in the spirit\nand in the letter, for the pure and perfect life, for the complete\ncessation of sorrow.\u201d[251] By and by these missionaries were authorised\nto receive those who desired admission into the Sangha, and after a due\nnovitiate to ordain them;[252] and so we need not wonder that this\nitineracy, which in the earliest days was the very essence of a good\nBuddhist\u2019s duty, should have had the effect of spreading the doctrines\nand gathering converts so rapidly that in some of the earliest extant\nscriptures the Sangha was known as \u201cthe Brotherhood of the Four\nQuarters\u201d[253] of what to Indian thought was the world.\n\nThus far the Sangha was different from the institutions that preceded\nit, but, unlike the Christian Church, which finally emerged from Judaism\nas the one holy Church of all nations and of both sexes, and of all\nclasses of men, the Buddhist Sangha bore with it, and never lost,\nseveral marks of its Hindu origin. One relic of its extraction it most\nzealously conserved as essential to the moral restraint which it\nencouraged; for though later on it attracted associates whom it\nrecognised as in the ways of deliverance, it was from the very first an\nexclusively monastic order. Indeed, Monachism, or the life of\nretirement, privation, and chastity, had in Buddhism a place quite\ndifferent from that which it occupied in Brahmanism.[254] The meditative\nBrahman anchorite was not considered the only man who was in the way to\ndeliverance, for every believer in Brahman ascendency was free to choose\none of three ways of securing salvation,[255] but in Buddhism\nrenunciation of the world represented the highest form of religion, and\nthe indispensable condition of reaching Nirvana. So, though in opening\nthe Sangha to all classes, and proclaiming, in opposition to Brahmanism,\nthat every man was capable of the highest enlightenment, Buddha sapped\nthe foundation of caste, it was only to replace it in another form.[256]\nThe mendicant monk, as has been truly observed, took the Brahman\u2019s\nplace, and for him alone Nirvana was reserved. So sharply defined were\nthe lines which divided the Sangha from the rest of mankind, that no one\nwho had not come out from the world was regarded as in it and of it.\n\nThis was quite in keeping with the Buddhist conception of deliverance.\nThe Sangha simply was an attempt to realise the idea and purpose of the\ncreed. Salvation according to Christ meant rescue from the power of\nevil, but not withdrawal from the world as so incurably evil that the\nsooner man got out of it the better. Instead of making His Church an\nasylum and refuge from the world, He organised it for the redemption of\nthe world. Instead of attempting to destroy civil society, He aimed at\nits purification by the leavening influence of the new society which He\nwas creating. The Church was to be Christ\u2019s witness when He was no\nlonger visible, the instrument by which His own power would bear upon\nthe wants of mankind. The slavery and the degradation of society, the\ndestruction of the world, was never meant to be the condition of the\nexistence or of the liberty and dignity of the Church. It was but a\nmeans to an end, a means so essential that without it the end could not\nbe reached, but, once the end has been reached, the Church will be\nsuperseded, or rather will be merged in the kingdom of God. So the very\nsymbol of it is not found in the apocalyptic visions of the new heaven\nand the new earth. In the civitas of the new Jerusalem St. John saw\nfamilies and nations and kingdoms, but he could see no temple therein,\nfor the instrumentality of which the temple was the symbol had done its\nwork in the emancipation and education of the human race, and had\nvanished into the more glorious and eternal realities of the throne of\nGod and of the Lamb.\n\nIn Buddhism we find a set of ideas quite contradictory to all these. The\nSangha was the vehicle of rescue from out the world, not the bringer of\nsalvation to it; it worked not for the regeneration of society, but for\nits disintegration and destruction. It considered the world to be so\nhopelessly incurable, and even existence to be so weighted with misery,\nthat wisdom would move men to abandon the one to its fate, and goodness\nimpel them to strive to bring the other to an end. The monastery,\ntherefore, was naturally its loftiest conception of the Civitas Dei, and\ninto that it endeavoured to transform as large a section of humanity as\nwas inclined to accept its law.\n\nThis unnatural theory of life indicates the essential weakness of\nBuddhism, and makes its history very instructive to Christians. In the\nChurch, perhaps, room may be accorded to the monastery and convent, as\nlong as they are sanctified by the Christian idea of self-abnegation in\nthe service of others, but the attempt to transform the Church into a\nmonastery, dominated by the Buddhist idea of abnegation of the world for\nthe sake of self, can only create unmitigated evil. The effect of it in\nprimitive Buddhism was not only to withdraw good men from the world at\nthe very time when its diseased condition most required the help of\ntheir preserving salt, but the salt itself, not being used for its\nnatural and proper purpose, soon lost its savour. The substitution of an\nartificial for a natural standard of excellence inevitably tends to\ndestroy even virtue. Very soon in the Sanghas active itineracy and\ndevout contemplation gave way to listless indolence and enervating\nreverie, and there emerged a mode of life from which the great mass of\nhealthy men will ever revolt, as sanctioning the idea that the more\nuseless we become in this world the more fitted for a better we may\nsafely consider ourselves to be.\n\nThe Buddhist Sangha, therefore, though in no sense resembling the\nChristian Church, does resemble some of its after-growths. These,\nhowever, must be regarded as parasitical in their nature, for though fed\nby its life, they do not spring from its root. In Christianity,\nMonachism represents a tendency of human nature incidental to its\ndevelopment rather than the essential fruit of Christian principle; but\nthe Buddhist idea of a true society is one essentially and completely\nmonastic. This one fact is sufficient to show that the similarities\ndiscoverable between the Buddhist and Christian institutions are more\napparent than real, while the contrasts between them are found to be\ndeeper and more substantial the more they are examined.\n\nThe monachism of Christianity originated, it is said, in the endeavour\nto reproduce the ideal of excellence represented in the life of Jesus.\nIn the life of Jesus there was nothing monastic. Though He appeared in\nthe land of the Essenes, though heralded by a solitary ascetic, though\nthe age was one of universal defection, when because of its corruption\nit seemed impossible to live a man\u2019s life in society, Jesus lived freely\nin the world as He found it, and laid His blessing on all of it that was\nnatural, and on all of it that was necessary. He did not refuse to enjoy\nany of the good gifts of God; He warned us against despising or throwing\nthem away, though He asked us to be ready, when love calls, to let them\ngo, or relinquish them for the good of others. He gave Himself wholly to\nHis mission, and He took no thought for the morrow. If He called His\napostles from their secular callings, it was not because such callings\nhindered their own salvation, but because, withdrawn from them for love\nof God and man, they would be freer to serve the world. We have\ninterpreted the Apostolate as expressing His desire that in the Church\nthere will always be an order devoted specially to the service of\nreligion, but this form of service was never meant to be regarded as the\nonly religious service. If one calling is consecrated, it is as one day\nis consecrated, that all may be sanctified thereby. The world was never\nrenounced by the apostles that they might work out their own salvation;\nand if they \u201cexercised\u201d themselves it was because self-control fitted\nthem to render more valuable service for man\u2019s redemption. The\nmissionary zeal which drove the members of the Primitive Church all over\nthe world to sow the seeds of truth and love made them take no thought\nof what they should eat or what they should drink; and missionary zeal\nall through the Christian ages has manifested the same indifference to\nthe \u0392\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac of existence; but those who have been most inspired by it,\nand who have found nothing impracticable in following the manner of life\nwhich our Lord Himself led, have never deemed it the only way, or even\nthe highest way, of Christian service. It was that to which they felt\ninwardly moved and called by the Holy Ghost, and, like the apostles,\nthey exhorted all others to abide in the callings wherein they were\ncalled.\n\nPrimitive Christianity, like any other religion, was susceptible to\nmorbid affections, and the germs of disease with which the atmosphere\naround it was charged found early a lodgment within it, and soon matured\ninto portentous fertility. The persecutions of the Church, the terrible\ncorruption of the world, the troubles and temptations consequent on the\nfirst junction of Christianity with the Imperial Power, the mistaken\nidea that the world which the Church had manifestly failed to transform,\nor even preserve, was doomed, and that Christ was speedily coming in His\nglory to judge it, strengthened the ascetic tendency to come out and be\nseparate from it.[257] By the end of the third century the deserts of\nEgypt and Arabia, and the mountains of Asia Minor, were so peopled with\nrecluses that in one spot alone there were ten thousand men and twenty\nthousand women. At the close of another century Monachism had a home in\nevery province of the Oriental Church, and monks and nuns formed \u201ca\nnation,\u201d as distinct from the clergy as the clergy were from the common\nbelievers, and in many instances they were hated and persecuted by\nclergy and laity alike.[258]\n\nThe original purpose of the founders of the new institution, however,\nwas not to shelter mystics and visionaries, but to train soldiers and\nmartyrs. Solitude was not intended to be an asylum for the weak, or an\ninfirmary for the diseased, but an arena for the training and testing of\nathletes. \u201cCome,\u201d says Chrysostom,[259] \u201cand see the tents of the\nsoldiers of Christ. Come, behold their order of battle.\u201d Augustine also\nrefers to them as \u201cmilites Christi,\u201d even as later on they were\ndesignated as \u201cthe chivalry of the Church\u201d and \u201cthe paladins of God.\u201d\nThough not of the world, and being above its ways, they were yet in it\nand for it. So these retreats were not only technical schools,\nrepresenting the industries essential to the well-being of man; they\nwere also academies for sacred studies, from which went forth champions\nlike Athanasius to defend the faith against the heretic, and like Basil\nto defend the Church against the Empire. They were also brotherhoods of\ncharity, in which in self-imposed austerities men grew tender in respect\nfor the miseries of others, and anticipated in much more unfavourable\ntimes the hospitals for \u201csick children\u201d and \u201clepers\u201d and \u201cincurables,\u201d\nwhich we are inclined to regard as the peculiar products of the latest\nChristian centuries.[260] Of course, early Christian Monachism had its\nridiculous extravagances, in types like the Stylites and Browsers; and\nof course even its soberer types soon degenerated through over\ncultivation, till it became a greater hindrance to the spread of\nChristianity than all external opposition and persecution. The spirit of\npiety which it originated was speedily poisoned by superstition;\ntheological discussion supplanted the love of earnest study; the spirit\nof obedience and loyalty was superseded by that of intrigue and revolt.\nSo though it spread, it was not as a contagion of health, but as an\ninfectious disease, whose evil effects are traceable in the decrepitude\nwhich the Oriental Church has never been able to throw off.\n\nIn the Western Church, Monachism, though less brilliant in its\nbeginnings than its Eastern precursor, has had a longer and healthier\ncourse. It is not within the scope of this lecture even to sketch it, or\nto analyse and tabulate its results. We live in an age which has\ncertainly little sympathy with the ideal of Christianity which it sought\nto realise, but that is not sufficient reason that we should affect to\ndespise it, or imagine that we have outgrown the necessity for it. The\nlife of the recluse may be beyond our attainment, for we may be so\nafraid to be alone, and so unable to endure \u201cconversation with\nourselves,\u201d that we have to take refuge in perpetual society. The\n\u201cweakness\u201d of the old asceticism many of us have not the strength to\npractise, for we are too much under the dominion of the flesh, which\nthey at least could master, and we are far too inclined to treat with\nunnecessary tenderness what they chastised and immolated. The vows of\npoverty and obedience and chastity may be the very medicine we require,\nin a condition of public sentiment so unhealthy that a man\u2019s standing,\nand worth, and even life, seems to consist in the abundance of his\ngoods, and his freedom in licence to despise all authority and indulge\nall his likings. No doubt, in the West as in the East, Monachism\neventually became an impediment to Christian civilisation, but not until\nit had considerably regenerated and uplifted it. It kept before the\nChurch the dignity of manual labour, it wiped out the discredit\nattaching to honest poverty, it proclaimed the equality of men by\ntreating rich and poor alike, and it proved the defender of the\noppressed, the mediator between the strong and the feeble. \u201cWe are the\npoor of Christ,\u201d says Bernard, \u201cand the friendship of the poor makes us\nthe equals of kings.\u201d Then just as unquestionably it was the pioneer of\nlearning and of enterprise, the guardian of law and the fosterer of\ncharity. There is hardly a city or populous centre in Europe which does\nnot owe its churches, universities, hospitals, charitable institutions,\neither in their origin or growth, to the c\u0153nobites and celibates of\nformer ages; and whether we acknowledge or repudiate our debt to them,\n\u201cits magnitude confronts us more imposingly the more we honestly\nconsider it.\u201d\n\nBut like all unnatural segregations of human beings from society, for\nwhich man was made, Monachism everywhere became eventually an excuse for\nindolence and misanthropy; a refuge for the melancholy, and for all who\nhad become unfit to serve either the world or the Church. Its whole\nhistory in the Christian Church has justified the warning of St. Paul\nagainst artificial methods of attaining to saintliness. The vices which\nbeset society never lost any of their power over the recluses of the\ndesert or the inmates of the monastery, while many other vices were\nadded to the host that assailed the solitary, undefended by his\nfellows.[261] \u201cWoe to him that is alone, for when he falls there is not\nanother to raise him up! Woe to him that is alone, for there is no one\nto keep him from falling!\u201d are the lessons of this long mistaken attempt\nto realise an undemanded standard of excellence; and yet, just because\nof the consistency of its ideal with one side of Christian service,\nmodern Christendom, though in altered and modified forms, has not parted\nwith Monachism yet.\n\n\u201cThe ideal of the Christian monk,\u201d says Montalembert, \u201cis that of\nmanhood in its purest and most energetic form\u2014manhood intellectually and\nmorally superior, devoting itself to efforts greater and more sustained\nthan are exacted in a worldly career; and this not to make earthly\nservice a stepping-stone to heaven, but of life a long series of\nvictories for man.\u201d[262] Surely this is the ideal of every Christian\nminister truly consecrated to the service of man; yea, the ideal of\nevery brother or sister who, married or single, in business or society,\nis trying to reach forward to the mark of our high calling. There is no\ncode of disabilities in the service of Christ, and the way to the\nhighest honours is open to all who wish to enter it, of whatever\ncondition or rank or mental capacity they may be. When this common ideal\nwas fallen from in the monastic orders, it was being realised by many\nprivate members of the Church; when the professional Church had\nfalsified it, it was being upheld by so-called \u201cmen of the world\u201d; and\ntherefore, as a natural consequence, when the monastic orders of\nChristendom became corrupt, society, true to its better instincts, rose\nup and reformed them or swept them away. There was always a large volume\nof life outside the particular channel which these orders filled, to\npurify it when it became foul, or to force it onward, when stagnant,\ninto the life of the Church.\n\nBut it was not so in Buddhism. Its lay associates, however numerous,\nwere but the fringes of religious communities essentially and wholly\nmonastic. When, therefore, deterioration or degradation in the Order set\nin, reformation of it by the people was hopeless. In the Order this\ndeterioration showed itself earlier that its dominant ideal was lower\nthan the Christian. In early Christian Monachism, fortitude and devotion\nall sprang from the immolation of self for the universal good. In\nBuddha\u2019s Sangha, however, though there was both devotion and fortitude\ndisplayed, the goal to be reached was simply self-rescue. Its course of\nbeneficence therefore was not only shorter but shallower.\nUnintentionally it wrought out social reforms, and perhaps political\nrevolution. It restrained luxury, and checked the unbounded sensuality\nto which Indians are prone; it rebuked the earthly-minded, and witnessed\nnobly of the higher interests of life to peoples that sorely needed the\ntestimony. It not only propagated morality, but promoted learning, and a\nlove of the beautiful in nature and art, but its force was eventually\nexhausted. Very early it sank into the stagnation in which it has\nexisted for centuries, and any advance registered by the nations among\nwhom the institution has existed has been due, for more than a thousand\nyears, to the influx of Christian ideas and sentiments.\n\nIts own methods hastened its decay. Like all Eastern religious growths,\nit represented the piety of inertion. Manual labour of all kinds was\nplaced under the ban, and beyond attending to the cleanliness of his\nperson and of his lodging the Buddhist monk was not allowed to do\nanything save itinerate for his maintenance and the preaching of the\nlaw. He was instructed that every moment abstracted from meditation was\nserious loss. This was in direct contradiction to the very first rule of\nChristian solitary life, which even in the stifling heat of the desert\ndemanded manual tasks, which fasting might be said to have doubled,\ncontinued through the long day till vespers summoned the labourers to\nworship. The Buddhist monk knew neither the healthy life of physical\nexertion nor the spiritual refreshment of worship. He might vindicate\nhis idleness against the reproaches of the industrious by the assertion\nthat he too in his quiet life was also \u201cploughing and sowing\u201d to much\nbetter purpose,[263] but then the effect of his ploughing and the fruit\nof his sowing were all confined to himself, who alone was freed by it\nfrom suffering. He could not answer, as the Nic\u00e6an monk and quondam\ncourtier replied to Valens, when challenged as to whither he was going,\n\u201cI go to pray for your empire.\u201d[264] Augustine has indeed assured us\nthat \u201cthe less a monk labours in anything but prayer the more\nserviceable he is to men\u201d; but the prayer which he had in view was not\nselfish. On the contrary, the tears and penitential exercises of men who\nhad become strangers to all personal desires \u201cwere mighty to drown sin\nand purify the world.\u201d[265] As long as monks were truly prayerful, and\nnuns, like vestals, kept alive the sacred fire for every hearth, they\nrepresented that side of the Church\u2019s mediation which is most important\nand effective; for no one can be really effective in the service of man\nwho is not frequent in the service of waiting upon God. The heroes of\nthe Christian Church, who have evangelised and civilised the wild waste\nplaces of the world, who, like the apostle, laid aside every encumbrance\nto run their race, were, like the apostle, men of much meditation and\nprayer. We have no such examples in Buddhism, for it lacked the\nprovision which alone could nurture them. In the life of the Buddhist\nmonk there was probably more, and more intense meditation than in that\nof the Christian, but there was a vast difference in their respective\nthemes of meditation. The Christian could draw his inspiration from a\nsource far higher and purer than himself, and in communion with the\nFather, Redeemer, Sanctifier of his spirit gather a strength which\nastonished the world; but what possible inspiration for endeavour could\ncome to a poor Buddhist monk who was chiefly occupied in contemplating\nthe impurity of his perishable body, and whose very highest theme of\nmeditation was simply \u201cnothing whatever\u201d?[266]\n\nAnother essential distinction between the two modes of life is disclosed\nin their relation to charity. We have seen that Buddhism had no\nconception of charity in the Christian sense, and that practical charity\nin it was represented from a pole quite opposite to that of\nChristianity. As if conscious of its defects, later Buddhism originated\nfaith in and hope of Maitreya, the Buddha who is next to come, and who,\nas the son of love, will realise its unconscious prophecies, fulfil its\nlongings, and perfect all things; but notwithstanding this the Buddhist\nmonk continued to be the receiver, not the dispenser, of charity. His\nwhole merit consisted in taking what it was the merit of the layman to\noffer him:[267] and the taking was all for himself and for his Order. He\nhad no conception of the life suggested in the saying, \u201cAs poor, yet\nmaking many rich,\u201d and he never could have said of his monastery that it\nwas \u201cl\u2019infirmi\u00e8re des pauvres.\u201d To offer charity to others was the last\nconception which he could form of his duty: yea, to clothe the naked,\ntake the leper from the dunghill, and help the outcast, was the very\nreverse of his duty. His creed as to misery in this being the fruit of\nevil done in a former existence, cut him off from that service of the\nlost and fallen which in Christendom has been accounted glorious, and\nfor the rendering of which, several of its monastic institutions have\nbeen spared the penalty of their corruption.\n\nThe charity which the Buddhist monk practised was in his preaching and\nexposition of the law for the deliverance of the multitudes. And that\nthis may be the very highest form in which benevolence can express\nitself all Christians must admit, for the greatest gift which any man\ncan bestow is the truth which makes one free. Buddhist monk and\nChristian missionary alike proclaimed a gospel for the redemption of\nmen; and as the gospel of Christ\u2019s salvation brings ever many blessings\nin its train, so the preaching of the mendicant Buddhist was attended\nwith material beneficial results to those who heard and believed it. The\nBuddhist, however, while expounding the law for the rescue of the\nindividual, never laboured, like the Christian missionary, for his\ntemporal and social improvement. His message had no promise for the life\nthat now is, and consequently he never seems to have played the part so\nnobly sustained by many of the monks of Christendom\u2014that of defending\nthe oppressed and befriending the helpless. He never, so far as can be\ngathered from the texts, proclaimed the equality of men in the same way\nand for the same purpose as a Christian reformer would preach it.\nTheoretically, he maintained the right of all classes to be admitted to\nthe brotherhood, but Dr. Oldenberg has asserted that \u201cin the composition\nof the Order a marked leaning to the existing aristocracy was\nobservable.\u201d[268] Buddha never had occasion to confess with the\nChristian apostle \u201cthat not many noble, not many mighty, were called,\u201d\nnor had his Order ever to bear the reproach of the Church, that its\nmembers were recruited from the lowest strata of society. The references\nto his disciples from the first all indicate people of rank and wealth\nand education. It is not implied that persons of humble origin would\nhave been rejected had they come, only that \u201cthe scriptures afford no\nevidence that they did come\u201d; and yet they yield unmistakable evidence\nthat, as the Order prospered, all lepers, cripples, blind, or one-eyed\npersons, all who were deaf and dumb, all who were consumptive or subject\nto fits, were rejected.[269] The Order was for the reputable, the noble,\nand especially for the religious, for the Brahman votary, and Sraman\nseeker after truth. These again were all attracted to it; they were not\nsought out as by the Christian Church. Not for one moment would Christ\nallow the Church to become select. He not only welcomed all\npenitents\u2014for all men needed salvation, and the poorest and the\nguiltiest were most in need of it,\u2014but He sent forth His apostles to\nseek and gather them, and in order to reason down all natural fears,\nbased on the personal unworthiness of these outcasts of society, they\nwere instructed to \u201ccompel them to come in.\u201d[270]\n\nOf propagandism in this sense the Buddhist Sangha knew nothing. It was\nmoved by no enthusiasm of humanity; it felt nothing of that earnestness\nwhich from the days of the apostles has characterised the true\npropagators of the gospel. In no discourse that has come down to us is\nthere any impassioned entreaty of men to repent and believe. There is no\nsorrow over the unbelieving who refuse their salvation, no burning\nindignation against those who despise or who scoff at the truth. In\nBuddha\u2019s last view of the world there is no weeping as over Jerusalem,\nreprobate because of its wickedness, and in none of his successors do we\nfind any trace of the apostle\u2019s willingness to be anathema for the sake\nof his brethren.\n\nThis tolerant spirit of Buddhism, however, has been contrasted, as\ngreatly in its favour, with that alleged intolerance which Christianity\nis supposed to have inherited from Judaism. We must remember that\nChristianity must be judged as it is presented in Christ, and not by His\nprofessing followers, who have often misrepresented Him. Of hypocrisy,\ncruelty, deceit, Christ was indeed intolerant, but toward error and\nmisbelief, because of ignorance, He was very compassionate. Christianity\nwould make no compromise, again, with false systems of heathendom. It\nwould have no peace save through victory; it would not accept a place in\nthe Pantheon for its Lord, and it was content to be persecuted till He\nwas allowed to rule from the throne of the world. The alleged\nintolerance of Christianity, therefore, is simply its conviction of the\ninfinite importance and value to all men of the truth which compels it\nto be propagandist. Now if Buddhism tolerates everything, it is because\nit is not sure about anything, but, on the contrary, is in doubt about\neverything. It is essentially sceptical, \u201craising the rejection of every\naffirmation to the rank of a principle.\u201d[271] Earnestness in a preacher\nof sceptical quietism was an impossibility. He had no heart touched with\nthe feeling of heavenly love, wounded by sin, impelling him to proclaim\nforgiveness, and he had no such hearts to appeal to. The Christian\nmissionary appeals to soul and conscience in name of a Saviour crucified\nfor sin; the Buddhist missionary only appealed through the intellect to\nself-interest. His preaching was purely didactic, expository, and\nadvisory in character. He was at best a theologian or moral philosopher\nteaching the ignorant, and not a preacher aiming at the conviction of\nsinners, endeavouring, with his whole heart and strength and mind, to\nsway them to conversion.[272] He never experienced the almost consuming\nglow and fervour of inspiration which made the apostles agonise in their\nmission. \u201cNow is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation.\u201d \u201cI\npray you, in Christ\u2019s stead, Be ye reconciled to God.\u201d As might have\nbeen expected, the early enthusiasm of Buddhists for the enlightenment\nof others soon died out, and its missionary spirit, once spent, has\nnever undergone a true revival. It can boast of many ecclesiastics and\nphilosophers, but for hundreds of years it cannot point in its\nhonour-roll to either a Xavier or a Livingstone. It has long ago ceased\nto be aggressive. At this day no Oriental Buddhist seriously\ncontemplates becoming a missionary. Paris may add to its attractions and\ncuriosities a real Buddhist temple,[273] but the priests who officiate\nin it, however devoted they may be to their cult, will certainly never\ndream of taking the trouble of preaching it in the streets.\n\nIn the Church of the middle ages, supposed to consist only of pope and\nbishops and clergy and monks and nuns, of which medi\u00e6valism a remnant\nsurvives in those who speak of \u201centering the Church,\u201d not when as\nchildren they are baptized into its communion, but when they are to be\nordained to service in it, we must look for any resemblance to the\nBuddhist Sangha. In ancient India, a church, meaning the fellowship of\nthe faithful in its totality, was an impossibility. Brahmanism had no\nchurch, and never attempted a conversion, but Buddha in seeking to\nrescue others from evil, and in offering a place of escape which they\nwere free to accept or reject, created not a church but a precursor of\none.[274] Admission into his Brotherhood was at first open to all who\nrequested it, but as disciples crowded around him, and parents\ncomplained that they were bereaved of their children, and masters that\nthey were robbed of their slaves, and creditors that they were deprived\nof what was owing by their debtors, and even the judges that criminals\nescaped the prison; and when accusations grew frequent and loud that the\nnew movement would ruin households, injure the State, and depopulate the\ncountry, restrictions were devised. Gradually conditions were imposed by\nwhich all who were diseased, or criminals, or soldiers, or debtors, or\nslaves, or children under fifteen years of age, or youths under twenty\nwho had not received their parents\u2019 consent, were disqualified.[275] At\nfirst the disciple was admitted without any ceremony, beyond that of\nshaving the whole head, and putting on the yellow robes which\ndistinguished the ascetic and the recluse, but eventually a rite of\ninitiation was adopted, which in Ceylon has continued substantially\nunaltered to this day.\n\nIt consisted of two stages;[276] the first that of the novitiate into\nwhich a candidate could be received by any fully accredited monk. The\nceremony was called the Pabbagga, or \u201coutgoing,\u201d a word used from old\ntime to describe the last act of a pious Brahman, when, warned by\napproaching age, he gave up his possessions to his family, and left them\nto enter upon the hermit life of meditation. The Buddhists naturally\nadopted it to mark the first step by which a layman at any age exchanged\nthe secular for the religious life. It was a confession that he desired\nto be done with the world, to put off the old man with his deeds and to\nput on the new. So with head and face completely shaven, and holding\nthree lengths of yellow cotton cloth, first torn to render them\nvalueless, and then sewed together, he presented his petition three\ntimes, that \u201cthe reverend monks would take pity on him, and invest him\nwith the robes, that, like them, he might escape sorrow.\u201d The presiding\nmonk then tied the clothes around his neck, repeating sentences\nregarding the perishable nature of the body, and the petitioner retired.\nWhen he reappeared he had laid aside the loin-cloth, generally the only\narticle of raiment in tropical lands, and had assumed the new\ninvestiture of the two under-garments and the loose robe, which covered\nthe whole body, except the right shoulder, of a Buddhist mendicant.\nThree times, thus clothed, in \u201crobes of humility and religion,\u201d in\nreverential salaam to the monk or monks present, he made public\nconfession that he took refuge in Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, and receiving\ninstructions as to conduct and duty, he became a Sramanera, a bachelor\nas it were, a monk of lower degree.\n\nWhen the novice who had thus \u201cgone forth\u201d from the world, or from the\nmembership of another fraternity, had \u201cseen the truth, mastered the\ntruth, understood the truth, penetrated the truth; when he had overcome\nuncertainty, dispelled all doubts, was dependent on nobody else for his\nknowledge of the doctrines of the Teacher,\u201d[277] he presented himself\nbefore the Order, of whom ten members at least had to be in session, and\nreverentially cowering on the ground with his hands clasped on his\nforehead, he three times entreated them \u201cto take pity upon him and draw\nhim out of the evil world by granting him Upasampada\u201d or the \u201carrival\u201d\ninitiation rite.[278] Then followed his examination as to whether he was\nqualified[279] in his person, his health, his social and civil\nrelations, whether he had provided an alms-bowl and the yellow robes,\nwhat was his own name, and that of the teacher with whom he was to\nconsort, and whom he was to serve during a course of five years\u2019\ninstruction in the whole doctrine and discipline of the system. If the\nanswers to all these questions were satisfactory, the resolution to\nreceive him was formally put by the presiding monk, and thrice repeated:\n\u201cWhosoever of the venerable is for granting Upasampada to this novice,\nwith brother So-and-so for his teacher, let him be silent.\u201d When no\ndissent was intimated the resolution was passed. \u201cThe Sangha is in\nfavour of it, therefore it is silent\u2014thus I understand,\u201d said the\npresident, and the novice became a Samana, a fully accredited member of\nthe Order of Bikkhus.\n\nThere was certainly nothing of the Church in all this ceremony, and Sir\nMonier Williams very properly guards us from applying to it the sacred\nword of ordination.[280] Any one who cares to read the texts in which\nthe proceedings are described will be inclined to think that the\nquestions put to the novice, in their childishness and absurdity, seem\ndiabolically framed to caricature the solemn and soul-searching\nquestions addressed to candidates for the Holy Ministry. Yet in the\ninstruction given to the newly admitted member, concerning the \u201cfour\nchief forbidden acts\u201d from which he must abstain, and \u201cthe four\nresources\u201d[281] in which he was to trust, there was a touch of the\nsolemnity which belongs to the charge which follows Christian\nordination. The monk was reminded that in regard to what was pleasant\nand permissible to other men he had subjected himself to self-denial and\na yoke. He might receive from the pious, without offence, offerings of\nfood and clothing, and medicine and shelter, but he must be prepared for\nthe hard life of one whose food might only be scraps and refuse put into\nhis bowl, whose clothing might have to be made of cast-off rags, whose\nshelter might often be the tree in the jungle or the cave in the rock,\nand whose medicine might be only the foul deposit of the cattle-pen. He\nwas warned that any breach of the four cardinal precepts\u2014against\nunchastity, which to him meant what to others was the lawful estate of\nmarriage, against theft, even of a blade of grass, against murder, even\nto the crushing of a flea, against assumption of virtues not really\npossessed,\u2014would necessitate expulsion from the Order. \u201cFor even as a\nman whose head is cut off cannot live with the trunk; ... as a dry leaf\nseparate from the stalk can never again become green; ... as a stone\nsplit in two cannot be made into one; ... as a palm whose top is\ndestroyed cannot again grow, so the monk who breaks the least of these\nlaws is no longer a Samana, no longer a follower of the\nSakya-putta.\u201d[282]\n\nTo the credit of Buddha, however, it must be observed, that a monk who\nhad entered the Order was at any time free to withdraw from it. If he\nhad a hankering after home, or the pleasures of the old life which he\nhad forsaken, he was exhorted to confess his weakness and renounce a\nvocation which he had found too high for him. He had simply to declare\nbefore a witness that he renounced Buddha, Dharma, Sangha\u2014yea, he could\ngo forth without making any declaration at all. Freely as he had joined,\nas freely could he abandon the brethren; no anger was expressed or even\nfelt; no discredit attached to him, for the working out of his\ndeliverance was his own concern. Yea, if at any time he repented of his\naction, and desired to renew with the companions of wiser days the\nrelation of votary or novice, he was not subjected to any discipline,\nsuch as a lapsed member of the Church might be expected to undergo when\nseeking re-communion. He was treated upon his confession as though his\npast had not been remembered, and as if his folly or fault had never\nbeen committed.[283] Such facility of withdrawal and readmission seemed\nto tend to laxity, and may have occasioned very great abuses, but on the\nvery face of it, it appears calculated to preserve monastic life in\nIndia in a much healthier condition than has always prevailed in the\nrecluse institutions of Christendom. In how many cases has the monastery\nbecome worse than a prison, and the convent become a very chamber of\ntortures, because occupied by reluctant tenants, who have been cruelly\nimmured in them against their will, or have thoughtlessly devoted\nthemselves to a vocation for which they were totally unfit. The Eastern\nsage may even have shown greater wisdom than the Western bishops and\npresbyters, who have bound over for life those admitted to a sacred\nprofession, so that freedom from it can only be got by ignominious\nexpulsion, and by degradation for a fault or a crime.\n\nThe Sangha from the first was an order of C\u0153nobites, not Solitaries, and\nit was an exception for a mendicant to be alone; for with his practical\ninsight Buddha seems to have discovered that the life of solitude has\nmore disadvantages and dangers than that of fellowship. So he ordained\nthat the newly admitted monk must attach himself for five years to a\ntutor and teacher,[284] one of whom must have been ten years in the\nOrder, rendering to them such personal offices as Elisha rendered to\nElijah, and receiving such parental instruction as St. Paul bestowed\nupon his son in the faith. No vow of obedience, so essential to the\nmonastic rule of Christendom, unless in regard to the laws of the Order,\nwas exacted. No man could be called Rabbi among them, for the knowledge\nwhich brought deliverance could be and must be acquired by each man for\nhimself.[285] A monk was expected to reverence his superior in age and\nknowledge, but his obedience was to be rendered not to his brother, who\nwas simply his equal in respect of need and capability of deliverance,\nbut only to _The Law_ which alone could secure it.\n\nWhile obedience to a superior was not exacted, the law of poverty and\nchastity was as obligatory upon the Buddhist monk as on the members of\nthe Christian Orders. Francis of Assisi could not more highly have\neulogised poverty as \u201cthe way to salvation, the nurse of humility, the\nroot of perfection,\u201d than did the Indian monks who compiled the Buddhist\nscriptures. \u201cIn supreme felicity live we, though we call nothing our\nown. Feeding on happiness, we are like the gods in the regions of\nlight.\u201d[286] Food a monk could receive, but not ask for, and of what he\nso received he could only have one meal a day. Gold or silver he could\non no account accept, though he might accept its equivalents in food or\nmedicine. If like Achan\u2019s wedge it was found to have been secreted by\nany covetous member, one of the brethren had to hide it away in the\njungle, in a place which could not again be recognised. Bitter\ncontroversies regarding this prohibition seem to have exercised the\nprimitive Sanghas, and though it was successfully maintained for long,\nconcessions in relation to it were eventually agreed upon. These however\nproved as fatal to the prosperity of the Buddhist, as similar\nconcessions proved to that of the Western monastic establishments. They\nwere seeds of evil which speedily grew up into thickets of trouble. The\nindividual member professed to observe the original law and maintain the\nprinciple that \u201ca man\u2019s life consisteth not in the abundance of his\ngoods,\u201d but the several fraternities came speedily to abound in lands\nand property of every kind, so that in the East as in the West it may be\nsaid the monasteries fell, because crushed with their weight of wealth.\n\nEven while the primitive rule was observed the mendicants could easily\nprocure what of the necessaries of food and shelter and clothing they\nrequired; the jungle gave them all the shelter they needed, though it\nexposed them to frequent perils of being poisoned by snake-bites, and\ndevoured by beasts. The rains put an end periodically to their\nperegrinations, and gathered the twos and threes who had been\nassociating together into common retreat in the viharas. These\noriginally were intended to be only temporary shelters from the annual\nfloods, but as by degrees the system extended into distant regions, they\nbecame permanent institutions, each one a centre of influence in its own\nterritory, like the abbeys in the original dioceses of medi\u00e6val Europe.\n\nLife in a Buddhist vihara two thousand years ago must however have been\nvery different from life in a monastic establishment in the middle ages.\nLabour, as we have seen, of no kind was allowed, either among them or\nfor them. \u201cA monk who digs the earth or causes it to be dug is liable to\npunishment.\u201d[287] Scant time was allowed for sleep, and when there were\nno books to read or transcribe, the studies or literary occupations of\nthe West were out of the question. All the intellectual energies were\nclaimed for the repetition of such sacred works as they knew, and for\nthe committing to memory of others which they had only acquired.\nExamination of self, meditation on the five principal themes which\noccupied the place of prayer or devotion in their system, was expected\nto absorb the most of the day. Notwithstanding its intervals of\ninstruction and discussion, it must have been a very vacant life indeed,\nlacking entirely the worship, and most of the duties, which rendered\nmonastic life in Christendom, if not always profitable, at least\nsupportable.\n\nTwo outstanding features of it, however, compare very favourably with\nsome forms of the ascetic life both in India and Europe. In the Buddhist\nSanghas would be witnessed neither the slovenliness nor the dirtiness\nwhich has often been associated with the life of those who have\nrenounced the world and have professed to despise its pleasant things.\nAround them,\n\n           \u201cBesmeared with mud and ashes, crouching foul,\n           In rags of dead men, wrapped about their loins,\u201d[288]\n\nwere many solitaries endeavouring to gain perfection or exhibit it, in\ntypes more conform to Nebuchadnezzar in his madness or the demoniacs who\nhad their dwellings in the tombs. Buddha condemned uncleanliness in all\nits forms. The robes which he enjoined his monks to wear may have been\nmade up of rags picked up from a dunghill or from a cemetery, but they\nwere scrupulously washed, properly dyed, and carefully mended. The\nground all round the vihara, as well as its floors within, had to be\nswept every day, and its every item of furniture had to be punctually\ndusted and garnished. His monks were Pharisees in regard to the washing\nof hands and bowls and other utensils, and they anticipated our modern\ndemand for proper ventilation.[289] A Buddhist mendicant of the days of\nKing Asoka might prove a good model of personal neatness and domestic\ntidiness for many a Christian minister in these days of Queen Victoria.\nHe belonged to an Order originally founded by a man who was in every\nsense a gentleman, and which for long numbered among its members many\nnoble and even princely men. Inheriting their instincts, he stoutly\nmaintained their traditions, that \u201cneither plaited hair, nor dirt, nor\nlying on the earth, nor rubbing with dust, can purify a mortal who has\nnot overcome desires\u201d; \u201cthat he who, though well dressed, exercises\ntranquillity, is quiet, subdued, restrained, chaste, and has ceased to\nfind fault with all other beings, he is indeed a Brahmana, a Sramana, a\nBikkhu.\u201d[290]\n\nAgain, in these old pictures of Buddhist Sangha life, there is no\nreflection of that insane passion for suffering which marked the gaunt\nand self-mutilated Yogis around them, and which also distinguished many\nof the ascetics of Christendom. The flagellations, and lacerations, and\nmacerations which at one time became popular in European monasteries,\nand which made even a man like the founder of the Franciscan Order\nrefuse food and sleep for days together, spend whole nights in winter up\nto the neck in snow or water, put ashes in the meals which had been\ncooked for him, would not for an hour have been tolerated; yea, they\nwould have been laughed out of the world by Buddha and his monks.\nWherever they went, they encountered grievous companies of\n\n             \u201cEyeless and tongueless, sexless, crippled, deaf:\n             The body by the mind being thus stripped\n             For glory of much suffering, and the bliss\n             Which they shall win,\u201d[291]\n\nbut they never seem to have been tempted to give way to this\nintoxication which was supposed to make men gods. Self-denial was\nessential, but severe austerities and bodily penance were strongly\ndiscouraged. \u201cBlooming, well-fed, with healthy colour and skin,\u201d is the\ndescription often given in the old texts of a model Bikkhu. Buddha, when\nfirst met by the Brahman sages after his illumination, surprised them by\nthe serenity of his countenance, the purity and brightness of his\ncomplexion. Among the first salutations addressed to the brethren on\ntheir return from their wanderings was the question whether they had\nbeen well fed.[292] It is true some Buddhist saints might be found\nsitting for days in the burning sun, oblivious to its fiery torments,\nbut these must have been exceptions, for there is no mistaking either\nthe teaching or the life of Buddha himself. All these extravagant\ncruelties, by which men have abused or sought to destroy the most\nbeautiful organism and the most perfect instrument which has ever been\nproduced in this world, were by him regarded as foolish and dangerous,\nand as debasing as the sensualism which they sought to avoid.\n\nThough we have hitherto referred to the Buddhist Order, it is hardly\ncorrect to think of it as just one community. Though theoretically the\nSangha of Buddha was the ideal unit, practically it never became so.\nAfter his decease there was no central governing power to direct and\ninspire the whole organisation. The patriarchs, of whom a long\nsuccession is given, were not hierarchs in the Greek or Latin\nsense.[293] They were simply outstanding Arhats, the heroic defenders\nand apostles of the system. Primitive Buddhism was represented not by\none but by many Sanghas, for each brother as he went forth became the\ncentre of a new fraternity. Its original cultus was based on the idea\nthat community of aim would suffice to gather the knots of people who\nlived near each other for mutual confession and instruction and\ndiscipline. So they continued a custom which had come down from their\nVedic ancestors, who, in the four days of the lunar month, when the moon\nis new, or full, or half-way between the two, celebrated the fast\npreparatory to the offering of the intoxicating Soma. The Buddhists had\nneither fast, nor sacrifice, nor offering, nor any form of religious\nworship whatever, but in these days they gathered for careful\nexamination of themselves in the light of the Prohibitions, for public\nconfession one to another, and for discipline. For these weekly\ngatherings the manual of the P\u00e2timokkha or Disburdenment was composed,\nit is averred, by Buddha himself.[294] To this public catechising and\npurgation of the Roll all the brethren had to come; even a sick man was\nonly excused when he could assure the assembly, through a sponsor, that\nhe was clean of fault, and if no brother was available for this office\nthe assembly had to adjourn to meet at his couch. Its president, who\nalso summoned the brethren, was the monk of the longest standing among\nthem. So far it seemed to anticipate our principle of Presbyterian\nparity, but, like Convocation, it was an exclusively ecclesiastical\ngathering, for neither nun, nor novice, nor layman was allowed to be\npresent. Like our presbyteries when applying their privy censures, they\nexpected to be \u201calone.\u201d Then, when all were reverentially placed, in\npresence of no heart-searching God, but before one another, there was\nrecited by the president the order of confessional, according to the\nrule that if there was no transgression there was no interruption, and\nsilence indicated innocence.\n\nFirst came the recitation of the gravest offences: the four P\u00e2r\u00e2gik\u00e2\nrenounced upon their admission, commission of any one of which involved\nexpulsion from the Order. Then came the list of the less serious\ntransgressions\u2014Samgh\u00e2disesas, involving temporary degradation, and\nlastly that of the P\u00e2kittya, or venial faults, which were atoned for by\nsimple confession. It was a lengthy, minute, ill-arranged form of\ninquisition, more comprehensive and rigid than any catechism of the\nconfessional which Romanism ever devised.[295] It out-phariseed the\nPharisees in its trivialities and repetitions and straining out of\ngnats, and no manual of the cloister ever discovered, could equal its\ndisgusting details of every conceivable form of unnatural vice supposed\nto be perpetrable by the brethren.[296] It reads more like a suggestion\nto sin than a defence against temptation. We can understand from it\nalone, how impossible it was for Buddhism to live up to its true\nprinciples, how incapable it was of urging on the steady moral progress\nof the race, and of even realising the example of its founder. Life\u2019s\nwhole strength was wasted in watching against petty and artificial\ntransgressions, so that none was available for the prosecution of real\nduty. Yet if deliverance was to come by the law, the most trivial\ndetails of action had to be tried; but here, as elsewhere, by the law\nwas only the knowledge of sin, and that not as an offence against an\ninfinitely Holy One, but only as a misfortune, or at worst an\nimprudence, a stumbling-block placed by man himself in the way of\nadvancing his interest.\n\nAt the close of the rainy season, when the brethren were making ready\nfor their wanderings, another solemn conference for self-purgation was\nheld. In this exercise of the P\u00e2v\u00e2rana or Invitation no one known to be\nunder the burden of scandal could take part, but all who were\nconsciously clean, from the oldest to the youngest, invited the brethren\nto name any offence which during their common retreat they might have\nnoted in their conduct. \u201cI invite, venerable ones, the Order; if ye have\nseen anything offensive on my part, or have heard anything, or have any\nsuspicion about me, have pity upon me, and name it. If I see it, I will\nmake amends.\u201d[297] It may be asked whether such an institution as this\ncould ever have flourished in Christendom, although the purest of our\nChurches might adopt it with profit. These Buddhist brethren could not\npray the one for the other, but they could confess their faults one to\nanother by a simpler and more effective method than has ever been\nattempted by the confessional. That institution in Christendom has\ntended more to corrupt and degrade than to purify and elevate society,\nfor it has interfered with the divinely instituted and much more ancient\nconfessional of home. In its secrecy, sealed by affection to father or\nmother, or brother or sister, can be told out the things that burn\nwithin; and no priest or ecclesiastic can usurp this parental or\nbrotherly function without injuring what they must earnestly desire to\nprotect. This confessional, however, of the one to the whole little\nbrotherhood, making them watch for and consider one another, must have\ntended to mutual edification. It seems of all the observances of the\nSangha to have most nearly realised one great purpose of the Church,\nthat of being helpful to each other\u2019s salvation. St. Paul and St. James\nwould have felt at home in such a conference. They would probably have\nwarned the brethren against judging one another, and they would have\ninstructed them that only One whose knowledge is perfect, because His\nlove is infinite, could try the lives of men; but they would have\ncommended them for this honest endeavour to fulfil one of the precepts\nof the perfect law of liberty: \u201cBrethren, if a man be overtaken in a\nfault, ye who are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of\nmeekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.\u201d\n\nThe part played by woman in the early history of Buddhism was analogous\nto that assumed by woman in relation to primitive Christianity. Women\nwere among the most zealous supporters of Buddha, ministering to him of\ntheir substance. Subsequently, as in the case of the Christian Church,\nthe largest proportion of the wealth which was lavished in such\nmarvellous munificence upon the Order came from female votaries.\nEvidently in those days in India the position of woman was not so\ndegraded and helpless as it afterwards became. Women in old Indian\nliterature are seen to be much more on an equality with men; they are\nnot only represented as receiving scholastic instruction, but even to\nthem as authoresses some of the Vedic hymns were ascribed.[298] At any\nrate, women appear in almost every Buddhist episode, and they move about\nwith a freedom which contrasts strangely with the seclusion and\nrestraint in which in India they have lived for ages. In the character\nof Buddha there seems to have been much that was peculiarly attractive\nto the best type of women, and at least one of these stands forth with\nvery clearly marked individuality.[299] His mother is only a shadow in\nthe legends, and we can only conjecture what the parent of so good and\ngentle a man must have been. But his wife confronts us with so much that\nis womanly in the picture that we feel she must have been drawn from\nlife. Very pathetic and tender is the graphic account of her first\ninterview with him, upon his return as the illustrious Buddha to his\nfather\u2019s house.[300] When all came to do him honour, Yasodhara did not\ncome, for she said, \u201cIf I am of any value in his eyes, he will come\nhimself, and I can welcome him better here.\u201d Buddha, noting her absence,\nwent attended by two of his disciples to the place where she was, and he\nwarned his companions not to prevent her should she seek to embrace him,\nalthough no member of the Order could touch or be touched by a woman.\nAnd when she saw him, a mendicant in yellow robes, with shaven head and\nface\u2014though she knew it would be so\u2014she could not contain herself, but\nfell at his feet, which she held, passionately weeping. Then remembering\nthe great and impassable gulf which he had fixed between them, she rose\nand stood at his side. His father sought to apologise for her, telling\nhow in the greatness of her love she mourned and afflicted her soul for\nloss of him, and refused to be comforted. She became his disciple; and\nwhen afterwards, much against his inclination, he admitted women into a\nseparate branch of the Order, the poor wife, whom he had not only\nwidowed, but had bereft of her only child, \u201cpassed into the silent\nlife,\u201d as one of the first of Buddhist nuns.\n\nAll candid readers of the early Buddhist scriptures will admit that\nBuddha must not only have been gentle in disposition but pure in\ncharacter. From male and female disciples alike he demanded chastity, in\nthe Christian conception of the virtue. In the reported discourses of\nBuddha there is the same absence of direct denunciation of the vices\nthat corrupt society which is observable in the Gospels; but the\nimpression made by the reading of both narratives, is that of characters\nso far removed from such vices, that people in their presence or under\ntheir influence could not even think of them. In both narratives we have\npresentations of \u201cwomen who were sinners\u201d in relation to Buddha and\nChrist, but it will be confessed that the effect produced upon us is\nvery different in each case. The Indian episodes lack the stirrings of\nthe depths of spiritual feeling, the creative word of command exorcising\nthe lust, and unsealing the long congealed fountains of penitence, which\nconfront us so prominently in the scenes of the gospel. Buddha was a\npure man, demanding purity from all who would be saved, but demanding it\nonly as moralists have demanded it all along. There did not radiate from\nhim that blending of horror of sin and of pity for sinners which makes\nthe influence of Christ upon the wickedness and infirmities of men to be\nunique in its regenerative power. Had Christ insisted upon purity just\nas Buddha did, the world would have profited little by the teaching.\nUnquestionably the mission of Buddha, though intended to make for\nchastity, has not purified Eastern Asia from the gross and unnatural\nvices to which all along it has been prone.\n\nFor Buddha\u2019s conception and estimate of woman was very inferior to that\nof Christ.[301] She was regarded by him through the medium of the\ntraditional prejudice of her inferiority to man in every respect. To\nhim, as to Plato, women, of all snares which the tempter spreads for\nman, were the most dangerous. Not only was the very smallest love for\nthem to be destroyed, but they were to be avoided, not to be spoken to,\nnot looked upon,[302] not to be helped even when in distress. Of their\nfuture as women in the life hereafter he had no hope,[303] and the only\nreward which he could hold out to them for obedience or benevolent\nservice, the very highest object of aspiration which he could present,\nwas that they might be re-born as men in another stage of existence. His\ndisciple Ananda did good service when he wrung from him permission to\nform the order of Nuns,[304] for a nun might hope for salvation; but\nalas for woman and for the progress of society if she had no other\ngospel to trust in than that which Buddha preached!\n\nHis ideal of purity was from the first vitiated by his celibate views of\nlife, and from these views human nature has always revolted in\nproportion to the honesty with which men have striven to realise them.\nCelibacy, when dominant or prevalent, has only produced a more vicious\nand unnatural condition of society than that from which it attempted to\nescape. The Son of Man represented nobler traditions, and taught far\nsublimer doctrine. Woman, though different from, and in some respects\nweaker, is in others higher and purer than man, and altogether his\nconsort. The pure love of the man for the woman was recognised by Christ\nas one of the most sanctifying influences in life; and marriage, the\nmost sacred of all Divine institutions, as the bond which more than any\nother keeps society together, obtained His special benediction, and was\ncommitted by Him to His Church to guard as the palladium of social\nfreedom and dignity. Notwithstanding its many defections, the Church has\nnever been permitted to lose sight of the Lord\u2019s ideal. Even in the days\nof corrupted faith, when its laudation of virginity was most\nextravagant, its unmistakable tendency was to acknowledge the true\ndignity of the wife.[305] A recent writer professes to be unable \u201cto see\nthat Christianity has had any favourable effect on the position of\nwomen\u2014on the contrary, it tended rather to lower their character and\ncontract the range of their activities.\u201d[306] It is noticeable that his\nfacts or quotations are drawn from a period when asceticism had deeply\ntainted the Church, and that they cannot be held to represent the\ntendency of the teaching of Christ. The unmistakable influence of His\nreligion has been to ennoble family relations, and to secure woman in\nher true position as the companion and helpmeet of man. It has been\nstated by one who cannot be regarded as a special pleader, that what\nmost differentiates the European from the Hindu branch of the Aryan\nrace, is that the first has steadily carried forward, for the elevation\nof woman, the series of reforms[307] from which the other, though going\na little way, recoiled. No one need fear to assert that the chief factor\nin these reforms, sometimes carried against the resistance and\nopposition of the Church, was the spirit of Christianity. In proportion\nas the example of Christ has been honoured, and His teaching has been\naccepted and obeyed, the emancipation of woman and the recognition of\nher real rights have been secured. In any case it is certain that the\nreligion of Buddha, though probably not intended to perpetuate the\ninferior position characteristic of woman in the East, has succeeded\nneither in lifting her out of it, nor in preventing her from lapsing\nmore deeply into it.\n\nThe time for discovering the worth of woman had not come in Buddha\u2019s\nage, and we must remember his antecedents and surroundings before we\ncondemn his estimate of or his relations to her. If the tradition be\nreliable, he prophesied, upon yielding to Ananda\u2019s intercession, that\nbecause of women holy living would not long be preserved. They would\nprove in the fair field of his Order what \u201cthe disease of mildew proved\nto be in a field of rice.\u201d[308] So though he admitted them to a separate\nbranch of the Order, he placed them under very stringent regulations,\nand thoroughly under the tutelage of the monks. \u201cA nun, though admitted\na nun a hundred years ago, must bow reverentially before a monk, though\nonly admitted to-day.\u201d She must not pass the rainy season in a district\nin which monks were not residing; she must report herself twice a month\nto the Sangha for confession and instruction; she must give the Pav\u00e2ran\u00e2\ninvitation, and she must, if guilty of offence, atone for it before both\nmonks and nuns. She could only be admitted after a two years\u2019 novitiate;\nunder no circumstances must she revile or rebuke a monk; yea, on no\noccasion whatever must she charge him with any offence.[309] Between\nthem and the superior sex the strictest separation was maintained from\nthe first. The brother who was to teach and exhort them was never\nallowed to enter their nunnery, unless a sister was very ill. For a monk\nto journey alone with a nun, to cross a river in the same boat with one,\nto sit alone with a nun, with or without witnesses, was a very grave\noffence.[310] In short, in the Buddhist Sangha women were only tolerated\nat the best, and they were very severely guarded and restrained, as\ncreatures not at all calculated to influence any one for good, and who\ncould only be prevented or tamed from doing mischief or harm.[311]\n\nThe Sangha, as a brotherhood and sisterhood leading a celibate life,\ncoupled with abstinence from labour and from active services of charity,\nwas simply vicious in its tendency, and it proved one of the most\nobstinate hindrances to the realisation of Buddha\u2019s best ideas, and one\nof the most powerful factors in the degradation of his religion. Human\nnature was too strong to submit to such artificial restrictions; so very\nearly there gathered around him and his monks many who would not abandon\ntheir families and their callings, though they took refuge in Buddha,\nand proved the reality of their devotion by faithful service of the\nOrder and practice of the Law. These were the votaries, \u201cupasaka\u201d\n(masc.), \u201cupasika\u201d (fem.), corresponding with the lay associates of the\ngreat Mendicant Orders of Christendom. Converted to the observance of\nthe precepts, they could only, as long as they continued in the world,\nbe sustained by a very faint and far-off hope of deliverance.\nTheoretically they might attain to sainthood, and from \u201cthis shore\u201d of\ncommon life, in most exceptional cases they might \u201cpass across the\ndominion of death,\u201d and reach to the other shore.[312] The father of\nBuddha is said to have done so on his deathbed, and another is recorded\nin the legends as having gained Nirvana.[313] As a rule, however, it was\nreckoned impossible for them to gain what was considered as so barely\npossible for the Order of Mendicants, that only one or two even of them\ndid actually gain it here. Pious votaries, however, could hope for a\nhappy re-birth, and for strength of merit to be acquired; in some\nhereafter sufficient to enable them eventually to pluck the fruit of\nNirvana. For such lay associates no ceremony of initiation was required;\nonly in presence of a monk the candidates made profession that they took\nrefuge in Buddha and Dharma and Sangha. They had to observe certain\nprecepts and prohibitions; had to renounce any trade involving the\nmaking or selling of arms, or the killing of animals; they had to\nabstain from all traffic in and use of intoxicating drinks, and to put\nfar away from them all falsehood, and theft, and unchastity. To seal\nthis, however, no formal vow was demanded of the votary, and to maintain\nthem in their obedience no pastoral supervision was accorded. When they\ntransgressed, even in the matter of scandalous living, there was neither\ncensure nor discipline, and when they offended by injuring the Order or\ninsulting one of its members, the only penalty inflicted was the refusal\nof their invitations to dine, and the withdrawal from them of the\nalms-bowl.[314] Into the Uposatha assemblies they dared not intrude, and\nfrom the very slightest share of the business of the Order they were\nstrictly excluded.[315] They could only listen to the preaching of the\nmonks, whom they could feed, and lodge, and endow with houses and lands;\nand all the reward they could hope for, was the prospect of acquiring in\nsome future life merit sufficient to enable them to renounce the world\nand become mendicants like them. For the present they were not inside,\nbut only about, the circle of the Sakkya-putta-Samanas; he was not a\nmember of the family, but only a servitor and a slave.[316] The elect,\nthe disciples in deed and in truth, the heirs of salvation, were\nexclusively the monks; and the Up\u00e2saka at the best was one for whom it\nwas good \u201ccontinuously to dispense rice milk, and honey lumps, if he had\na longing for joy, whether he desired heavenly joy or coveted only human\nprosperity,\u201d[317] His merit was most likely to be acquired by being\nuseful to the good, who served him by accepting his offerings,[318] and\ntaught him\u2014though to a purpose undreamed of by St. Paul when he quoted\nhis Saviour\u2019s saying\u2014that in his case, at least, it was \u201cmore blessed to\ngive than to receive.\u201d\n\nIt is to the lasting honour of Buddha that he converted the Sangha into\na propaganda for preaching to all his way of salvation. He did not, for\nhe could not, conceive of that better society which our Lord has created\nin the Holy Catholic Church. It is true, alas! that the actual or\nvisible Church has often caricatured, and has never yet properly\nrepresented, its Lord\u2019s ideal; but it has never been permitted wholly to\nlose sight of that Kingdom whose citizenship is free to all who believe\nand repent, and of that royal priesthood of which all are members who\ntrust in the one sacrifice and prevailing intercession of the Great High\nPriest of our profession. If the visible Church has failed to convert,\nor even to attract, the members of the Buddhist Sanghas, it is because\nof something wrong in its methods, or false in its presentation; for\nnotwithstanding its failure, it possesses in the great gospel of the\nDivine Fatherhood intrusted to its keeping, potentialities for gathering\nall mankind into the only brotherhood which will satisfy their\nheaven-born aspirations. The manifestation of it may still be a far-off\nDivine event, and to bring it about God may employ many agencies other\nthan those which the Church as at present organised may be willing to\nrecognise or to use; but once that holy brotherhood is manifested, He\nalone will be found at the head of it, who on His way to His agony, and\nto the cross on which He was to reveal to the uttermost the love of the\nCreator for the human race, paused by the brook Kedron, and made this\nsupplication mingle with the ripple of its waters and the whispers of\nthe olives of Gethsemane, \u201cI pray ... that they all may be one, even as\nthou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us.\u201d\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n  _Sangha_, originally an assembly (of disciples gathered around a Hindu\n  sage). In Buddhism, the entire fraternity (like the Order of Francis\n  or Dominic).\u2014Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_, p. 176.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n  Robertson Smith, _Prophets of Israel_, p. 275.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n  Kullavagga, vi. 2, 3, 4; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xx..\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n  Weber, _Indian Literature_, p. 306.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n  Dhammapadda, 141; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. Part i.;\n  P\u00e2timokkha Sekhiy\u00e1 Dhamm\u00e2, 1, 2, 3, 4; _ibid._ vol. xiii. p. 59.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n  Mah\u00e2paranibh\u00e2na Sutta, iii. 65; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xi.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n  Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures, p. 279.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n  Mahavagga, i. 11; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xiii.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n  _Ibid._ i. 12; _ibid._ vol. xiii.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n  _Ibid._ viii. 27. 5; _ibid._ vol. xvii.; Kullavagga, vi. 1. 3; _ibid._\n  vi. 9. 2; _ibid._ vol. xx.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n  Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures, pp. 251 _seq._ The doctrine that it bore\n  nobler fruit is expressly contradicted by some. See \u00c2pastamba, pres.\n  ii. pat. ix. khan. 23; also pres. ii. pat. ix. k. 24. 15; _Sacred\n  Books of the East_, vol. ii. pp. 156, 159.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n  The way of \u201cWorks\u201d\u2014ceremonial and sacrificial religion; the way of\n  \u201cFaith\u201d\u2014devotion (heart) to the deities without works; the way of\n  \u201cKnowledge,\u201d or true enlightenment.\u2014Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_,\n  p. 95.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n  Saint-Hilaire, _Le Bouddha, etc._, p. 152.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n  Not without protest, however, by fathers and doctors of the Church.\n  See Hermas, _Simil._ v.; Clem. _Strom._ iii.; Tertullian, _De\n  Jejunio_, p. 123 _seq._; _De Pallio_, p. 181 _seq._\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n  Gieseler, _Eccles. Hist._ vol. i. pp. 289 _seq._; Neander\u2019s _Church\n  Hist._ vol. iii. pp. 305 _seq._\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n  Hom. on St. Matth. 69, 70.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n  Montalembert, _Monks of the West_, vol. i. p. 319; Neander\u2019s _Church\n  History_, vol. iii. pp. 338, 339.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n  Cassian, _Collationes_, ii. 5-8; _De Instit. Monachi_, x.; _De\n  capitalibus vitiis_, quoted by Farrar, _Lives of the Fathers_, vol.\n  ii. p. 224; Burton, _Anatomy of Melancholy_, ii. 510.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n  _Monks of the West_, vol. i. p. 27.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n  Sutta Nip\u00e2ta, 75-81; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. p. ii.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n  Theod. _Eccles. Hist._ lib. iv. cap. 26.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n  \u201cThey prayed for the whole world.\u201d\u2014Chrysost. H. 78, _In Johannem_.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, pp. 317, 318.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n  Mahavagga, viii. 15; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xvii.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n  \u201cI am not aware of any instances in which the pariah of the age is\n  mentioned as a member of the Order.\u201d \u201cAccording to Buddhist dogmatics,\n  a good Sudra or Vaisya could only hope to be re-born as a Kshatrya,\n  and this clearly indicates that the distinctions of castes had by no\n  means vanished or become worthless in Buddha\u2019s consciousness\u201d\n  (_Buddha, etc._, p. 156).\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n  Mahavagga, i. 39. 76; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xiii.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n  Christianity does not, as Goethe averred, \u201cprefer what is despised and\n  feeble,\u201d but as in God\u2019s eyes nothing is despised and abject, so, in\n  fellowship with the Father, Christ cherished the maimed and lame and\n  blind, though hated of the soul of the natural man, and this\n  disposition will ever be a \u201cmark\u201d or \u201cnote\u201d of the true Church of\n  Christ.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n  Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures, 1882, p. 284; Rhys Davids, Hibbert Lectures,\n  1881, p. 155.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, pp. 181, 182.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n  _The Scotsman_, August 17th, 1889.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n  E. Burnouf, _Science des Religions_, p. 94.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n  Mahavagga, i. 49. 6.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n  _Ibid._ i. 54. 5; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xiii.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n  Mahavagga, i. 7. 10-15; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xiii.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n  Mahavagga, i. 29.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n  _Ibid._ i. 76. 1-10.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n  _Buddhism_, p. 80; Dr. Rhys Davids states that a new or cloister name\n  was given on admission, in exchange for the family one (Hibbert\n  Lectures, p. 39), but Professor Oldenberg alleges that this is\n  supported only by solitary cases (_Buddha, etc._, p. 353 note).\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n  Mahavagga, i. 30. 1-4; also _ibid._ vi. 14. 6; and Kullavagga, vi.\n  1-2.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n  Mahavagga, i. 78. 1-5.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n  Mahavagga, i. 79. 1-3.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n  Mahavagga, i. 25. 1-24, for the duties of novice to his Upaggh\u00e2ya;\n  _ibid._ i. 32, Kullavagga, viii. 13, 14, for his duties to his\n  \u00c2kariya. The duties to both are the same, but the Upaggh\u00e2ya seems to\n  have been the more important of the two tutors.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n  Dr. Rhys Davids, _Handbook of Buddhism_, p. 169.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n  Dhammapada, 200; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. Part i.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n  P\u00e2timokkha; Pakittiy\u00e1 Dhamm\u00e2, 10; said to be because he might kill or\n  harm some living creature.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n  Sir Edwin Arnold, _Light of Asia_, p. 95.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n  Kullavagga, v. vi. viii. _passim_; Mahavagga, i. 25. 15.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n  Dhammapada, 141, 142; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. Part i.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n  Sir Edwin Arnold, _Light of Asia_, pp. 95, 96.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n  Mahavagga, i. 31. 4.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n  Introduction to Dhammapada, _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x. p.\n  xliv: a long list quoted from the _Northern Scripture_ by Dr. Edkins\n  in _Chinese Buddhism_.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n  The question was thrice put, \u201cAre ye pure?\u201d Mahavagga, ii. 1-36.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n  See for a specimen the Kullavaga, v. 21; _Sacred Books of the East_,\n  vol. xx.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n  Bishop of Colombo, in _Nineteenth Century_, July 1888.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n  Mahavagga, iv. 1. 18; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xiii.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n  Weber, _Indische Studien_, x. 118; Metrical translations by Dr. John\n  Muir, p. 250, where Professor Eggeling is quoted.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n  Mah\u00e2-pag\u00e2pati the Gotami, his aunt and nurse (Kullavaga, x. 1) whose\n  entreaty, through Ananda, led him to found the Order of Bikkhuni,\n  seems more than a name. Vis\u00e2kh\u00e2, \u201cthe rich and bountiful,\u201d is another\n  type of votary (Mahavagga, viii. 15).\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n  _Buddhist Jataka Stories_, translated by Rhys Davids, pp. 87, 90;\n  Bigandet, _Life of Gaudama_, old ed., pp. 156, 168.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n  Dhammapada, 284; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n  Book of the Great Decease, v. 23; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xi.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n  Eitel, _Lectures on Buddhism_, p. 10.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n  Kullavagga, x. 1. 3, 4; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xx.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n  Clement of Alexandria gives prominence to the value of marriage and of\n  the family life, _Strom._ vii., _Paedag._ iii. So Tertullian, _Ad\n  Uxorem_, ii. c. 8.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n  Principal Donaldson, _Contemporary Review_, Sept. 1889.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n  Sir Henry S. Maine, _Early History of Institutions_, p. 341.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n  Kullavagga, x. 1. 6.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n  Kullavagga, x. 1. 27.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n  P\u00e2timokkha; Pakittiy\u00e2 Dhamm\u00e2, 6, 7, 27, 66, 67.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n  \u201cYou are not, O monks, to bow down before women, to rise up in their\n  presence, to stretch out your joined hands towards them, nor to\n  perform towards them those duties that are proper to them (from an\n  inferior to a superior).\u201d\u2014Kullavagga, x. 3. 1. \u201cGiving honour unto the\n  wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the\n  grace of God.\u201d\u20141 Peter iii. 1-7.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n  Dhammapada, 85, 86; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. x.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, _Handbook of Buddhism_, p. 125; Spence Hardy,\n  _Eastern Monachism_, p. 199.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n  The bowl was \u201cturned down\u201d in relation to him, and his house became an\n  unlawful resort.\u2014Kullavagga, v. 20. 3; _Sacred Books of the East_,\n  vol. xx.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n  Sir Monier Williams states that though votaries did not confess to\n  monks, the four days were observed by them.\u2014_Buddhism_, p. 84.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n  Oldenberg, _Buddha, etc._, p. 162 note.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n  Mahavagga, vi. 24. 1-6.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n  Kullavagga, vi. 1-5; _ibid._ vi. 4. 10.\n\n\n\n\n                              LECTURE VI.\n                     THE TWO RELIGIONS IN HISTORY.\n\n\n                         I.\u2014External Diffusion.\n\n\nIn His apostles, and the disciples who gathered round them, endowed with\nthe memory of His words and deeds, two simple sacraments, and a promise\nthat He would be with them to the end of the \u00e6on, while they fulfilled\nHis commission to evangelise and baptize all nations in the name of the\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the continuance of the\nChurch which our Lord had founded was secured. Buddha left behind him\nneither sacrament to signify and seal the benefits which he had\nconferred, nor any promise of personal fellowship with or interest in\nhis followers; but he was survived by the Monastic Order which he had\nfounded, by a law containing the essentials of his system, and a form of\ndiscipline containing the customs to be observed in their assemblies,\nand the rules to which all the brethren were to be subject. Though the\npersonal guide to Nirvana was lost to them, they still in the law\npossessed his way to it, and by observing the law, and following his\nway, they would fulfil his last stirring exhortation,[319] \u201cBe ye lamps\nunto yourselves, be ye a refuge to yourselves, O monks.\u201d\n\nSo much importance being attached to the law, his disciples, immediately\nafter his decease, according to the tradition, set about collecting the\nmaterials of it, in his remembered discourses, decisions, and in all\nthat he said; and this labour of recalling, determining, and\nperpetuating his teaching seems to have occupied them for several\ngenerations. There is no trace of any corresponding anxiety on the part\nof the Christian Church to collect the words of the Lord Jesus. The\nGospels are not the earliest of our scriptures, and they were produced\nmore for the edification of Jewish and Gentile converts, than to secure\nfor the Church a standard of belief and of discipline. The function of\nthe Church was not so much to recall and perpetuate the teaching of its\nLord as to interpret the significance of His life, and death, and\nresurrection. No written or remembered instructions were required, for\nthe apostles believed that they had Himself to tell them on every\noccasion what they should do and teach. From the very first they prayed\nto Him in full assurance that He heard and answered them. They believed\nthat He had shown Himself to some of them, and that He was witnessed for\nin all of them by a new possession. The Gentile world had been familiar\nwith the \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 of the medium through whom a Divine oracle was supposed\nto be given, and with the _rabies_ of the howling priests of the goddess\nCybele, but the Christians professed to be inspired by the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\nIn some instances this inspiration manifested itself in extravagant\nforms and in mysterious utterances,[320] but those who were most under\nits control had complete possession of themselves; their speech was\nintelligible, and sober, and most convincing, making \u201cmanifest the\nsecrets of the heart.\u201d\n\nUnquestionably this belief in the presence of Christ in the\nSpirit\u2014whether truly founded or not\u2014was universal in the Church. All\nthe utterances of primitive Christianity, the scriptures of its\napostles, the treatises of its fathers and doctors, and all the\nmonuments of the first ages, bear witness not to a Christ who once\nlived and had died, but who was living triumphant and glorified,\nreigning for them, and in them to reign. Unquestionably also in this\nbelief was the hiding of that power which enabled the Church to\nconfront the whole world, endure the full weight of its persecutions,\nand finally win the victory over it. It also explains the appearance\nin the Church, from the first, of that succession of persons who,\nbecause of their strongly marked individualities, gave both direction\nand impetus to its progress. Buddhism, though both its southern and\nnorthern scriptures record a patriarchal succession, and though\nprobably not deficient in highly cultured disciples, seems to have\nlacked from the very first men who had genius to organise or intellect\nto command its forces. Its own early writings disclose a movement\nwhich very speedily congealed, because ruled only by a remembered law,\ninterpreted by very adulterated traditions. Christianity represents\nquite a different movement; it was not the perpetuation of a system,\nbut the development of a new inspiration, of a life manifested in\nChrist and communicated to all who believed on Him. Consequently it\nnever was without its heroes, whom it had the power to produce; and\nconsequently also it never could stiffen into a tradition, for where\nits leaders attempted to fix it, in either confession or in ritual, it\nwas sure to evade them. It has been appropriately described as \u201cthe\nmost changeable of religions,\u201d[321]\u2014mutable in its forms, immutable in\nits essence. For Christianity is not a system either of philosophy or\ntheology; it is a perpetually reforming spirit, fed by faith in One\nwho is the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.\n\nBoth religions entered the world as missionaries bent upon its\nconversion, and though Buddhism was afterwards to eclipse Christianity\nin the superficial extent of its conquests, the annals of the primitive\nChurch record a much more rapid extension. The early development of\nChristianity, even taking into account the circumstances which helped or\nfacilitated its progress, remains one of the marvels of history. In the\nNew Testament the Church is seen to have gained a footing almost\nwherever the waves of the Diaspora had reached. St. Paul found\nChristians not only in Rome, but in little Puteoli, and his letters\nimply that there were churches in Spain and in southern Gaul. St. Peter\nwrote from Babylon to a wide circle of Christian communities gathered\nout of the regions of Asia Minor.[322] There seem to have been even then\nchurches in most of the chief cities, and in a multitude of minor towns\nall over the Empire; and there is no reason to distrust the tradition,\nthat before the last of the apostles fell asleep, the gospel had called\nmultitudes living far beyond the bounds of the Empire to make good their\ncitizenship in the kingdom of God.\n\nThe churches may have been small in respect of membership, for the rapid\ndiffusion of Christianity by no means involved the conversion _en masse_\nof the people. Facts will hardly bear out the glowing testimony of\nGregory Thaumaturgus, who found in the populous metropolis of a large\nprovince only seventeen Christians, and in twenty-five years reported\nthat he could find only seventeen heathens.[323] With Gibbon we may have\nto discount as \u201csplendid exaggeration\u201d the testimony of Tertullian,\n\u201cHesterni sumus, et vestra omnia implevimus.\u201d Still the direct testimony\nof Tacitus as to the multitude of Christians in Rome, the evidence of\nthe Catacombs, and many other indications, point to the conclusion that\nthe rapid numerical increase of Christians was as singular as was the\nterritorial diffusion of their religion. The whole Empire must have been\nsensibly leavened, and the converts must for long have been gathered\nfrom other than the lower classes of society, before the conversion of\nConstantine became possible. Emperors\u2014even Roman ones\u2014follow in such\nmatters, and do not lead their subjects; and so we may be sure what had\nat first been glad tidings to the slaves and the poor must for some time\nhave become the consolation of many a noble Pudens and Linus, and of\nmany a Claudia of royal descent, before it could be recognised as the\nreligion of the State.[324]\n\nMany circumstances undoubtedly contributed to this result. A\nconsolidated empire, with nearly all the representative nations fused\ninto a union, comprising all the existing elements of culture and forces\nof civilisation; the great Roman highways, with means of easy\ncommunication so abundant as to be surprising to us; the widespread\nunderstanding of the two leading languages, making virtually of one\nspeech a great section of the most important part of the world; the\ninnumerable communities of Jews, everywhere tolerated, and \u201ccutting\nchannels through the adamantine mass of heathen society,\u201d[325] immensely\naided the missionary activities of the apostles and their followers.\nMoreover, the moral and religious condition of the Empire, the\nbankruptcy of the old faith, the despair and confusion and perplexity of\npeople, everywhere seeking mightier or better deities than they knew,\neverywhere trembling \u201cbetween the two immensities of terror,\u201d rendered\npossible the victory of Christianity. Multitudes were thus prepared to\nwelcome a Deliverer who had come in the name, not of Jupiter Maximus\nTonans, but of the Father in heaven, to give peace in this world\u2019s\ntribulations, and sure hope of joy in the world beyond it.[326] And yet\nall this, even when added to Gibbon\u2019s five causes, will not account for\nthe historical puzzle, that a faith, originating in a manger in a Syrian\ncattle-shed, brooded over for thirty years of a life of poverty and\ntoil, preached for three, with the result of being almost universally\nrejected, and quenched to all appearance in the blood of crucifixion,\nshould immediately after the death of its Founder have broken out all\nover the Roman world. Converting its agents from farms, and harbours,\nand prisons, it called them to martyrdom; for it sent them\u2014poor\n\u201cweavers, and shoe-makers, and fullers, and illiterate clowns\u201d\u2014to\nproclaim \u201cbarbarous dogmas,\u201d and \u201cextravagant hopes,\u201d \u201cuniversally\ndetested\u201d by Jew and Gentile, and to bear the full weight of a prolonged\nseries of persecutions involving indescribable tortures and\ndisgrace.[327] Yet somehow it never paused for a moment, never abated\none iota of its claim, till in the course of a few generations it was\nfound upon the throne. We never will explain this wonder by showing how,\nas a system of ethics, or as a new theory of life, it found the\ncondition of the world favourable to its reception. The correlation of\nthe state of the world to the new faith has been claimed as\nprovidential,\u2014an indication of a Divine purpose making all things work\ntogether, for this manifestation of a new power or principle of life in\nsociety, which as yet has had no historical counterpart.[328]\n\nThe early scriptures of Buddhism, though preserving a tradition that in\ntwelve years from the time in which the doctrine was first preached it\nhad spread over sixteen kingdoms, disclose no such rapidity of\ndiffusion. The kingdoms referred to are not to be regarded as kingdoms\nin our sense of the word, for in extent and influence they would not\nequal a German principality, and were probably only tribal communities.\nAfter the death of Buddha the many Sanghas that had arisen seem to have\nsuffered for lack of a central governing power. If his Order is to be\ncalled a Church, it had manifestly no church-government. It had synods,\nand assemblies, and councils, but not one with the authority of an\n\u0152cumenical as representative of the whole. It was more Congregational\nthan Presbyterian in its constitution, and for this very reason it was\nweak when compared with the compact organisation of Brahmanism, with\nwhich it competed for supremacy. Disorder and dissension are traceable\nin it from the first, and the early texts, though containing many\nadmonitions against schism, warnings that offences must come, and woes\nupon those who would cause them, record no practical steps to prevent or\nremedy them.[329] Vigorous expansion was consequently not to be looked\nfor, and for two centuries we may safely infer that Buddhism represented\nonly a struggling sect, which, beyond the limits in which it was first\npreached, had made little, if indeed any, progress.\n\nAt the close of this period, when its literature was reaching a\ncanonical form, and its manuals of discipline and common order were\ngenerally in use, it found its Constantine in the conqueror\nChandragupta. In opposition to the Brahmans, who despised him for his\nlow-caste origin, he seems to have lifted it from obscurity into the\nsunshine of really imperial favour. His grandson Asoka, who consolidated\nhis conquests, proved its Theodosius, in not only greatly endowing it,\nbut in establishing its supremacy. There were no quarrels between him\nand the Sanghas as to their independence, as afterwards between the\nEmperors and the Popes, for, like a true son of the Church, he\nacknowledged their authority. By obeying in appearance, he in reality\nbecame, what Buddhism since the death of its founder sorely needed, the\nhead of the system, and under his wise and energetic rule, the religion\nemerged into a vigour which it was to maintain for centuries.\n\nAn earnest Buddhist, he seems to have been something better. He called\nhimself Pryadarsi,[330] the \u201cbeloved of the gods,\u201d and a Daniel indeed\nhe appears to have been, raised up for the blessing of millions. His\nedicts\u2014stone inscriptions found all over India\u2014the first written\ntestimonies which Buddhism left of itself,[331] all breathe a lofty\nspirit of righteousness and kindness and toleration, appealing to both\nBrahman and Buddhist, and commending themselves at this day, \u201cto Jew and\nChristian and Moslem alike, as part of the universal religion of\nhumanity.\u201d[332] One of them refers to a council which he assembled at\nPatna, for the pacification and reformation of the Order. During its\nsession the ancient collections of rules and dogmas were rehearsed, and\nas the list is considerably shorter than the contents of the Tripitaka,\nwe may be sure that the Southern tradition that Buddha himself was the\nauthor of all the books comprising that collection has no foundation in\nfact.[333] A far more momentous act of this ancient council than the\nrecension of the canon, was that of establishing the first great\nBuddhist missions. To a revived and reformed Order the suggestion of the\npious king, that they should go forth and fulfil their great teacher\u2019s\noriginal commission, was welcome. Their dissensions, as has often\nhappened in Christendom, were due to their living to themselves. An army\ninactive in quarters, is more likely to quarrel or mutiny than one in\nservice in the field. These good Buddhists wisely determined to carry\nthe war of deliverance beyond them, and so into the Punjab, Kashmir, the\nCentral Himalayan regions, over into the Malay Peninsula, went the\nmissionaries, armed only with the words of the Law or the legends which\nhad been floating round the memory of their master, and supported only\nby the offerings put into their alms-dish, to gain whatever victories\nthey could in the fair conflict of reason with reason.[334]\n\nIn India they would of course be supported by imperial influence, and\nindeed the mission to Ceylon, headed by Mahinda, the son of Asoka, seems\nto have been accredited by royal embassy; but nowhere was Buddhism\npropagated as Islam subsequently was by Mohammed, or as Christianity was\nby Charlemagne, with an army at its back. Races ever ready to credit the\nsupernatural would probably be more easily won by the wonders which were\nthen being formulated in reference to Buddha; but whatever be the\nexplanation of it, the success of these missionaries anticipated that of\nthe apostles. In Ceylon there was founded a Sangha, which was destined\nto nurse and preserve the original creed in somewhat of its purity, when\nall the others betrayed and corrupted it. Surviving several changes of\ndynasty, that Sangha, 330 years after Buddha\u2019s decease, is said to have\nreduced its canon to writing. The result has been somewhat contradictory\nto the theory, that it matters very little whether a canon be oral or\nwritten, for Southern Buddhism, having an authority to which it was thus\nearlier anchored, has held more closely to the original system, from\nwhich, having no such check for long, every section of Northern Buddhism\nhas irrecoverably fallen away.\n\nAfter the death of Asoka, the empire which he sought to consolidate by\nthe preaching of the Law fell to pieces, and Buddhism was destined to be\ntested by more than one rude shock. A Brahman reaction took place, which\nis even supposed to have resulted in the persecution of all Buddhists\nliving in India. If so, it was the first which the religion\nencountered\u2014so unlike Christianity, which had to endure for three\ncenturies the fierce assaults of its enemies. Persecution by a religion\nso tolerant as Brahmanism is hard to conceive, but if it took place at\nthis period, it only tended, as in the early Christian trials, to the\nwider expansion of the persecuted faith. \u201cThey that were scattered\nabroad went everywhere preaching\u201d the Law. Some of them pushed through\nAfghanistan into the regions of Central Asia, and there, just as\nUlphilas and Severinus, centuries later, gained a hold over the wild\nraces that conquered the moribund Empire, so Buddhist missionaries\nsucceeded in sowing the seeds of their Law among the rude Scythian\ntribes, who were then in great commotion in their vast inland steppes.\nDriven from their ancestral homes, a branch of the great tribe of Huns\nabout 160 B.C. overthrow the Bactrian kingdom, and after generations of\nstruggle they conquered Kashmir, the Punjab, and a considerable part of\nIndia. Then just as the Goths and Huns, in the moment of their conquest\nof Rome, tendered their submission to Christianity, so the conversion of\nKaniska, the greatest of the Indo-Scythian kings, a contemporary with\nAugustus and Antony, enabled Buddhism to enter with fresh vigour upon a\nsecond period of very brilliant supremacy.[335]\n\nThough the difference between the Northern and Southern Buddhists was\nalready showing itself, and though soon after it manifested itself in a\ndivergence as complete as that which sundered the Greek Orthodox from\nthe Latin Catholic Churches, monumental evidence, harmonising with that\nderived from its own literary relics, indicates that for four or five\ncenturies after this Buddhism was most successfully propagated almost\neverywhere save in India. In the land of its origin it was gradually\ndeclining, because drawing nearer to the Brahmanism from which it had\nseceded. Fa-Hian in the end of the fourth century, though describing it\nas dominant everywhere, found the place of its nativity only a\nwilderness.[336] Later on, the viharas were deserted, the dagobas in\nruins, \u201cthe monks were few, the heretics many,\u201d and by the seventh\ncentury the process of assimilation with and absorption into Hinduism\nwas in India, save in widely separated and remote localities, almost\ncomplete. What it lost in India, however, it was to gain in other\ndirections. Its greatest conquest was in China. In the days of Asoka\neighteen missionaries are said to have reached China, where they are\nheld in reverence to this day, their images occupying a conspicuous\nplace in every temple. The faith which they introduced seemed to have\nstruggled with very little success to gain a footing till about A.D.\n68.[337] Thirteen years before this date, in obedience to a vision which\nappeared to him at Troas, St. Paul brought Christianity from Asia to\nEurope. On the thirtieth day of the twelfth Chinese month in A.D. 68,\nthe Emperor Mingti, in consequence of a dream, sent ambassadors to the\ndistant West for Buddhist monks and manuscripts.[338] Travelling in\nalmost royal state, the invited missionaries were accorded in China a\nwelcome in marvellous contrast to the reception of the Christian apostle\nin the first colonial city he had reached. From this time onwards a\nperpetual succession of monks and manuscripts entered China; yet, though\ntolerated from the first, and often royally patronised, centuries\nelapsed before it succeeded in winning a place as one of the three\nreligions of China, while Christianity, persecuted from the first,\nsucceeded after a fierce struggle in conquering the Empire of Rome, and\nthen by a long process in evangelising Europe.\n\nThe conversion of the most of Eastern Asia was the work of the Northern\nor more corrupt Buddhism. Southern Buddhism, like the orthodox Eastern\nChurch, which contented itself with its evangelistic achievements among\nthe Goths, and its Nestorian missions, soon exhausted its propagative\nforce. The introduction of the religion into Burma, Siam, and the\nadjacent kingdoms, may be said to sum up its triumphs. Northern\nBuddhism, on the other hand, ran from the beginning of our era a course\nof unchecked triumphs. In the close of the fourth century it spread from\nChina to Corea, and in the sixth it reached Japan. Previous to this it\nentered the isolated regions of Tibet, more welcomed than resisted by\nthe demonolatrous inhabitants on account of the adulterated form in\nwhich it presented itself. There, after a struggle for some two\ncenturies, it succeeded, about the period when Islam was beginning its\nconquests elsewhere, in securing strong royal support. After\nexperiencing for many generations the vicissitudes of popularity and\npersecution, the conquests of Genghiz, and the strong favour of Kublai,\nhis greatest successor, established its hierarchy as supreme, and in\nspite of changes of dynasty, it has there dominated the whole relations\nof life in a manner like unto, but to an extent far beyond, the wildest\ndreams of Rome\u2019s most ambitious Pope.[339]\n\nIt thus appears that Buddhism in the second period of its history, and\nafter it had succeeded in winning the support of powerful kings, reached\nits furthest extension and achieved its grandest conquests.\nChristianity, on the other hand, was more rapidly diffused in the\nprimitive than in the subsequent ages. Tested by its intensive hold upon\nthe nations, it had only nominally converted the Roman Empire by the end\nof the fourth century. Gibbon\u2019s estimate of the number of Christians\nwithin it, is acknowledged by friendly authorities,[340] like Bishop\nLightfoot, to err if at all on the side of excess. During the reign of\nConstantine, probably not a twentieth of the whole population of the\nEmpire were Christians, even by profession. After this period, no doubt,\nthe proportion must have greatly increased, for the barbarous hordes\nthat poured downwards in successive deluges over the South were\nconverted so suddenly and so silently that \u201cscarce a legend remains to\ntell the tale.\u201d In regard, however, to the conversion of heathen Europe,\nit is a mistake to suppose that the missionaries had only to come, and\nsee, and conquer. The conversion of England by the Roman monks, and of\nIreland, Scotland, and Wales by Oriental and, it is said, Arian\nmissionaries, cannot be said to have been accomplished before the close\nof the seventh century. Afterwards, the conversion of Central and\nNorthern Germany occupied the Celtic and British missionaries for two\ncenturies. The conversion of the Scandinavians, beginning in the ninth,\ncould not be said to have been effected till the middle of the eleventh\ncentury, while that of Slavonia, undertaken in the tenth, did not\nterminate, if indeed even then, before the sixteenth century. The\nconquest of Europe was the result of a prolonged and often desultory\nwarfare, in which, while the advance was slow, Christianity sometimes\nfailed to hold the ground which it had gained. The powerful Churches in\nAsia, the seats of its great Councils and the capitals of its rule,\neither died or were swept away; Antioch and Constantinople, once its\ncitadels, became the strongholds of an alien and hostile faith; the\nmighty Churches of Egypt and Abyssinia dwindled into a condition of\nimmedicable disease, and the flourishing Church of Africa, with its more\nthan six hundred bishoprics, was simply, because ripe for destruction,\nobliterated by the forces of Islam. Toward the latter half of the tenth\ncentury it seemed as if Christianity in Europe was surely following the\nfate of Buddhism before its disappearance from India. On all sides it\nwas pressed in the deadly grip of Pagan and Moslem alike, while its\nbishops, and priests, and nobles, oblivious of the danger, were living\nin sinful self-indulgence. It seemed as if Christendom was being surely\nblotted out from the geography of the world; and yet as by a miracle it\nsurvived, or was preserved, till came the Renaissance, and that\nmarvellous emergence of missionary zeal, which sent Christianity,\nReformed and Unreformed, to the very ends of the earth, and which,\nincreasing in every generation since then, was never more abundant nor\nmore fervent than now.[341]\n\nChristianity, unlike Buddhism, came very early into collision with the\nmost advanced civilisation and highest culture of the world, while\nBuddhism for centuries encountered only the religions of inferior\npeoples. The only equal or superior civilisation which it met was that\nof China, and there, though tolerated and even patronised from the\nfirst, it seems for centuries to have been regarded as an exotic.\nNatives of India, like the Jews in the Roman Empire, were allowed to\nbuild Buddhist temples, but only in the fourth century A.D. did Chinese\npeople begin extensively to be converted to the Buddhist religion. As it\nrose into favour its conflicts with the Confucianists began, and the\nissue of its varied fortunes has been, that though indirectly it has\ngreatly influenced, it has only subdued a section of the Chinese\npeople.[342] While other inferior races came quickly under its\ninfluence, the most civilised of Eastern peoples resisted it, and have\nat most only been leavened by it.[343] Christianity had also its easy\nconquests, as when some northern tribes were converted in a day by the\nbaptism of their chiefs; but its principal struggle with the historic\nPaganism of aristocratic Rome was fierce and obdurate. There the\nposition, as in the case of Hinduism to-day, was not carried by assault,\nbut by slow and almost imperceptible approaches. The Church at Rome for\ntwo centuries was more a Greek than a Latin one. The names of its\nbishops were Greek, and the Catacomb inscriptions sufficiently indicate\nthat Greek was the language of its members. Slowly and indirectly,\nhowever, it gained the hold upon ancient thought and custom, operating\nlike an alterative in the system, supplanting what was good, by simply\ntaking possession of it and inspiring it with a new life, while that\nwhich was decaying and waxing old gradually vanished away.\n\nIn this respect, therefore, there is a significant difference between\nthe two religions. Christianity, with all the world against it, and in\nspite of three centuries of unparalleled persecutions, succeeded in\nvanquishing the highest, while yet approving itself as a gospel to the\nlowest civilisation. Buddhism, with the greatest powers of the Eastern\nworld in its favour, and never, perhaps, save in China, called to bear\nthe shock of a single persecution, has only succeeded in being accepted\nby inferior branches of the human race. The Hindu Aryans, assimilating\nwhat of it they approved, rejected what of it was peculiar and\ndistinctive. The Semitic followers of Islam simply crushed it under\nfoot, and it never rose high enough even to touch the Western\nAryans.[344] Very early it withdrew itself entirely within the circles\nof the Turanian peoples; and if to-day in Mongolia, Manchuria, among the\nKalmucs on the Wolga, and the Bunjads on the shores of the Baikal Sea,\nit may be said to be advancing, the most competent authorities assure us\nthat everywhere else its progress is arrested, and that, even where it\nis most upheld by local governments, in the regions of its most dominant\nsupremacy, it yields manifest signs of decay.[345]\n\nAnother and even more significant contrast is found in the fact that the\nadvance of Christianity has ever been farthest and most rapid when its\nfaith was purely taught and most consistently illustrated. It never\nsought peace with other religions without being defeated, and never\nallied itself with superstition without bringing shame and disaster on\nall concerned. It has had its periods of deterioration and defection,\nbut somehow it has always survived them. Indeed, its vitality is as\ntruly indicated by the corruptions which it has outlived, as by the\nexternal opposition which it has vanquished. Its real conquests are due\nto the expansive power of its inherent and original principles. The very\nopposite is the case with Buddhism. Its fundamental principles being\nunnatural and repugnant to the essential instincts of mankind, it was\nfrom the very first a morbid growth, having in it the seeds of decay. It\nnever could have lived in the strength of its own principles, and so the\nstory of its advance is one of perpetual compromise with every popular\nsuperstition that it met. The more it assimilated itself to them, the\nmore it seemed to grow; but as foreign influences took possession of it,\nits own life oozed out of it, till very early it represented a system so\nperverted that its founder would have repudiated and abhorred it. The\nChurch has often travestied Christianity, but it never fell from the\nfaith so fearfully as Buddhism has everywhere fallen from the original\ndoctrine of Buddha. Religion, worship, even the purest, he intended by\nhis system to supersede, and now his name is employed to support the\ngrossest of all superstitions,[346] a religion with more idols in it\nthan that of the most idolatrous of peoples, a worship founded on the\nefficacy of magical incantations, and of prayers rendered by machines.\nJust for this very reason its\n\n\n                          II.\u2014Internal History\n\n\nis very instructive, and we shall now proceed to consider a few of its\nmost salient points.\n\nBuddhism, in a quiet land and tranquil age, was launched upon the world\nas a new theory of life\u2014a system so rounded off and completed that its\ndisciples had no other duty than that of believing, obeying, and\npropagating it. Christianity, on the other hand, began its career amid\nthe convulsions of political revolution, and for three centuries of\nconflict it had to fight every inch of its way. It was not, however, as\na new system that it appeared in history, but as a new principle of\nlife, round which all the moral, and spiritual, and intellectual\nenergies which it found in mankind, and all which itself might awaken,\nmight form and gather strength. It was impossible, therefore, that it\never could remain stationary. Its apostles were commissioned to carry on\nall that their Lord had \u201cbegun both to do and to teach.\u201d He distinctly\npromised them increase of knowledge and power from on high, and all the\nchanges which increase or growth implies. To-day His religion could no\nmore be made to return to the form in which it was manifested eighteen\ncenturies ago than man could be made to put on the clothes of his\nchildhood. Its development, however, is that of its inherent life,\nmanifesting all the continuity and identity of the sapling with the\ntree, of the boy with the man. Like all growing things, it has been\nsubject to disease by contagion and infection, but it has always\npreserved life in sufficient volume to slough off its impurities and to\npass onward through reformation to health. Now, the history of Buddhism,\non the contrary, reveals only a long process of degradation, without\nhaving manifested any power as yet to recover and to reform itself\naccording to its original and essential principles.[347]\n\nThe offspring of Brahmanism, from which it differed more in degree than\nin substance, at no period of its history did it succeed in completely\ndisentangling itself from it. Not only did the forms of the old religion\ncling to it; its very life was continued in the new. While Buddha\nrejected all the sacrificial rites and religious observances of\nBrahmanism, and preached a law subversive of all its faith in\nrevelation, he accepted and continued its ascetism and its hope of\ndeliverance by a process of meditation and of abstraction. It was by\nhimself, therefore, and not by his cousin D\u00eavadatta,[348] that the\nheretic leaven was introduced into the lump. D\u00eavadatta\u2019s attempted\nchanges were not innovations, but a return to the primitive rule, a\nlogical deduction from a law which Gotama never wholly rejected. Just as\nto the patriarchs of the Greek, the Western or Romish Church \u201cis the\nchief heresy of latter days,\u201d just as the Pope was branded in their\nEncyclical of 1848 \u201cas the first founder of German Rationalism,\u201d[349] so\nthe successive advances and orthodox decisions of the Buddhist Councils\nwere denounced as apostasies by men like D\u00eavadatta. Still these changes\nwere due in great measure to the beliefs which Buddhism had inherited,\nfor when in the inevitable rebound from its unnatural Nihilism the\ntheistic movement set in, the spirit of Brahmanism, which had passed\ninto it at the first, began to assert itself, and, interpenetrating it\nmore and more, prepared it for that issue in which, blending with the\npopular forms in which Brahmanism was then expressing itself, Buddhism\nmerged into the composite system of Hinduism which confronts us in India\nto-day.\n\nIn Christianity, as in nature, the grafting of the good stock upon the\nwild conquered the wild. Christ took nothing from Judaism but the\nuniversalism of its prophets, its faith in one living and true God, the\nHeavenly Father of multitudes whom Abraham was ignorant of, and Israel\ndid not acknowledge. His apostles, judged by the literature which they\nhave bequeathed, seem faithfully to have carried out His principles; but\nmany of their converts were strict Jews, who insisted upon some visible\nconnection with the old religion. Just as D\u00eavadatta, their prototype,\nheld that a true Buddhist must first be a good Brahman in respect of\nasceticism, so they insisted that Christians were debtors to keep what\nof the old law was expressed in circumcision, and the observance of\ncertain other commandments and ordinances. The danger of Christianity\nbeing reduced to the bondage of the old was serious, but the inspiration\nof St. Paul, the providential destruction of the nation, and the\nmarvellous spread of the religion among the Gentiles, eventually\novercame it. The spirit of Judaism, it is true, has never been wholly\ncast out from the Christian Church. All through its history it is\ntraceable in one form or another of the ritualism and asceticism which,\nlike Brahmanism, it may be held to represent. There have been times when\nit has attained to portentous and pernicious influence, and such times\nmay happen again; but from the early days there has always been in\nChristianity vitality sufficient to detect and try and condemn it; and\nso though Judaism, and even Paganism, to some extent, still taint the\ntheology and worship of the Church, we need have no fear that the genius\nof the old religion will ever gain, as it did in the case of Buddhism,\npermanent ascendency over the new.\n\nThe opposite of Ritualism and Asceticism, represented by Judaism and\nBrahmanism, is the Rationalism which such reforming religions may be\nsaid to beget of themselves; and if its spirit of inquiry be\nuncontrolled, it will certainly dissipate their energy. As early as St.\nPaul\u2019s day we see Rationalism working upon the development of\nChristianity, and necessitating the rise of a theology, which, perhaps\ninevitably, has often been confounded with, and, in the estimation of\nmany, has supplanted the Christian religion. The many sects which\nRationalism produced in the first centuries do not so much indicate\nhostility to the new faith, as the mighty ferment through which the\nminds of men were passing in regard to it. Now though Buddhist\nscriptures manifest rationalistic movements in the Sanghas from the\nfirst, they seem to have proceeded in quite a different direction. Of\nconflict as to fundamentals of creed there appears to be very little\ntrace, but there are abundant indications of considerable controversy as\nto practice. The first quarrel traceable in the Christian Church arose\nover the peculiar institution of community of goods; and though the\nSanghas avoided that mistake, their earliest troubles were concerning\nthe possession of property. The original rule enjoined upon the brethren\nabsolute poverty, and the regulations in regard to food and shelter were\nequally stringent. Very soon after Buddha\u2019s decease a reaction set in,\nand a feeling began to prevail that his standard of morality and his\nideal of the Order were too lofty for all but exceptional men to\nrealise. He may have succeeded as the fully Enlightened One, but common\nmen could not hope to \u201cwind themselves so high;\u201d so out of consideration\nfor human infirmity there commenced a constant and increasing relaxation\nin their interpretation of his precepts of perfection.[350] The law of\nabsolute poverty was modified to the extent that property might be held\nin common, and the laws regulating diet, dress, and even meditation,\nwere soon subjected to the same treatment. The wealth which poured in\nupon them, and the consequent improvement of their position, was not\nfollowed by corresponding spiritual growth. The more they prospered, the\nmore the fundamental principles of the Order were neglected, evaded, or\nexplained away. The friendly conferences of the rainy season gave place\nto controversy, and controversy proved so fruitful of schism, that very\nearly in its career Buddhism is said to have produced eighteen different\nsects, ranged in four great divisions. Yet in no one schism seemed there\na great principle to be involved; they were but Pharisee quarrels at\nbest, in which though they strained out the gnat they swallowed the\ncamel.[351]\n\nSide by side with this relaxation of the law advanced the growth of the\nlegends concerning him who first preached it. The further they removed\nfrom his decease, the higher, as was natural, he rose in their esteem.\nAs one by one the fathers fell asleep, and the early enthusiasm died,\nand the law was felt to be more and more burdensome, the less he seemed\nto be a man of like passions with themselves, till eventually they came\nto regard him as \u201comniscient and absolutely sinless.\u201d[352] He had taken\naway their gods, and disowned their religious cravings. He professed to\nfind no proper divine being to whom any instinct should attach\nitself\u2014yea, in his dissection and analysis of human nature he found no\nreligious faculty to be relied upon; but he could not unmake his\nfellow-men, whose religious instinct education can neither originate nor\neradicate; and so, defrauded of its natural gratification, it inevitably\nturned to illegitimate methods of appeasing itself. In the first\ninstance, it found the objects of its reverence in the relics which\nsurvived him, the law which he preached, and the Order which he founded.\nOriginally it could not be called worship; it was more an expression of\naffectionate homage.[353] But so strong is man\u2019s impulse to worship,\nthat very early they expressed it in images of Buddha everywhere, though\nthe images of the Law and of the Order have only been found in the lands\nwhere the Northern Buddhism reigns.\n\nThis earliest triad of personalities, called \u201ctriratna,\u201d the three gems\nor three holies, seems to have been suggested by, and certainly\ncorresponds with, the primitive triad of deities in the old Indian\nPantheon.[354] It was the first indication of the bankruptcy of\nBuddhism, of its failure out of its own resources to meet the religious\nwants of its disciples, and it marked only the beginning of a revolt,\nwhich was to issue in complete disavowal of every doctrine essential to\noriginal Buddhism. The religious conscience and common sense which\nrebelled against its unnatural atheism, would not long be satisfied with\nthe worship of the memory of a completely vanished Buddha, or of the\nidea of an impersonal Law, or of a miscellaneous Order. So pious\nBuddhists turned readily to a doctrine said to be taught by the Master,\nand formulated before the settlement of the Southern canon in its\npresent form, according to which Buddha is not a distinctive name of\njust one person, but a title descriptive of a long series of Enlightened\nOnes, who, leaving, as he was supposed to have done, the estate of a\nB\u00f4dhisatva[355] in the Tushita heavens, appeared at distant intervals to\nproclaim the same truth for the deliverance of men and gods. The names\nof twenty-four of these Buddhas who preceded Gotama have been handed\ndown, and the name of his successor, to whom, upon the attainment of\nBuddhahood, he transferred his B\u00f4dhisatvaship, and who is to appear\nafter five thousand years for the rediscovery of the truth, was\nannounced as M\u00e2itr\u00eaya. To this coming one, the Buddha of \u201ckindness and\nmercy\u201d\u2014thought to be a personification by some imaginative poet of the\ngentle spirit of Buddhism\u2014the thoughts and the hopes of the disciples\nturned, and out of this hope arose a doctrinal system, which, expanding\nand enlarging by manifold additions as the time went on, showed that\nhowever atheistic the original creed might be, the religion itself had\nbecome polytheistic.[356] To M\u00e2itr\u00eaya, in his glorious heavens, the\ndeliverer of distant generations, prayers ascended, and worship was\nrendered by all Buddhists everywhere alike; and out of this cult by far\nthe largest section of them began to evolve deity after deity, till the\nheavens, in which Buddha could find no superior to himself, were crowded\nwith objects of idolatrous regard.\n\nIn this polytheistic development a very great distinction emerged\nbetween the Northern or Mah\u0101y\u0101na and the Southern or Hin\u0101y\u0101na system of\nBuddhism. How the divergence originated has not been clearly\nascertained, but about the beginning of the Christian era it seems to\nhave been very manifest, and at that time, when sectarian controversy\nand philosophical speculation threatened to rend the system into\nfragments, N\u00e2g\u00e2rdjuna,[357] a monk of N\u00e2landa, is said to have done for\nNorthern Buddhism what Gregory and Benedict did for the Western Church.\nUnder him, and certainly after him, Northern Buddhism, both in respect\nof expansive power and of dogmatic and ritualistic development, left\nSouthern Buddhism far behind it. The Hin\u0101y\u0101na, or the \u201clittle way\u201d of\ndeliverance, is believed to have been applied by the Northern, not\nwithout contempt for the Southern school\u2019s arrestment. They did not\nprofess to contradict the Southern faith: they simply included it, and\nadvanced in their \u201cgreat way\u201d beyond it. To the Southern the _summum\nbonum_ of life meant Arhatship, for that once attained there would be no\nmore re-birth. They acknowledged and worshipped only one B\u00f4dhisatva, the\ncoming M\u00e2itr\u00eaya; but the doctors of the North, properly conceiving the\nestate of the B\u00f4dhisatva to be nobler than that of Arhat, propounded it\nas the goal of aspiration. Arhatship would indeed secure one\u2019s own\ndeliverance; but B\u00f4dhisatvahood would enable them, as possible coming\nBuddhas, to confer the blessings of deliverance upon countless\nmultitudes. Along with M\u00e2itr\u00eaya they discovered many persons who, like\nBuddha\u2019s great disciples and their successors, had through merit,\nacquired in a long series of lives, taken his Tushita heavens by\nviolence; but who, unlike him, were under no obligation to quit their\ncelestial abodes, and proceed through Buddhahood to Nirvana. They might\nenjoy their blessedness to the full, and sit beside their nectar without\nconcern, for they fulfilled every function expected of them in being\nobjects of worship, to whom mortals could appeal for comfort in sorrow\nand help in time of need.\n\nIn India, as early as Fa-Hian\u2019s time, and probably earlier in\nChina,[358] out of these happy gods a new triad was formulated,\nreceiving such worship as Hindus would render to their later triad of\ndeities, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva. The title of one of these, Mandjus-ri,\nwas said to have been the name of the monk who, two hundred and fifty\nyears after Buddha, introduced the religion into Nepaul, and founded the\nsystem which N\u00e2g\u00e2rdjuna consolidated.[359] He in this connection is\nbelieved to be the personification of that \u201cwisdom\u201d or \u201cspiritual\ninsight\u201d which the Northern school valued so highly. Another deity,\nAval\u00f4kit\u00eas\u2019vara, \u201cthe lord who sees from on high,\u201d is supposed to be the\nmythical term for that \u201ckindly providence\u201d which watched over the whole\nBuddhist world. And Vajra-dhara, \u201cthe thunderer,\u201d represented the power\nwhich protected the faithful from the malice of demons. How such a\nworship, so contradictory to the doctrines of primitive Buddhism, came\nto be introduced and recognised, is a puzzle to all our scholars. Rhys\nDavids and Sir Monier Williams are inclined to regard it as suggested by\nthe second Hindu triad of deities already referred to. Professor Max\nM\u00fcller[360] considers it to be a graft from the superstitions of some\nnorthern Scythian or Turanian race, while Dr. Beal advances the theory\nthat it was in all probability introduced from a western monotheistic\nreligion, either landward through Persia, or by sea from Arabia. However\nit came, from this date and onwards, all over the wide extent of\nterritory covered by it, Buddhism rapidly deteriorated. While the\nSouthern system was everywhere yielding to the influence of the popular\nmythology, and that so unmistakably that it became, wherever it reached,\n\u201cthe unconscious propagator of Hindu doctrine,\u201d the Northern became a\nheterogeneous mixture of all the superstitions which it met. From this\nsecond triad of deities it went on discovering or inventing its five\ntriads of Dhy\u00e2ni-Buddhas, among whom Gotama was the emanation of\nAval\u00f4kit\u00eas\u2019vara, who again was the \u00e6on of Amit\u00e2bha, \u201cimmeasurable\nlight.\u201d Behind all these again, they professed to find the Adi-Buddha,\nthe primordial Buddha, who, out of himself, by the exercise of five\nmeditations, evolved the Five Dhy\u00e2ni.[361] Each of these again by\n\u201cinsight\u201d evolved their corresponding \u00e6ons, who in their turn from out\nof their immaterial essence produced a material world. It is as if the\nGnosticism which had broken out in the West long before this time had\nalso invaded the distant East,[362] and as if its dreams, more\nrestrained by Western sobriety, were in the East free to produce a\nphantasmagoria more confused still. Certainly it is a convincing proof\nthat, notwithstanding its rich ethical sources, the essential principles\nof Buddhism had no inherent propagative power. For just as it had to\nreturn from its atheism to the deities which it had discarded, so it had\nto substitute for its Nihilism the Western Paradise, where, beyond the\nconfines of the world, the pious Buddhist at last hopes to join the one\nSupreme Amit\u00e2bha, and millions of blessed Buddhas discoursing upon all\nthings good, in a state in which there is no sorrow, and, \u201cstrangest to\nsay, no Nirvana.\u201d[363]\n\nThe more these imaginary deities increased, the more must the earnest\nmoral teachings of Buddha have been obscured. The discovery of the\nB\u00f4dhisatvas opened the way to a rapid declension from primitive\nself-culture to a system of \u201cvoluntary humility.\u201d Discipleship became\neasier in proportion as the worship of these shadowy creations extended.\nIt is much easier to idolise than obey, to say, \u201cLord, Lord,\u201d than to do\nthe thing which he commands. This falling away from the high Buddhist\nrule of self-control, proceeding step by step with the growth of the\nlegends, is just an illustration of the tendency in every religion to\nallow the ethical and metaphysical elements so to drift asunder, that\ninstead of being one in holy wedlock they become thoroughly and\nirreconcilably opposed.\n\nIt was inevitable in Buddhism that morality, considered essential to\nself-rescue, should be supplanted by that debasing belief in the\nefficacy of rites which the system was launched to destroy. Its founder\nwent to the unnatural extreme of ignoring man\u2019s craving for\nreconciliation. He had no faith in Divine forgiveness, or in the grace\nof repentance, and he never wearied of pouring contempt upon sacrifice\nand prayer. No Hebrew prophet could be more severe in his scorn of\nuseless rites; but then the Hebrew believed in the efficacy of one\nsacrifice, a \u201cheart broken by sorrow,\u201d for sin not as a misfortune or a\nfolly, but as an offence to a Holy Being who was ready to forgive, and\nto be pleased with the worship of a will surrendered in gratitude and in\nlove. Very early in his history man has indicated his sense of\nalienation from God in his endeavours to discover an atonement. The\ninstinctive sense of wrong relations to the powers that govern life has\nbeen liable to fearful perversion, but Buddha, with all his\ndenunciation, could not destroy it, nor reason men out of it. He could\ninduce some to withdraw their imploring cries and glances from the gods,\nbut he could not sweep the heavens clean of them. Belief in the\nexistence[364] of gods, and demons, and fairies, and charms against\nill-luck, was strong in his disciples from the first; and when an object\nof worship was recognised and allowed, an elaborate ritual of worship,\nand latterly of propitiation, was rapidly developed. In Northern\nBuddhism this recoil was most extreme, for there, especially in Nep\u0101l\nand Tibet, belief in the efficacy of rites deteriorated into belief in\nspells and incantations, till it issued in the Tantra system\u2014a mixture\nof magic and sorcery whose abominable doctrines, Burnouf, out of very\nloathing, refused to translate to us.[365] Christianity has had many\ncorrupters, who have never scrupled to propose or to accept any\ncompromise with heathenism at all calculated to strengthen the power of\nthe priesthood, but it never had its \u00c2sanga,[366] who cleverly succeeded\nin reconciling the demonolatry of the people of Nep\u0101l and Tibet with the\nacceptance of the Buddhist system. This he did by placing their male and\nfemale devils in the inferior heavens as worshippers of Buddha and\nAval\u00f4kit\u00eas\u2019vara, and by thus making it possible for the half-savage\ntribes to bring their sacrifices, even of blood, to their congenial\nshrines, and under cover of allegiance to the priests of the new to\ncontinue the old hideous idolatry.\n\nThis discovery of \u00c2sanga\u2019s is said to have secured the rapid extension\nof the Buddhist hierarchy in these half-barbarous regions; but the\nhierarchy itself indicated a complete reversal of the primitive\nconstitution of the Order. Buddha endeavoured to emancipate his\nfellow-men from faith in the efficacy of a priesthood to mediate between\nmen and Deity, or to secure deliverance. He never dreamed that either\ntemple or priest would arise in his system; but the temple grew\nnaturally out of the dagoba and the relics which it enshrined, and the\npriesthood as naturally was evolved from the Sthavira or senior Bikkhu.\nIn Southern Buddhism the priest is more like a Protestant minister of\nreligion than like a priest in the Romish sense of the word; but in\nNorthern Buddhism, and especially in that form of it dominant in Tibet,\nthe people from the seventh century have been completely under the power\nof the Lamas who alone can work out their salvation. With the exception\nof a short interval of neglect and persecution, a hierarchy marvellously\nsimilar to, and no doubt in some respects suggested by, that of Romish\nChristianity, has completely controlled all the relations of life,[367]\nwith the terrible result that cruelty and immorality most abhorrent to\nthe good and gentle Buddha have been permitted to assert themselves\nunopposed, though a devotee who slaughters his fellow-men in cold blood\nwill shudder with horror if by accident he should tread upon a worm or\ncrush an over-irritating flea.[368]\n\nOnly once in that region has it experienced any attempt at reform. In\nthe fourteenth century, when the policy of the Ming dynasty in reducing\nthe predominance of any one sect had prepared the way for him,\nTsong-Kapa, \u201cthe Tibetan Luther,\u201d endeavoured to effect a revival of the\nprimitive rules of the Order, and succeeded in restoring something of\nthe ancient simplicity in dress, the celibacy of the priests, the\nfortnightly confession, the season of yearly retreat, and the invitation\nceremony at its close. He set his face also against the Shamanism of the\nTantra system, adhered to the purer forms of the earlier Mah\u0101y\u0101na\nschool, and succeeded in creating a new sect, whose leaders in the\nfifteenth century were by the Chinese Emperor recognised as titular\nlords over the Church and tributary rulers over the State, under the\ntitles of Dalai L\u0101ma and Pantshen L\u0101ma. The dream of Hildebrand or Leo\nfor the Papacy was for centuries more than realised in the L\u0101maism of\nTibet, for the Lamas are more than Popes, being re-incarnations of\nAval\u00f4kit\u00eas\u2019vara and of his father Amitabha, who never die, but at the\nact of dying transfer themselves into another body, born at that very\nmoment, to be found in it in due time through a procedure, according to\nlot, never yet known to fail. When discovered, he has, however, to be\naccepted after the Erastian fashion by the Chinese Government or its\nrepresentative, who, with the Desi or Regent, must also be present when\nthe final lot is drawn.[369]\n\nNever under the Papacy, even in the times when its pretensions were most\nextravagant, and its power was most unchecked, has Christianity\ndeteriorated so fearfully as Buddhism has done in Nep\u0101l and Tibet. Not\neven in the Abyssinian\u2014the most degraded of all the Churches that have\nworn the name of Christ, in respect of its incorporation of old Jewish\nrites and Egyptian superstitions\u2014can we find the contrivance of the\nprayer-wheel, or the poles with their silken flags blazoned with the six\nsacred syllables, \u201com mani padme hum,\u201d[370] fluttering their supposed\nincantations to the heavens. Buddhism\u2019s ages of worship have been only a\nlong sad history of degradation, of perpetual falling from bad to\nworse.[371] The higher the worship of Buddhists for the founder of their\nsystem has risen, the more have they fallen from his virtue; but in\nChristianity the ages of strongest devotion to Christ have ever been the\nperiods of progress. The more intense man\u2019s reverence for Christ has\nbeen, the loftier has been the standard of virtue attained. Worship and\npursuit of holiness have gone hand in hand, and we cannot conceive of a\nlife truly offered up in adoration of Christ ever proving immoral or\nimpure.\n\nThe story of Buddhism in India, where without much resistance it yielded\nto the seductions of Vishnaism and Sivaism, the record of its conquests\nin the surrounding countries, and especially in those just referred to,\npresent few and slight analogies to the history of Christianity; but the\nstory of Buddhism in China as related by those most competent to testify\nof the changing forms which it assumed from the fourth century onwards,\nis significantly akin to that of Christianity after it became the\nreligion of the Empire. China, unlike India, had before the Christian\nera a very ancient history, marked by distinct epochs. Its annals, even\nof the eighth century B.C., seem to reflect a civilisation similar to\nthat of Europe in the thirteenth century A.D. Two thousand years B.C.\nthe Chinese are said to have attained to an idea of Deity somewhat\nequivalent to the El Elion of Melchizedek.[372] Shangti, the highest of\nall spirits to whom the people sacrificed, was the Creator, Preserver,\nand Governor of the world, unapproachable by the sinner, but merciful to\nall penitents; and in this idea of God, and in the morality which sprang\nfrom it, we have the secret of that social and political progress whose\narrestment and decay Confucius lamented. Living in a degenerate age, he\nlaboured earnestly as a reformer of personal morality and social order;\nbut, departing himself from the ancestral faith in a Supreme Ruler of\nnature and man, \u201crespecting, but keeping aloof, as he said, from all\nspiritual beings,\u201d expressively silent as to the future, and refusing to\npresent motives of conduct drawn from consideration of it, his vigorous\nministry, conducted for many years in many of the States, could only\nhave the effect of preparing the way for a real regeneration of society.\nHe had great faith in man, as born good, with an innate moral faculty\nwhich only contact with the world and the delusion of the senses prevent\nfrom making him virtuous. Man was made for society, and the five\nrelations of which society consists\u2014that of ruler and subject, husband\nand wife, parent and child, elder brother and younger, and friend and\nfriend\u2014were Divine ordinances. His standard of personal righteousness\nand social purity, his strong faith in the power of example, his golden\nrule, \u201c_What you would not like to have done to yourself, do not to any\nother_,\u201d[373] his demand, as urgent as was that of Isaiah or\nSocrates,[374] that language should be used ever with scrupulous care to\nexpress only the thing that is, have gone far to form, with beneficial\nethical results, the ordinary Chinese character. His ignoring of\npersonal Deity, only referred to under the vague term Heaven, and of the\nfuture of man, could not long arrest the degeneracy of society or purge\nout the secret vices burrowing beneath its surface. If Buddha is to be\nregarded in his bold metaphysical speculations as the first of Gnostics,\nConfucius in his pure secularism may be designated the first Agnostic,\nand the monotonous and stagnant type of humanity which his teaching has\nproduced may be a warning of the kind of civilisation which the world\nmay expect should ever philanthropic secularism supplant or supersede\nthe religion of Christ.[375]\n\nContemporary with Confucius, though much older in years, was Lao-tsze\nthe Venerable, the author of the celebrated T\u00e2o-teh-King, in which not\nonly Romish missionaries but scholars like Montucci of Berlin (1808) and\nRemusat[376] (1823) professed to find the mystery of the Holy Trinity\nand the name of Jehovah phonetically expressed. Twenty years later\nStanislas Julien[377] dispelled these illusions, and showed that the\ntreatise was as agnostic in its essential teachings as were the Analects\nof Confucius. A poet and a mystic, he gave his whole strength to enforce\nthe virtue of Tao\u2014the _way_[378] of man\u2019s return to that spontaneity of\naction without motive which prevails in nature, and which will manifest\nitself in man, in humility, gentleness, refusal to take precedence in\nthe world, in accounting the great as the small, the small as the great,\nand _in recompensing injury with kindness_.[379] He does not affirm the\nexistence of God, but he does not deny it, and his language seems to\nimply it. Certainly there is not a word which savours of superstition,\nand yet he is the reputed founder of a most idolatrous religion, which\nis found in shape five centuries after his death. The works of his\nearliest followers are said to be full of the most grotesque and absurd\nbeliefs. As early as 221 B.C. some of them were in search of the Eastern\nHesperides, where grew the herb of immortality. In the first century\nA.D. another professor of Taoism invented a pill containing the elixir\nof life, and spells which could tame and destroy by the touch of a\npencil millions of demons. All through its history it has been a\nconglomerate of superstitions so base, and so contrasted with the\nteaching of the T\u00e2o-teh-King, that to make the author of that literary\nrelic bear the obloquy of even the slightest connection with Taoism,\nappears to be one of the grossest wrongs of history.[380]\n\nThese sages preceded Buddha by a century, whose religion, though it came\ninto contact with China shortly after the reign of Asoka, did not\nseriously begin to influence it till about the fourth century A.D. The\nBuddhism of that period was the religion of the Northern school, well\nadvanced in its second stage of degeneracy. Wherever it was encouraged,\nor allowed to maintain itself, it reared monasteries and nunneries,\ntemples and shrines of idols and relics, and established the worship of\nsaints and images, which sometimes, like winking Madonnas, opened their\neyes and otherwise worked miracles. Its effect upon Taoism was simply to\nabsorb it; for before then that religion had neither monasteries nor\ntemples, nor any system of worship. All these it borrowed from Buddhism,\nwhose Triratna and endless pantheon of deities it greedily accepted,\nwith the effect that though Taoism has existed nominally distinct from\nBuddhism in China, it has simply been as Buddhism in a native dress, and\nthus far the Hindu mind can be truly said to have powerfully influenced\nChinese thought.\n\nBy the Confucians the reception of Buddhism was very different. They\nmight have laughed at its idolatrous system budding vigorously into\nlife, but they could not endure its full-blown anti-social Monasticism.\nIts morality they could appreciate, though it seemed inferior to their\nown; for though its teaching as to future rewards commended itself to\nthe moral instincts of the masses, the Confucians, more logical than\nBuddhists, averred that to avoid wrong-doing for fear of future\npunishment was not doing right for its own sake; while to labour for\nhappiness hereafter led to neglect of the present, and promoted lazy\ninactivity. Such a scheme of religion was by them judged inimical to\nvirtue, which was its own reward, and the manner of life by which it was\nillustrated was condemned as particularly immoral. The State, the\nFamily, Society, were Divine institutions which ought to be maintained\nand perfected. Industry, public and private, was essential to their\nideal of propriety; and Buddhism, with its religion of inaction, its\ncelibate rule, and abandonment of all secular business, was simply\nodious to the instincts of a practical and kindly people. There could\nonly be war between two such contradictory systems\u2014a war not of words,\nbut, on the Chinese side at least, of very hard blows. Their hostility\nmanifested itself in repeated and prolonged persecutions. In one of\nthese 250,000 monks and nuns were forced to return to social life, while\ntheir property was confiscated, and the copper of their images and bells\nwas minted into coin. The Confucians have long ceased to persecute, but\nthey have never withdrawn their first indictment against the Buddhists\nfor teaching what to them is criminal because disloyal, and immoral[381]\nbecause anti-social.\n\nTo the ethical system of China, as represented by Confucians, Mah\u0101y\u0101na\nBuddhism could not add much, if indeed anything, of value; but its\nspeculative philosophy seems peculiarly to have fascinated them, and it\nproduced remarkable and permanent changes in their thinking. The\nliterature and the art of China reflect not Chinese but Indian scenes\nand manners. Its grammatical and arithmetical sciences owe much to\nIndian tutelage. An educated Chinaman, while avowing himself Confucian\nin respect of ethics, will in all metaphysical problems reason according\nto Buddhist methods and enunciate Buddhist ideas. To this extent,\ntherefore, it affected the Confucians, but not with beneficial results.\nIt aided Confucius in his evil work of shaking the faith of \u201cthe\nclasses\u201d in the personal Ruler of the Universe, while its effect upon\n\u201cthe masses\u201d was even more injurious, for it dragged them down to a\npolytheism from which for centuries they had been free, and put in place\nof the impersonal principle with which Confucius had supplanted their\nancestral faith, those shadowy crowds of Buddhas and B\u00f4dhisatvas, to\nlead them still further away from the purer works and ways of more\nreverential ages.[382]\n\nThe episodes in the history of Chinese Buddhism from the fourth century\nonward were marvellously similar to the scenes and incidents witnessed\nin Europe during the same period in connection with the Christian\nChurch. Cardinal Newman has somewhere said that in \u201cprofessing to write\nthe Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon has reluctantly, but\nactually, written the Rise and Progress of Christianity.\u201d The most\nzealous defender of the faith, however, must admit that the Christianity\nwhich maintained in Europe from the fourth century onward had grievously\ndeclined from that of the primitive ages. It is the fashion in some\nquarters to attribute this degradation to the alliance of the Church\nwith the State, and to aver that had it kept apart from the embraces of\nthe Emperors it would have preserved itself from corruption.\nUnquestionably Constantine was a \u201csair sanct\u201d to the Church; a convert\nmore from expedience than conviction, he and his successors endeavoured\nto utilise the Christian hierarchy to buttress their own throne.\nUnquestionably, too, the Church suffered more indignity and harm from\nthe Christian Emperors who patronised it, than ever it did from the\nheathen Emperors who persecuted it. Candid inquiries will, however,\nconvince most people that the alliance with the Empire was more an\nincident in than the cause of the Church\u2019s degradation. The transfer of\nthe seat of rule to the Bosporus left the Western Church free from the\nImperial influence to regulate its own affairs, and yet it became not\nless but even more corrupt than its Oriental neighbour. The truth seems\nto be that the corruption of the Church was due more to its external or\nmaterial prosperity than to anything else. To churches and to nations\nthat is the real ordeal by fire. In the poverty and struggles they have\nhigher hopes, but when difficulties are surmounted, and they dwell at\nease, they mistake or forget their vocation. The adversity and terrible\npersecution of the Church, coincident with its primitive enthusiasm, did\na very great deal to preserve its health and purity; and it was simply\nnatural, and to be expected, that when it emerged into prosperity and\npopular favour, like Jeshurun in his fatness, it should have rebelled,\nand instead of serving as it was ordained to do, should have usurped the\npower to rule.\n\nThe iconography of early Christianity reflects even more clearly than\nits literature the various stages of its deterioration. As long as the\nworld was against it, and it was compelled to use such places as the\nCatacombs for its shelter and worship, its faith was pure, and its life\nwas full of exhilaration and brightness. Its symbolism was thoroughly\nideal and spiritual, in sharp and instructive contrast with every Pagan\nspecimen that has been discovered, and with its own subsequently\npaganised art. It was a symbolism, moreover, only of its hopes, and not\nof its one object of faith or of worship. It tolerated no symbol in\nworship save the water of Baptism and the bread and the wine of the\nEucharist. It needed, as yet, no crucifix, not even a cross,[383] and it\nwould not allow any image to reveal to the imagination the present but\ninvisible Christ, or to suggest the profound meaning of His atonement.\nBut when it went forth, the admired of the world, into the sunshine, and\nbegan to rear the grand basilicas, and people them with the tombs of the\nmartyrs and the enshrined relics of the saints, the very desire to rise\nled it to fight heathenism with its own weapons, and to copy its\nsplendours.[384] Even before this it was falling back from the simple\nservice of the synagogue to that of the destroyed temple, but now it was\nfound adopting the heathen festivals, or accommodating its own to their\ndates, and incorporating with its own the more imposing rites of still\npopular heathen fanes. To \u201coffer the new law\u2019s new oblation\u201d it invented\na new ritual and priesthood; and seeing a priesthood must have somewhat\nto offer, it discovered a new sacrifice in the very sacrament which was\nthe Divine pledge and human thanksgiving for the abrogation of all\nexternal sacrifice.[385] Then the government of the Empire became the\nmodel of its organisation, and soon it was crowned in a Papacy\nprofessing to dominate, as vicegerent for Christ, a world which\nconfessedly it has not yet been able to convert.\n\nIt is not necessary to trace the sickening degradation of Christianity\nthrough all its encounters and compromises with heathenism, till in the\ngathering gloom its degenerate art reached a point where it dared to\nportray to the eye of sense the death-pangs of the Son of God, and its\nworship touched a depth of idolatry in which it symbolised the mystery\nof the Holy Trinity by a three-headed figure quite after the model of\nthe Hindu Trimurti. It is sufficient to say that it appears to have\nproceeded on parallel lines, and at as rapid a pace as the degeneracy of\nBuddhism in the East. It too has its iconography as well as its\nliterature, and it is interesting to trace its passage from its earliest\ngraffiti\u2014the stone edicts of Asoka, where we have the religion without\neven the name of the founder\u2014through the carvings of the Sanchi gateway,\nwhere there is alteration, though to no considerable extent, on to those\nat Amravati, where we have the full-blown Buddhism to which China to a\nconsiderable extent succumbed.[386] Through all this period everywhere\nin Chinese Buddhist temples were seen the idols of the saints,\neverywhere were found their worshipped relics. A bone, a tooth, a single\nhair, would be purchased by the revenue of a State and welcomed with\nimperial honours. The rationalists of the West might protest as loudly\nand as scoffingly as they pleased that there was as much wood of the\ntrue cross and as many veritable nails of it in Europe as would suffice\nto build a navy. The Confucian mandarins at the court of a\nrelic-worshipping Emperor might indignantly denounce the desecration and\npollution of the royal palace by the introduction of part of the carrion\nof a monk who had died long ago.[387] With the father of Gideon,\nderiding the wonder-working powers of these relics, they might insist\nthat they, and even Buddha himself, should plead, Baal-like, for\nthemselves against their iconoclastic ire; but at that time neither law,\nnor persecution, nor common sense could prevail to cure this perverted\ndisposition. Belief in the virtue of a fetich marks both the infancy and\ndecay of most religions. In Chinese Buddhism to-day this belief is as\nvigorous as ever, and notwithstanding the influence of the Reformation,\nand the spread of scientific discovery, this belief marks an extreme of\nthought from which neither Romanism nor Protestantism as yet can be said\nto be free.\n\nThe Buddhism of the earliest traditions was concerned chiefly with\nmorality as essential to deliverance, and the Christianity of the New\nTestament is a faith and hope and love, dominating and fusing and\nmoulding life after a nobler type. In China, as elsewhere, the Buddhism\nof morality gave way to the Buddhism of mystic contemplation. Yielding\nto the same tendency which afterwards made so many Christians abandon\nthe paths of obedience and practice of righteousness for the cultivation\nof the inner life, Buddhism as early as 520 A.D. was prepared to follow\neagerly B\u00f4diharma,[388] who came from Southern India to sweep away the\nalien growth of all book-instruction, and to establish the truth that\n\u201cout of mind there is no Buddha, out of Buddha there is no mind; that\nvirtue is not to be sought, and vice is not to be shunned; that nothing\nis to be looked upon as pure or polluted, for all that is needed is to\navoid both good and evil, and he that can do this is a truly religious\nman.\u201d[389]\n\nIn proclaiming that ethical distinctions mark an inferior stage of\ndiscipleship, for a \u201cgood man, though never against, is always above\nthem,\u201d B\u00f4diharma, the nominal founder of Esoteric Buddhism, simply\nformulated more clearly the teaching of N\u00e2g\u00e2rdjuna, the reputed founder\nof the Mah\u0101y\u0101na system. It was only another expression of that\nindefinable phase of thought, found in all religions as mysticism, and\nwhich, though commonly identified only with its extravagant outbursts,\nis really of the very essence of religion. The dominating thought in a\nreligious man is that of a Supreme One in whom we live and move and have\nour being, and there are times in his worship when the balance of\nconsciousness is disturbed, and self is lost in consciousness of the\nDivine. Man without the aid of prayer or sacramental grace finds in\nhimself the revelation, and alas! as his consciousness is always\nimperfect, and very often confused, the revelation is too often\ndistorted and the reverse of Divine.[390]\n\nMysticism, as was natural in a religion quickening both thought and\nemotion, appeared early in Christianity, and from the days of St. John\nit has never lacked a representative. In its manifold varieties and\naberrations it presents many similarities to the mysticism of the East,\nbut in reality it is as different from it in its nature as it is distant\nfrom it in its source. Eastern mysticism has always been more\nspeculative than practical in character. Pantheistic in its origin, it\nassumes that all things are as divine as it is their nature to be, and\naspires to get at the unity of being. Western mysticism, on the other\nhand, starts always from a sense of the disorder and alienation of\nthings, and endeavours to get at man\u2019s true life. The Eastern finds its\nobject within, the Western generally without; the Eastern considers\nidentity with Deity a natural state, the Western regards perfect\nfellowship with Deity as a goal of spiritual attainment. In Christianity\nmysticism has been occasional in its manifestations, and has always been\nregarded as an innovation; but in the East it is the normal deduction\nfrom Hindu Pantheism and Buddhist Nihilism.[391] N\u00e2g\u00e2rdjuna and\nB\u00f4diharma were the natural outcome of Gotama\u2019s teaching. In Christianity\nit has often shown itself to be marvellously practical, and generally in\nrevolt from some stereotyped system of dogma or form of worship. Though\nassociated in our thoughts more with the sentimental than the\nintellectual aspects of religion,[392] it has manifested frequently a\ndecidedly rationalistic tendency. Refusing to be dominated by authority\nor to be bound by antiquity, it has questioned fearlessly the dicta of\nScripture, avowing that reason is not superseded, but divinely inspired\nand controlled as the organ of revelation. In Christianity its\nextravagances may be forgiven in consideration of the benefits which\nhave flowed from it. It powerfully helped to bring about the\nReformation, and since then, in the Churches, whether reformed or\nunreformed, it has tended to sweeten and intensify devotion. It has kept\nthem mindful of their common lineage by insisting upon those essential\nand universal truths which are confessed to be vital in all religions,\nand especially by proclaiming the supremacy of the Holy Spirit as the\nfountain of all enlightenment and activity.\n\nAs manifested in St. Paul and St. John, mysticism is the recognition of\nthe Holy Spirit as the Witness of Christ, and therefore the supreme lord\nover all man\u2019s emotions and reasonings and purposes. Consequently the\nasceticism with which mysticism has always been associated has been in\nChristianity more kept under control. Occasionally it has lapsed into\nfrightful excesses; indeed, the extravagances practised in the East to\nattain to insight have been equalled by the devices resorted to by many\nin the West to gain the vision of the Divine. In ingenious methods of\nself-torture the West certainly vied with the East, but at self-torture\nperverted Christianity stopped, while degenerate Buddhism went on to\ninvent and put in practice most revolting methods of self-destruction as\nwell. The law of Buddha prohibited this, and forbade even the mention of\nthe advantages of death. It was an offence of the gravest kind, punished\nby the severest penalty which the Order could inflict,[393] for a monk\nto procure a weapon for the purpose of taking away his life, or to teach\nhow death may be procured. Still, in India before Fa-Hian\u2019s time,\nself-murder was practised, and in China Imperial edicts against\nself-mutilation and self-immolation were required to prevent fanatics\nevading the primitive law by the quibble, that while prohibiting\nsuicide, Buddha enjoined the destruction of anger and lust, and that it\nwas against these alone that they raised their hand, in order to\ncomplete their deliverance.[394]\n\nChristianity demands that an \u1f04\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 shall be practised by all who\ndesire the illumination of the Spirit, for all that is vile must be\npurged out of life, and all that is animal in it must be subdued. The\ndiscipline, however, is always moral as well as religious, and it aims\nonly at controlling, never, like Stoicism or Cynicism, at stifling or\nviolating natural affection. Unlike Plato, who regarded matter as evil,\nChrist and His apostles recognised it as the creature of God, and taught\nus to seek the seat of evil, not in the body, but in the perverted will.\nIn the spirit is the true _fons et origo mali_; but as the occasion of\nsin directly or indirectly often originates in some desire for bodily\nindulgence or some dread of bodily pain, temperance and fortitude demand\nthat the body, if not inured to hardness, should be at least kept under\ncontrol. So bodily exercise,[395] though in itself profiting little,\nprofiteth much as moral discipline, a means to a spiritual end.\nConsequently the fast in its literal sense has its place in the\nChristian system as an expedient generally most required in the times\nwhen we are inclined to despise it. The fanaticism which would destroy\nor injure what is natural is condemned by Christianity as severely as is\nthe sensuality which would unduly strengthen it. What it demands is that\nthe whole nature be educated and ennobled by loving surrender to the\ncontrol of an infinitely holy Will. Enjoyment of the vision beatific,\ncommunion with the Divine Being, is the _summum bonum_ of Christianity,\nand that is the portion only of the sanctified. \u201cBlessed are the pure in\nheart: for they shall see God.\u201d\n\nB\u00f4diharma\u2019s mystic or esoteric Buddhism had no such influences to steady\nand sober it, and its aberrations were wilder than the fancies of our\ndelirium. The supernatural pretensions of mysticism have always been\ndisallowed or condemned in Christianity by overwhelming healthy-minded\nmajorities, but the consequence of the practice of Esoteric Buddhism was\nbelieved by all to be supernatural power. An adept in it professed to\nsee through all ages and worlds, and move through space by a sheer\nexercise of will. All the phenomena of modern spiritualism may have been\nwitnessed in India and China two thousand years ago\u2014yea, centuries\nperhaps before Buddha appeared. The first pretenders to these mysteries\nwere the Indian Yogis and the medicine-men of savage and barbarous\nraces.[396] The \u201cNeo-Buddhism\u201d and \u201cTheosophy\u201d of to-day simply confront\nus in the cast-off yellow rags of these pitiful superstitions. Their\ndisciples attempt to warm themselves and to walk in the light of the\nunhallowed flames which the deluded followers of B\u00f4diharma believed they\ncould kindle. In whatever way the phenomena of spiritualism are to be\nexplained\u2014and one cannot say what phenomena may emerge when the human\nmind is abandoned to vacuity, and the human will to an ungoverned\nfancy\u2014we may be certain that investigation of them will never disclose\nthe reality of benign supernatural power. What capabilities may be\ndormant in humanity no one can tell. Christ who redeemed us is the\nprophecy of what He can make us. He had supernatural power because His\nbeing accorded perfectly with the Heavenly Father\u2019s will; but\nsupernatural power as manifested by Christ is very different indeed from\nthe ludicrous exhibitions of the \u201cspiritualists.\u201d Christ\u2019s supernatural\npower was not manifested just in their ways, and certainly not by their\nmethods; will it ever be acquired?[397]\n\nIt is not compatible with our space to trace the parallels between\nEsoteric Buddhism and some nineteenth-century forms of speculation in\nwhich the finite is again seen to be going back to the absolute, and the\nreality of everything but the self is denied. On the religious side,\nhowever, it is interesting to notice a later stage of it in a system\nwhich, originating not long after B\u00f4diharma, took some four centuries to\nestablish itself. The T\u2019ien-t\u2019ai or Chi-Che school differed from\nB\u00f4iharma\u2019s theory of pure mental abstraction to be gained through\ncomplete withdrawal from all sensible surroundings, in that it sought to\naid contemplation by sensuous exercises. Worship of gay idols, music of\nmany persons chanting in unison, postures of kneeling and standing,\nexercises of continued and loud recitation, with intervals of profound\nsilence and intense meditation, were supposed to produce the desired\nillumination. It seemed to be the first recognition of feeling in the\nBuddhist religion, and the first attempt to employ it to produce\necstasy. The same attempt has often been repeated in the history of\nChristianity, sometimes in very grotesque and extravagant forms. In\nevery outburst of religious enthusiasm we may see rude examples of it,\nbut it is also the principle on which \u00e6sthetic worship is generally\ndefended. It is a reminder, therefore, to some very superior people, of\nour common human nature, and a warning that when left to itself, or\nindulged, even the \u00e6sthetic, like all other instincts, will just run the\nsame round of extravagance in manifold and ever-recurring variety.\n\nThe tendency in human nature to pervert a religion is as strongly\nmanifested in Christianity as in Buddhism; but there is this outstanding\ndistinction between them, that while a survey of Buddhism shows that\neverywhere it has run its course, and has exhausted its intellectual and\nmoral and spiritual resources, Christianity upon examination appears to\nbe only in an early stage of development. In spite of the perversions of\nthe Church, and its repeated resistance to Christian movements,\nChristianity has always produced what has condemned and corrected and\nvanquished them. It is the recuperative power of Christianity which most\ndistinguishes it. There is nothing in the history of Buddhism which at\nall corresponds with the Reformation. To-day all over the world it is\nstereotyped and unprogressive, whereas everywhere in Christendom there\nis ferment of thought and stirring of life, plainly indicating that\nwhatever power may claim the past, Christianity has the sure promise of\nthe future.\n\nIn China, two hundred and seventy years ago, originated a sect whose\nadherents, scattered through the villages of the Eastern Provinces, and\nbelonging principally to the lower classes of society, may be called\nProtestant or Reformed Buddhists. They are described by Dr. Edkins[398]\nas opposed to idolatry in all its forms, as having no temple, but only\nplain meeting-houses, signalised with only the common tablet to heaven,\nearth, king, parents, and teachers, as their symbol of reverence. Their\nworship consists not in ceremonies, but in quiet meditation, and inner\nadoration of the all-pervading Buddha. They are called the \u201cDo-Nothing\nSect,\u201d not because they are idle, like the ignorant inmates of the\nmonasteries\u2014for they are really industrious and virtuous,\u2014but because\nthey hold that the highest virtue is never intentional, but wholly\nunconscious of self. Like M. Aurelius,[399] they consider that to ask to\nbe \u201cpaid for virtue is as if the eye demanded a recompence for seeing.\u201d\nIn thinking of them, the words of the Lord Jesus recur to us: \u201cDo good,\nand lend, hoping for nothing again.\u201d George Fox, and the quiet and\ncharitable Society which he founded, and which still continues in formal\ngarb his protest against all formalism in worshipping God, not by\nclamouring to Him, but in silently waiting till He speaks, seems to be\nthe realisation of what these good Wu-wei-Kiau aspire to in their\nreligion. They have not been able to free themselves from Buddhism or\nTaoism. Buddha, though not worshipped, is believed in by them, and they\nhave found an object of adoration in K\u00een-mu, the Golden Mother of the\nsoul, who can protect and deliver from calamity, and even save those\nthat have died from misery. They have four principal festivals, two of\nwhich celebrate the birth and death of Lo-tsu, their founder. On these\noccasions three small cups of tea and nine tiny loaves of bread are\nplaced on the tables, according to the appointment of Lo-tsu himself. On\nthis account they are nicknamed \u201cthe Tea and Bread Sect.\u201d They are\nstrict vegetarians, but in no other sense ascetics, honouring marriage\nand family life, and having no monastic institute among them. They aver\nthat one of their leaders during a persecution was crucified, and their\ngreat hope is that the world will soon come to an end, and that the\nGolden Mother will appear, to take all her children\u2014all who believe in\nher as they do\u2014home to her beautiful heaven.\n\nThis can hardly be called a reformation of Buddhism according either to\nits original form or its fundamental principles. It is a departure from,\nand an immense improvement upon it, which is manifestly due to foreign\nand probably Christian influence. The Nestorians entered China in the\nseventh, and the Jesuits in the sixteenth century, while Reformed\nChristianity only came in contact with China in the present generation.\nIf it be denied that Christianity helped to produce the Do-Nothing Sect,\nit will be difficult to disprove the claim that, directly or indirectly,\nit has done much to produce the latest forms in which, in China and\nJapan, Buddhism is now presented to the world. In both countries\nReformed Buddhists are found differing in much from one another, but\ngenerally agreeing in rejecting polytheism for the worship of one\ndivinity: in China, Kwan-yin, who for long has changed sexes, and is now\nthe goddess of mercy; in Japan, Buddha, whose attribute is Amita, the\ninfinite. One sect, called the \u201cSalvation without Works Sect,\u201d has\nprogressed greatly in Japan, under the title of Shin-Shin, \u201cthe true\nreligion.\u201d The worshipper renounces all merit, and trusts for salvation\nin nothing but the mercy of Amita.[400] The soul is brought into a state\nof salvation by an act of faith, and though sure of salvation, the\nfaithful must not abandon the struggle with evil, for holiness is not\nthe beginning, but the result of salvation. In Kioti, a Buddhist sect\nhas a college quite Western in its curriculum and arrangements. There\ntoo the Japanese newspapers not only record the successes of able\nBuddhist preachers in spreading their doctrine, and in founding schools,\nthey advertise a Buddhist propaganda for the conversion of Europe and\nAmerica. Its only organ as yet is a little magazine called the _Bijou of\nAsia_, but it is printed in English for the enlightenment of all who\nbelieve in the moribund creeds of the West, and for the rescue\nespecially of souls from the snare of that Christian superstition which\n\u201chappily all over the world is rapidly declining in power\u201d!\n\nIf this be not impure Christianity, no one will dare to call it pure\nBuddhism. Surely it is a hopeful indication for the future of Japan, as\nbeing evidently a movement somewhat similar to that inaugurated in India\nby Rammohun Roy, and greatly furthered in our days by Chunder Sen. The\nfirst professed to trace his reform to the Upanishads rediscovered, and\nexpounded, and applied; and the second to the Vedas as the primitive\nfountains of the faith. Both reformers and their work would have been\nimpossible two thousand years ago; yea, they would have been equally\nimpossible to-day, had not the West given of its thoughts to the East,\nand Christendom communicated to it something of its better life. It is\none thing to read the Vedas and Upanishads, as the Rishis recited or the\nBrahmans expounded them long ago, and quite another to have them\ninterpreted by natives of India, around whose forefathers for several\ngenerations all the influences of Christian civilisation have been\nplaying. So is it with the reforming Buddhists of China and Japan, who\nhave enterprise to send their sons to study at our British Universities.\nThey are reading their old literature\u2014even when rejecting our systems of\nbelief\u2014with minds unconsciously saturated with Christian intelligence,\nand no doubt they often find there what the Gospel has put in\nthemselves.\n\nWe may rest assured that the reform of the Oriental religions will only\nbe effected by the infusion into them of the spirit of Christianity. A\nhigher religion meeting them as Christianity does, may not supplant or\ndestroy them, but it will revive and transform them. It will destroy\nmuch that is false, correct much that is wrong, supply all they lack,\nand so in the end annul them. The product will not likely be a facsimile\nof any of the Churches of Christendom. It may be a religion in which\nBuddha and the great teachers of his system will be lifted to their\nplaces among the prophets who, \u201csince the world began,\u201d unconsciously\ntestified, by their errors as well as by their truths, by their failures\nas well as by their successes, to the Mystery to be revealed. The fact\nthat in Buddhism the object of worship is not the Buddha that was, but\nM\u00e2itr\u00eaya who is to be, is a pathetic confession that its Messiah has yet\nto come. Though Buddha did not proclaim His coming, the result of his\nmission bears witness to the need of Him. So he was a lawgiver preparing\nthe way for Moses, even as Moses prepared the way for the Baptist, and\nas the Baptist heralded the Christ of God. Could his voice reach down\nto-day from \u201cthe quiet shore\u201d to the millions who have taken hold of him\nin hope of finding deliverance from the miseries and perplexities of\nthis sinful world, it would be to repeat a testimony once heard on\nJordan\u2019s banks from him than whom no one born of woman was greater:\n\u201cThere standeth One among you whom ye know not, the latchet of whose\nshoes I am not worthy to unloose.\u201d\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n  Mah\u00e2paranibh\u00e2na Sutta, ii. 33. 35.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n  1 Corinthians xiv.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n  \u201cDas Christenthum ist das allerver\u00e4nderlichste; das ist sein\n  besonderer Ruhm.\u201d\u2014Rothe, _Stille Stunden_, p. 357.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n  Acts xxviii. 13; Rom. xv. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 10; 1 Peter i. 1.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n  Greg. Nyss. _Op._ iii. 574.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n  Keim, _Rom und Christenthum_, p. 417.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n  Uhlhorn, _Conflict of Christianity_, pp. 54, 90.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n  Neander, _Church History_, vol. i. pp. 10, 40.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n  Orig. _cont. Cels._ iii. 44-54; Tatian, c. 33; Minut. Felix, _Octav._\n  8. 12; Tertull. _Apolog._ 37 _et passim_.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n  Newman, _Grammar of Assent_, pp. 460 _seq._\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n  Kullavagga, iv. 14. 25; also _ibid._ vii. 1. 5; _Sacred Books of the\n  East_, vol. xx.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n  E. Burnouf, _Science of Religions_, p. 288, notes the analogy between\n  Pryadarsi and \u201ca man greatly beloved\u201d in Daniel ix. 23.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n  See _Lotus de la bonne Loi_, App. x. p. 659 _seq._: Prinsep\u2019s trans.,\n  _Jour. Asiat. Soc. Beng._ vol. vii. pp. 219 _seq._; Prof. H. H.\n  Wilson\u2019s, vol. xii. of _Jour. Asiat. Soc. Beng._ pp. 153 _seq._\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n  Wheeler, _History of India_, vol. iii. p. 214.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, _Handbook of Buddhism_, p. 225.\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n  Dipavamso, chap. viii.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, _Handbook of Buddhism_, p. 259.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n  _Buddhist Records of the Western World_, trans. by Prof. Beal, vol.\n  i.; Fo-Kwo-ki, chap. xxii. p. xlix, vol. ii; Hiuen Tsiang, B. vi. pp.\n  13, 14.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n  Lassen, _Indische Alterth._ vol. ii. p. 1078; vol. iv. p. 741.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n  Dr. Beal, _Buddhism in China_, p. 61; Dr. Edkins, _Chinese Buddhism_,\n  Preface, p. i.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n  _Buddhism in Tibet_, E. Schlagintweit, pp. 61-75.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n  _Comparative Progress of Ancient and Modern Missions._\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n  Dr. Maclear, _Gradual Conversion of Europe_, pp. 6-12.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n  _Nouveau Journ. Asiat._ pp. 106, 137, 139.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n  Dr. Edkins, _Chinese Buddhism_, pp. 84, 207.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n  \u201cIt may be safely asserted that no Aryan race, while existing in\n  anything like purity, was ever converted to Buddhism, or could\n  permanently adopt its doctrines.\u201d\u2014Fergusson, _Tree and Serpent\n  Worship_, p. 67. The old Turanian race, far from being savage, or even\n  barbarous, not only laid the basis of Chinese civilisation, but seems\n  to have been also the first civiliser of Western Asia, and the first\n  to spread art and science along the southern coasts of Europe. The\n  Iberian, Etruscan, Ph\u0153nician, Hittite, even Egyptian monuments, are\n  now acknowledged to be relics of this mighty race, which must have\n  sent horde after horde over Asia and Europe long before the historic\n  advance westwards in the thirteenth century A.D.; its latest invasion\n  of India may have been represented, not by Scythian ancestors of\n  Buddha, but the Sikhs.\u2014Conder, \u201cEarly Races of Western Asia,\u201d _Journ.\n  Anthrop. Inst._ August 1889, pp. 30-43.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n  Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_, Introduction; Eitel, _Lectures on\n  Buddhism_.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n  Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_, pp. 114, 156.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n  Wassilief, _Le Bouddhisme_, etc., pp. 14, 18.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n  D\u00eavadatta\u2019s Five Points (Kullavagga, vii. 3. 14, 15) all insist upon a\n  more ascetic rule than the Sangha practised.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n  Stanley, _Eastern Church_, pp. 45, 50.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n  Turnour, \u201cPali Bud. Annals,\u201d _Journ. Asiat. Soc. Beng._ vol. vi. p.\n  729; Wassilief, _Le Bouddhisme, etc._, p. 18.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n  The beginning of the dissensions is related in Kullavagga vii. with\n  much legendary adornment. There too, in vii. 5, and in Mahavagga, x.\n  1. 6, the distinction is drawn between \u201cdissension\u201d and \u201cschism,\u201d and\n  the woe predicted for the breaker-up of the Sangha when it was at\n  peace: \u201cHe is boiled for a kalpa in Niraya, doomed for so long to a\n  penance of misery.\u201d The reconciler of a divided Sangha was made happy\n  for a kalpa in heaven.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, _Handbook of Buddhism_, p. 182.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n  Beal, _Chinese Buddhism_, p. 101: \u201ca worship of association and\n  memory.\u201d\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n  Agni. Indra, S\u016brya; Kern, _Buddhismus_, vol. ii. p. 156; Sir Monier\n  Williams, _Buddhism_, p. 175.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n  \u201cA being whose essence (sattva) has become intelligence (bodhu)\n  derived from _self-enlightening_ intellect, and who has only once more\n  to pass through human existence before attaining Buddhahood.\u201d\u2014Eitel,\n  _Sanskrit-Chinese Dict._, p. 26; Sir Monier Williams\u2019 _Buddhism_, p.\n  98.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n  Wassilief, _Le Bouddhisme, etc._, pp. 124 _seq._; Burnouf, _Le Lotus\n  de la bonne Loi_, p. 302.\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n  N\u00e2g\u00e2rdjuna, the Nagas\u0113na of the Milindipanha, was the chief\n  representative, if not founder, of one of the Mah\u0101y\u0101na Schools. He has\n  been regarded as a mythical personage, and the name has been supposed\n  to be the generic one of various authors and doctors of the system.\n  For an account of Hin\u0101y\u0101na and Mah\u0101y\u0101na doctrine, with its\n  subdivisions, see Wassilief, _Le Bouddhisme, etc._, pp. 9 _seq._, 118\n  _seq._; Schlagintweit, _Buddhism in Tibet_, pp. 19-57. N\u00e2landa must\n  have been a very important centre in Buddhist times.\u2014Fergusson, _Tree\n  and Serpent Worship_, p. 79.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n  Dr. Edkins says about 190 A.D.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n  Burnouf, _Introd. \u00e0 l\u2019histoire du Bud. Ind._ vol. i. pp. 220, 224\n  (Paris, 1844); also Burnouf, _Le Lotus de la bonne Loi_, chap. xxiv.\n  pp. 261-268; also Appendix III. pp. 498-511 (Paris, 1852).\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n  M\u00fcller, Gifford Lectures, _Natural Religion_, p. 543; Dr. Beal,\n  _Buddhism in China_, p. 123; Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_, p. 195.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n  Hodgson, _Illustrations of the Literature and Religion of the\n  Buddhists_, p. 30; Burnouf, _Introduction, etc._, pp. 116-121; also in\n  note at p. 118, quoting Hodgson.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n  Though strong affinities exist between Gnosticism and Buddhism, which\n  may indicate later connection, in their origin they appear to have\n  been quite distinct. The methods, aims, and terminology of Gnosticism,\n  all betoken derivation from purely Western sources. It is quite\n  possible that Gnosticism may have given Adi-Buddha to the East, but\n  the question of their relations is still undetermined. See Weber,\n  _Hist. Ind. Lit._ p. 309; Obry\u2019s _Nirvana, etc._, p. 161; Bishop\n  Lightfoot, Essay on the Essenes (_Epistle to Colossians_), p. 157;\n  _Home and Foreign Review_, vol. iii. pp. 143 _seq._ (1863).\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n  Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_, p. 203; Dr. Beal, _Chinese Buddhism_,\n  p. 128; Dr. Eitel, _Lectures_, p. 98.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n  Kullavagga, v. 21. 4; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xx.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n  _Introd._ \u00a7 vi. p. 558: \u201cLa plume se refuse \u00e0 transcrire des doctrines\n  aussi mis\u00e9rables quant \u00e0 la forme, qu\u2019odieuses et d\u00e9gradantes pour le\n  fond.\u201d\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n  \u00c2ryasanga, founder of the Y\u00f4gacharya or contemplative system of\n  Mah\u0101y\u0101na (_circa_ 400 A.D.). For an account of his doctrine, see\n  Wassilief, _Le Boudd._ pp. 288 _seq._, and Schlagintweit, _Bud. in\n  Tibet_, pp. 39 _seq._, 46 _seq._; Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, p. 207\n  _seq._\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n  A writer in the _Nineteenth Century_, October 1889, professes to\n  describe the testimony of the only reporter who has written of Lh\u00e1sa\n  since Huc and Gabet were expelled from it forty-five years ago.\n  According to this witness, the Church is now actually in grip of the\n  State, though nominally dominant. Of five members of the Council of\n  the Grand Lama four are laymen, superior military officers, with the\n  Regent at their head. Till the Grand Lama is eighteen years of age,\n  the Regent is supreme, and for sixty years, not a single Grand Lama,\n  chosen as an infant, has survived his eighteenth birthday!!\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n  Buddhism, however, introduced into Tibet the benefits of the art of\n  writing, the reduction of its language to an alphabet, and grammar;\n  and not only the sacred literature represented by the collection of\n  the Kandjur, but the very miscellaneous literature of the Tandjur.\n  Several of its Buddhist missionaries and the kings who favoured them\n  were really great men. Kublai Khan and the first Lamistic Pope\n  Phags-pa, 1259-94, rendered lasting service to the cause of\n  civilisation. See K\u00f6ppen\u2019s _Die Lamaische Hierarchie und Kirche_,\n  being vol. ii. of his celebrated and most laborious work, _Die\n  Religion des Buddha_; T. W. Rhys Davids, Art. LAMAISM, _Encyc. Brit._\n  vol. xiv.; Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_, pp. 262-302.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n  The most recent and reliable information as to this perverted form of\n  Buddhism\u2014if it is to be called Buddhism, for it seems to be no more\n  Buddhism than Vandoux worship can be called Christianity\u2014will be found\n  in the works of T. W. Rhys Davids; Sir Monier Williams, _Buddhism_;\n  Babu Sarat Chunder Das, \u201cReligious Hist. of Thibet,\u201d _Journ. Asiat.\n  Soc. Beng._ 1881; _Life and Works of Alex. Csoma de Koros_, Th. Duka,\n  Lond. 1885; E. Colborne Baber, _Travels and Researches in Western\n  China_; Bushell\u2019s \u201cHist. of Thibet,\u201d _Journ. R.A.S._ vol. xii.\n  1878-79.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n  An invocation of Aval\u00f4kit\u00eas\u2019vara, who is believed to have delivered it\n  to the Tibetans.\u2014Klaproth, _Fragments Bouddhiques_, p. 27; Hodgson,\n  _Illustrations_, p. 171; Charles Loring Brace, _Gesta Christi_, p.\n  455.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n  Schlagintweit, _Buddhism in Tibet_, pp. 227-272.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n  _Chinese Review_, vol. xi. p. 162; Beal, _Buddhism in China_, p. 233.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n  Once when a heathen asked Hillel to show him the whole Jewish religion\n  in a few words, he replied, \u201c_Do not unto others what thou wouldst not\n  should be done unto thee_.\u201d Kuenen\u2019s _Religion of Israel_, p. 243\n  (quotes Talmud, Sabbath, 31 a.)\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n  See Isaiah xxxii. 5, 6. Socrates says in _Phaedo_, \u201cto use words\n  wrongly and indefinitely is not merely an error in itself; it also\n  creates evil in the soul.\u201d A vast amount of mischief is done by the\n  misapplication of good adjectives to bad subjects. All true reformers,\n  with Confucius, labour for a rectification of names.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n  Shu King, Shi King, Pref. and Introd. pp. 1-27, by Dr. Legge; _Sacred\n  Books of the East_, vol. iii.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n  _M\u00e9moire sur la Vie et les Opinions de Lao-tsze._\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n  Translation of the T\u00e2o-teh-King, under the title, _Le Livre de la Voie\n  et de la Vertu_.\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n  \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, Prof. Douglas, _Confucianism and Taoism_, p. 189.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n  It is very interesting to find, so long before Christianity, and so\n  far from its cradle, this fundamental rule in Christian morals. In the\n  Book of Proverbs its enunciation may have preceded that in the\n  Tao-teh-King in point of time; but its being uttered at the end of the\n  world, along with the \u201cgolden rule\u201d of Confucius, prove how\n  essentially one are the moral instincts of humanity.\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n  Dr. Legge\u2019s Preface to vol. iii. of _Sacred Books of the East_, p.\n  xxi; also Art. LAO-TSZE, _Encyc. Brit._ vol. xiv.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n  Dr. Edkins, _Chinese Buddhism_, pp. 128, 202; Beal, _Introduction to\n  Fa-Hian_, p. 27.\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n  Douglas, _Confucianism_, p. 84; Beal, _Buddhism in China_, p. 235;\n  Edkins, _Chinese Buddhism_, p. 333.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n  In the whole range of the Catacombs no crucifix, and only very few\n  crosses have been found, and these generally in a disguised form. The\n  communion of the early Church was with Christ risen and triumphant; it\n  was only when the spirit and fervour of worship declined that it made\n  so much of the crucifixion.\u2014Northcote and Brownlow\u2019s Abridgment of De\n  Rossi\u2019s _Roma Sotterranea_; Smith and Cheetham, _Dict. of Christian\n  Antiq._, Art. CATACOMBS, pp. 294 _seq._; Witherow, _Catacombs_, pp.\n  260, 281.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n  The efficiency of _relic-worship_ may be said to have been established\n  as early as the fourth century. Julian compares the churches to whited\n  sepulchres, full of dead men\u2019s bones. Development of _image-worship_\n  proceeded _pari passu_ with the erection of fine churches and their\n  adornment with painting and sculpture. There were all along strong\n  protests from individual bishops, and even prohibitions by Councils,\n  but the fashion was too strong for their fulminations. Even in the\n  eighth century the iconoclastic reformation of Leo the Isaurian was\n  too late. His zeal, moreover, was wrongly directed. He assailed high\n  art, and condemned only the truly fine paintings, sparing the ruder\n  and more ancient productions, and leaving untouched the worship of and\n  disgraceful traffic in relics, real and spurious. It is not to be\n  wondered at that in opposition to all this Gregory in the West became\n  the champion of art as an aid to devotion.\u2014Milman, _Lat.\n  Christianity_, vol. ii. p. 152.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n  In protesting against the Mass, the Reformed Churches maintain the\n  universal priesthood, and therefore perpetual sacrifice, of the\n  visible Church. As Christ\u2019s witness on earth, the Church must be\n  always offering itself, in thanksgiving for its own redemption, for\n  the salvation of the world.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n  Fergusson, _Tree and Serpent Worship_, p. 67; Cunningham, _Bhilsa\n  Topes_, p. 130.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n  Dr. Edkins, _Chinese Buddhism_, p. 126; Judges vi. 31.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n  Originally called B\u00f3dhitara, but renamed by his teacher Payantara, in\n  token of his religious \u201cinsight.\u201d He is said to have brought to China\n  the famous alms-bowl, which all the Buddhas of the Kalpa have used,\n  and will use, and whose final disappearance will indicate that the\n  religion is about to perish. Thus Buddhism has also its San Greal.\n  B\u00f4diharma is called the \u201cwall-gazing Brahman,\u201d though a Kshatrya,\n  because on his arrival in China he spent nine years in silent\n  meditation.\u2014Eitel, _Sanskrit Chinese Dict._ p. 24.\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n  Dr. Edkins, _Chinese Buddhism_, p. 130.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n  Men who have in vain sought God without have happily found Him in the\n  witness of their own conscience and affection, but generally they who\n  conceitedly reject the revelation without them only obscure the seeing\n  faculty within. \u201cWhen mysticism threw off external authority it went\n  mad, as in the revolutionary pantheism of the Middle Ages. When it\n  incorporated itself more and more in revealed truth, it became a\n  benign power\u2014as on the eve of the Reformation.\u201d\u2014Vaughan, _Hours with\n  the Mystics_, vol. ii. p. 356.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n  \u201cMysticism,\u201d A. Seth, _Encyc. Brit._ vol. xvii. pp. 129-136.\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n  Correctly so, if we are to judge of Mysticism even from its purest\n  phases and its best representatives, _e.g._ the Quietism of Madame\n  Guyon, the Spiritualism of Swedenborg, the Romanticism of F. von\n  Hardenberg, better known as Novalis. Even on its speculative or\n  philosophical side, it would not be difficult to cull from the\n  writings of the Cambridge Platonists, and the Idealists of Europe and\n  America, extracts equivalent to the aphorisms of Novalis, that \u201caction\n  is morbid,\u201d \u201cto dream is to overcome,\u201d that \u201cthe soul must abandon the\n  actual world if it would discover in the recesses of the mystic night\n  the Queen of Heaven, Eternal Beauty.\u201d\u2014_Hymns to Night_, Schriften,\n  vol. ii. p. 158.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n  P\u00e2timokkha; P\u00e2r\u00e2gik\u00e2 Dhamm\u00e2, 3; _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. xiii.\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n  Beal, Introduction to _Fa-Hian_, p. 42. In an important aspect the\n  perversion of Christianity was worse than that of Buddhism. The\n  Buddhist ascetics, though merciless to themselves, never tortured\n  their vanquished opponents. There is no parallel to the Romish\n  Inquisition and some Protestant atrocities in any of the annals of\n  Buddhism.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n  \u1f21 \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, 1 Tim. iv. 8.\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n  Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, vol. i. p. 440.\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n  \u201cVient enfin le mysticisme de la derni\u00e8re \u00e9poque, qui, de m\u00eame que\n  tous les mysticismes, finit de la mani\u00e8re la plus mis\u00e9rable, et\n  enfante une idol\u00e2trie grossi\u00e8re, ainsi que les stupides pratiques de\n  la sorcellerie\u201d (Laboulaye, Introd. to La Comme\u2019s transl. of\n  Wassilief\u2019s _Buddhism_, p. xlv). This has often been verified in the\n  religious history of the West, and the fate of many former \u201cspiritual\u201d\n  aspirants to enter or to peer into the Invisible and Unutterable\n  should be a powerful warning to all who are now aiming at surpassing\n  the natural conditions of existence. In endeavouring to transcend\n  humanity, we are likely to fall miserably below it.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n  _Chinese Buddhism_, pp. 370-379.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n  Also Seneca: \u201cWe do not love virtue because it gives us pleasure, but\n  it gives us pleasure because we love it.\u201d\u2014_De Vit. Beat._ c. ix. \u201cIn\n  doing good man should be like the vine, producing grapes, and asking\n  for nothing in having done so.\u201d\u2014M. Aurel. v. 6 and ix. 42.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n  Herzog, _Encyclop._ (Schaff), vol. i. p. 334.\n\n\n\n\n                              POSTSCRIPT.\n\n\nIn endeavouring to perform the very honourable task assigned to me, I\nhave had to contend all along with the difficulty of comprising in six\nwhat would require many more lectures properly to relate. Much which was\nactually prepared I have been forced to omit, consoling myself with the\nthought that, after all, I had simply to lecture and not to write a\ncompendious treatise, and that it was my business to sketch as\ntruthfully as I could what it was simply impossible, within the limits\nprescribed, adequately to depict. It was originally my intention to give\nin parallel quotations the alleged similarities between the contents of\nthe Pitakas and the New Testament, but the conditions of time and space\ncompelled me to be content with references to specimens of them in the\n_Sacred Books of the East_, from which any ordinary English reader may\nbe able to form a judgment concerning them. Moreover, when well on with\nthe work, I discovered that a much more thorough examination of\nProfessor Seydel\u2019s _Buddhist-Christian Harmony_ than I could profess to\nmake had already been published by Professor Kellogg of Allegheny, U.S.,\nin his book on the _Light of Asia and the Light of the World_. An Indian\nmissionary of eleven years\u2019 experience, and the author of an excellent\nGrammar of the Hindi language, can write upon this subject, not only\nwith greater authority, but to much better purpose, than one who only\nknows Indian books through the medium of European translations, and who\nhas not seldom been compelled to take on trust what he felt strongly\ninclined to question. If Dr. Kellogg\u2019s book is not extensively read in\nthis country, it certainly deserves to be.\n\nOur sketch has been confined to Buddhism as a religion and as an ethical\nsystem. The philosophy which has grown out of it, and especially the\npsychology which lies at the base of its original dogmas, would require\na large volume to expound. A great field is open here for those who have\nthe ability and the leisure to cultivate it; and though good work has\nalready been done in it, we may be convinced that, until this psychology\nhas been more thoroughly investigated, we must continue in uncertainty\nas to what original Buddhism was. Though much has been written upon the\norigin and growth of Buddhism, the first authoritative words are only\nnow beginning to be spoken by the learned translators of the Pali texts;\nand though they have dispelled illusions and corrected false impressions\nnot a few, we cannot affirm that there is a strong consensus of opinion\namong them as to the life and teaching of the founder of Buddhism. One\nis greatly impressed by the modest hesitation with which they have\npresented their views, but this very diffidence makes one fear that we\nmay be attributing to Buddha sayings which he never uttered, or that we\nhave drawn from them inferences which he would have disowned.\n\nIn working out a sketch like this, the temptation constantly besetting\none is to compare or contrast actual Buddhism with ideal Christianity.\n\nI have endeavoured to bear in mind that our modern religion may in many\nfeatures grossly misrepresent that of its Divine Author, and, indeed,\nthat \u201cChristianity has all along been much embarrassed in being obliged\nto apologise for Christendom.\u201d[401] In like manner I have tried to make\nplain the great distinction between the original system of Buddha and\nthat which very soon came to be known by his name. An Oriental will\ncertainly misjudge Christianity if he derives his knowledge of it from\nmedi\u00e6val theology or from some nineteenth-century sermons; and we may\nunconsciously commit the same mistake in ascribing to the primitive\ndogmas the interpretation put upon them by its later schools.[402] I\nhave read several books in which this mistake was flagrant, and I should\nbe extremely sorry to follow their bad example. In the present state of\nour knowledge, however, and until the earliest texts have been\naccurately ascertained, and sifted, and classified, this, to a certain\nextent, is inevitable, and therefore excusable. If I have failed in my\nattempt to portray accurately even the salient features of this great\nreligion, it has been from no desire to caricature it. The days have\nsurely passed when it could be said that we were \u201ctoo infatuated by a\nsense of the superiority of our own to make a fair survey of other\nreligions.\u201d[403] It is our duty, and it will be for our interest, to do\njustice to them, and, instead of being content with the schoolboy\u2019s\nendeavour to prove them false, we should seek carefully among the ruins\nof the most degraded of them for all the elements of truth we can\ndiscover. It is in this direction that we must proceed if we would find\nsolid foundations for a true Christian theology, and the more we address\nourselves to the work the more likely shall we be to convince the Church\nof the proper value of the Faith deposited in its keeping, and to rouse\nit to realise its destiny and fulfil its glorious mission to the world.\n\nIn correcting these sheets for the press, I have often been sensible of\nmy great obligations to a very highly valued personal friend, whose\ngoodness was as remarkable as his learning. May I be forgiven if, in\ngratitude for his kind and generous help in these very studies, given\nnow long ago, I desire to keep alive the memory of this justly esteemed\nSanskrit scholar, by adding this little stone to his cairn, and adorning\nmy book with the name of Dr. John Muir.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n  _Eternal Atonement_, by Dr. R. D. Hitchcock, p. 157.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n  T. W. Rhys Davids, Hibbert Lectures, p. 196.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n  Quinet, _Le G\u00e9nie des Religions_, p. 13.\n\nPrinted by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to Her Majesty, _at the\nEdinburgh University Press_.\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the lectures in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"Buddhism and Christianity: A Parallel and a Contrast","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":96040}