The natural rejoinder to this representa_Ancient Faiths And Modern A Dissertation upon Worships, Legends and Divinities in Central and Western Asia, Europe, and Elsewhere, Before the Christian Era. Showing Their Relations to Religious Customs as They Now Exist.

Christian that he knows that Jesus of Nazareth really was what he

represented himself, and he is sure that Sakya Muni was not; but, on

the other hand, the Buddhist may say just the reverse with equal

pertinacity. This argument, if such a name it really deserves, is so

common amongst all careless religionists, that it deserves a few words

in reply. It is based upon the very natural notion, "what I believe,

must be true," and to an objector, the only answer is the question, "you

don't fancy that I can be wrong, do you?" When two such persons as

a Christian and a Mahometan met in days gone by, these were the only

arguments used by each, and they were first of all enforced by such

revilings as come naturally to the faithful--"hound of a Moslem"--"dog

of a Christian," "you are a serpent"--"you are a viper," and the like;

from words they came to blows, and the strongest arm was supposed to

demonstrate the correctness of the victor's faith. If, instead of

taking physical strength as a test of truth, we assume that a numerical

preponderance on one side or another proves the correctness of the

belief held by the greatest number, we come to the absurd conclusion

that what is right to-day may be wrong to-morrow. Babylonians were once

far more numerous than Jews, and Jews than Christians, to-day the

last exceed vastly both the others. Now, there are more Buddhists

in existence than true followers of Jesus, in the next century the

proportion may be reversed.

Truth does not so fluctuate, and a philosopher who uses his reason will

take up a different stand entirely, and affirm that a man cannot become

God by meditation, fancy or assertion, nor yet by the consent or vote of

millions of his fellow-men, and that the assumption that any individual

must be, and is the begotten son of God, is on a par with the folly of

the potentates who call themselves brothers of the sun and moon. Such

absurdity and blasphemy are very common, nevertheless, and men believe

that Jesus is God, because they have elected him to that elevated

position by a general vote--or European plebiscite.

We now address ourselves to another important statement made by some

writers upon the religion of Sakya Muni, to the effect that he taught

annihilation to be the end most desirable for good men who have learned

and practised the law. This view is held by St. Hilaire, who, in almost

every other respect, has shown himself an historian rather favourable

to Siddartha than otherwise, and who speaks with some regret of the

conclusion which he feels obliged to draw. But he is opposed upon this

point by a very great English or German authority, viz., Max Mueller,

who, in a lecture delivered before the general Meeting of the

Association of German Philologists at Kiel, and which is to be found

translated in Trubner's _American and Oriental Literary Record_, Oct.

16, 1869, distinctly declares his belief that the nihilism attributed to

Buddha's teaching forms no part of his doctrine, and that it is wholly

wrong to suppose that Nirvana signified annihilation.

When two such earnest inquirers differ, it is instructive to notice

the reason why. This is to be found in the fact that the etymological

signification of the word does signify "nothingness," or "extinction,"

but not, as Mueller contends, annihilation of the individual, but a

complete cessation of all pain and misery. The last quoted author shows

that Siddartha used Nirvana as synonymous with Moksha, Nirvritti, and

other words, all designating the highest state of spiritual liberty and

bliss, but not annihilation. It seems to be perfectly clear that what

was meant by Sakya is, that to the good who have embraced the means of

salvation preached by him, the future world would be a haven of rest,

in which all sorrow, suffering, and sin should be annihilated. But

the teacher does not go beyond this, and descant upon the opposite

conditions, and promise joys ineffable and full of glory. His followers

believe that they will attain to immortality, and that they will be free

from all such horrors as life brings with it. But the pleasures which

they expect are negative.

Before we either pity or despise Siddartha for not giving his followers

any idea of what we call Heaven, it would be well to endeavour to

discover the true teaching of Jesus of Nazareth upon this point, and the

ideas of his followers. We must also say a few words about his ideas of

Hell. He clearly believed that there was a place in which those whose

lives had been wicked would be punished after death by the devil and his

angels--the place was one of outer darkness, where shall be weeping and

wailing, and gnashing of teeth (Matt. viii. 12). In Matt. xiii. 42 this

place of outer darkness is described as "a furnace of fire," and in Mark

ix. 43-44 this fire is described as one that never shall be quenched,

and in which there lives a worm. In Luke xvi. 23-24 there is an

expression of the belief that the body lives after death in its usual

form, and has eyes, a tongue, the power of speech, &c.; yet in Matt. x.

28 the doctrine is inculcated that both body and soul are destroyed

in Hell. In Jude 7 and 13 Hell is again described as a place of

unquenchable fire, and yet one occupied by the blackness of darkness;

whilst in Revelation xix. 20 and xx. 10 we are told that the fire is

a lake of burning brimstone. Of the absolute locality of this horrible

spot not a word is said.

On the other hand, Heaven is described (Matt xiii. 43) as a place where

the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of God. In

Luke xvi. 22 the pleasure of Heaven is made to consist of a simple

repose in the bosom of Abraham; but though we are there led to believe

that the blessed can see the torments of the damned, it does not appear

that either "the father of the faithful," or the poor beggar Lazarus,

take any pleasure in contemplating them, as some few divines of the

church of England believe that they will do, when they have arrived at

the abode of bliss, and see their enemies in the burning lake. Paul,

when writing to the Corinthians, (1 Ep. xv.) gives his idea of the

resurrection of the just as one in which each man will be a spiritual

edition of his former terrestrial self, but beyond the statement in 1

Thess. iv. 17, that the redeemed will, when in heaven, dwell for

ever with the Lord, he expresses no opinion of the occupation of

the glorified ones. In John's gospel (xiv. 2) Jesus is reported as

saying,--"In my Father's house are many mansions or houses--I go to

prepare a place for you," but there is nothing like any account of what

is to be done in those abodes.

Again, we find, Ps. xvi. 11, in a verse which has been largely adapted

to Christianity, an idea of Heaven given thus--"in thy presence is

fulness of joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."

What David's pleasures were we may judge from his life, and we may

fairly imagine that the writer of the passage had an idea something like

that of Mahomet--that there were houris in Heaven for the delectation of

the faithful. But in Isaiah lxiv. 4, and I Cor. ii. 9 everything about

Heaven is declared to be vague--a something which the eye has not seen,

the ear heard, or the heart conceived.

In the book called _The Revelation of St. John the Divine_, we have a

far more detailed account of what was believed by some about heaven,

than in any other, and there is no doubt that to it a large number of

Christians appeal, for it is, indeed, almost the only foundation

on which they can build. Yet the Apocalypse was for a long time an

uncanonical book, and its truth and value were, and still are, doubted

by many of the faithful. In the part referred to, heaven is described

as a place incalculably rich in gold and precious stones, in music and

pleasant odours, and its joys are pour-trayed as consisting in constant

contact with the evidences of wealth, and in eternally singing a certain

refrain, an hour of which would be a great trial to human ears. To this

is added the absence of pain, sorrow, and suffering. The New Jerusalem,

described in chapter xxi. is nothing more than a palace similar to that

of Aladdin, which is described in _The Arabian Nights?_ fabulously

adorned with gems, lighted by other means than a burning sun or a cold

moon, cooled or refreshed with a river of clear water, and furnished

with trees bearing different kinds of fruit, but all delicious--thus

involving the certainty that the singing referred to, must have been

suspended whilst the palate was regaled--and having leaves said to be

_for the healing of the nations_. The words thus italicised seem to show

the indefiniteness of the _idea_, we dare not say of the _knowledge_ of

John, for the existence of this new Jerusalem involves the absence of

any disease which required healing; and every person who was not already

assigned to the brimstone lake, was a resident on the margin of the

crystal river. Such discrepancies are common in visionary writings, and

ought to make us distrust them; but instead of that, wild theories are

founded upon these absurdities, and the builders thence attempt to prove

their own superior knowledge. Well, in this new Jerusalem, every man

is to be a ruler, for we are told, that in it the servants of the Lamb

(chap. xxii. 3 sq.) shall serve him, and see his face, that his name

shall be written upon their foreheads, and they shall _reign_ for ever

and ever. The word italicised, very naturally recalls to us an earlier

passage in the same book (chap, i. 6) wherein the writer expresses the

belief that Jesus Christ has made his followers "kings and priests."

It is then clear that John had the notion that in heaven every denizen

would be a king. But king over whom? or over what? if every one in

new Jerusalem is a ruler, what is he a ruler of? It is, to the critic,

moderately certain, that all which the words are intended to convey is,

that every inhabitant of the New Jerusalem or Heaven will be as rich and

happy as a mundane sovereign. This, again, involves the belief that the

author of the Apocalypse had an essentially sensual idea of Heaven,

and that he pourtrayed it as a man would do, who, pining in misery,

suffering from disease, pinched with want, obliged to serve as the slave

of wealth, and to contribute much, out of his little, to the king's

taxes, saw daily, and envied deeply, the high position and great wealth

of a tyrant, with whom, his faith induced him to believe, that he would

change places hereafter.

That the descriptions of Heaven in Revelation can be considered as

reliable, by any thoughtful Christian, I marvel, for they are bound up

with an assurance which the lapse of time has fully demonstrated to be

false. In chap, xxii., v. 12 and 20, the one who is described as the

Lord of the New Jerusalem, the Christian Heaven, asserts that he is

coming quickly, and that his reward is with him. Yet in no sense of the

words is this true, nor has it ever been so.

Tested, then, by every available means, we assert that the Heaven

described by Jesus of Nazareth and his immediate followers is quite as

vague, indistinct, and unreliable as the Buddhist Nirvana; or, if the

affirmative be preferred, we say that the Christian Heaven is quite as

uncertain or indefinite a prize for Jesus' disciples as the Nirvana

of Sakya. Both teachers seem to have been equally confident of the

existence of a Hell, and equally cautious in expressing their ideas

about a Heaven. And we, who have had the advantage of many centuries of

civilization and thought, dare no more frame or promulgate a scheme of

Elysium than the Romans did--we really know nothing whatever about a

future state.

There is this, however, to be said in favour of Siddartha--he did not,

like Mahomet and John, preach a Paradise, in which all the pleasures are

worldly, sensuous, or sensual--John promising music and fruit, Mahomet

feasting and women. All the Indian's teaching pointed to a future world,

in which human passions, frailties, and propensities would find no

place, for the purified being would cast off, with his earthly body,

every carnal appetite. In fact, there is reason to believe that Buddha's

idea was, that after death each essence would become reincorporated with

the Great Spirit, of whom his soul had originally formed a part. It

is doubtful whether any of us could tell him a more perfect way to the

truth about the matter.

Yet, although neither Sakya nor Jesus gave any distinct account of

Heaven, it is certain that some of their followers have done so, and

it is remarkable to see how they have developed their ideas in the same

way. Compare, for example, the account given by John, Apocalypse chaps,

xxi., xxii., with the following account, which I copy from the

_Kusa Iatakya_, a Buddhistic legend of Ceylon, by T. Steele, p. 195.

"_Swarga_, or the heaven occupied by Indra, is described as the most

splendid the human mind can conceive (Percival's _Land of the Vedas_,

p. 160). Its palaces are composed of pure gold, resplendent diamonds,

jasper, sapphire, emerald, and other precious stones, whose brilliance

exceeds that of a thousand suns! Its streets are of crystal, fringed

with gold. The most beautiful and fragrant flowers adorn its forests,

whose trees diffuse the sweetest odours. Refreshing breezes, canopies

of fleecy clouds, thrones of the most dazzling brightness, birds of the

sweetest melodies, and songs of the most delightful harmony, are heard

in the enchanting pleasaunces, which are ever fragrant, ever robed in

summer green." The author whom I am quoting follows these remarks with

lines from Bernard de Morley's hymn, _Jerusalem the Golden_, clearly

showing how greatly he has been struck with the parallelism between the

Buddhist and Christian idea.

So far as I can find, there appears to be a certainty that Sakya Muni

did not teach to his followers the necessity for prayer. That Jesus did

so teach his disciples is the common belief of Christians. Yet, in the

parallel which we are thus drawing, we are perfectly justified in the

assertion that the son of Mary did not teach it from his own spontaneous

judgment, as John the Evangelist had done before him. Jesus certainly

did not originate prayer; indeed, it appears that the subject was forced

upon him, and that unless he had been urged to it, he would neither

have taught to others the necessity for prayer, nor have dictated the

supplication which still passes by his name. The following passage in

Luke xi. 1 seems to be decisive upon this point:--"And it came to pass,

as he was praying in a certain place, one of his disciples said unto

him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples." We

see, then, in the first place, that Jesus did not hold, as a fundamental

doctrine, that prayer was part of the duty of man, but that he took it

up as a necessary part of his Jewish education, and adopted it amongst

the subjects of his discourses, following the example of John. When

we try to penetrate into the mind of Jesus, as shown in "the Lord's

Prayer," and ascertain what he regarded as the fittest objects for

orison, we find that they are almost exclusively worldly. There is,

in the first place, an ascription of praise, or of reverence, then an

expression of a desire that the world should become good; that each man

should have a daily meal; that all offences should be condoned, and none

others committed; and that no harm should happen to any who used the

entreaty. Compared with the composition attributed to Solomon, and said

to have been uttered by him at the dedication of the temple, that which

is said to have been given by Jesus is meagre in the extreme. It

does not contain a single supplication for spiritual blessing, or for

salvation.

In the mind of a philosopher there is a doubt whether the general

heathen notion about prayer, or the apparent Buddhist prayerlessness, is

to be the most commended. Yet, ere we discuss the point, I must remark

that although Buddha does not appear to have taught the duty of prayer

to his disciples, they practise it nevertheless, and have long litanies,

chantings, and mechanical contrivances quite as efficacious, and not

more absurd, than the senseless repetitions which pass current amongst

us for supplications to the Most High. Now, if we require from ourselves

a distinct answer to the question, what is prayer? we can frame no

other than this--"it is the expression of a desire on our part that

the Creator will modify the laws of nature in our favour, in favour of

others, or in His own favour!" The idea that He will do this is plainly

builded upon the supposition that the Creator is like a man, and can be

induced to change His mind--that a creature thinks He is harsh or wrong,

and must be set right. When put thus clearly, the most obtuse can see

that prayer must necessarily be inefficacious, and must always proceed

from a selfishness so intense as to cloak the blasphemy from view.

If, instead of the above definition, we designate prayer as the uttering

of a fervent hope or desire for the benefit of an individual, we can

understand that it is quite as useful as any other ejaculation. Nothing

is more common than for an angry man to curse with all the energy of

exasperation; nothing more common than for a punished hound to yelp, and

for a child, when pained, to cry or roar. Still further I will say, from

personal experience, that the utterance of cries or groans enables an

individual to bear pain with less effect upon his nervous system than

would be felt if they were suppressed. Vociferations are as natural,

and, to some, as necessary as indulging the appetite for hunger. In like

manner, when the mind of man, especially of one only partially educated,

is dominated by intense fear, or by any form of anxiety or present

suffering, there is an instinctive propensity to seek aid from any

source, certain or uncertain, and the enunciation of hopes with an

audible voice is as much necessary to some as roaring is to a lion,

or bleating to a sheep. In this sense prayer is a comfort--it helps to

soothe feelings which, if pent up, would become, probably, too great for

endurance; and, knowing this, I would no more deride prayer than I would

laugh at a baby who cried for his absent mother.

I do not doubt, in the smallest possible degree, that prayer is a

comfort under certain circumstances. For example, my child may be

seriously ill, and I may do everything which my medical knowledge

enables me to do; but day by day drags wearily along, the fever seems to

intensify, and it is clear that there is a struggle between the living

force, and the agent which interferes with it. As hour after hour

passes, and anxiety deepens into fear, I am like a hardy fellow under

the lash: at first the stripes are borne with firmness, but as another

and another falls, not only does-the pain seem keener, but the mental

power which gives courage to bear the cutting agony diminishes, and the

pent-up feelings are vented in a roar of anguish, or a groan of despair.

Just so in the depth of my misery I may utter a prayer--a wish that in

one way or another my torn and lacerated feelings as a father might be

healed, and I may expect to receive solace thereby, no matter whether I

address Jehovah, Brahma, Ishtar, or the Virgin Mary. To hear the sound

of one's own voice, even the task of having to compose an intelligible

sentence, relieves, for a time, the poignancy of grief, and thus helps

one to bear it more patiently. That supplication thus brings relief I

do not for a moment doubt, but that it has any influence in the result I

deny.

Entertaining this view, I cannot regard prayer as a duty. It seems to me

to be a deliberate insult to the Almighty to be constantly urging Him to

alter the course of nature--or as we may otherwise put it "to change His

mind." To trust that prayer will obviate the necessity for action seems

to me the height of folly. If a man uttered the words "Give me this day

my daily bread" a hundred times over, and yet never sought to obtain it,

we should regard him as a lunatic. Equally silly should we be if, when

praying "Defend us in all assaults of our enemies," we did not prepare

for battle--or if, after ejaculating "defend us from all perils and

dangers of this night," we were to go to bed without seeing that our

premises were as secure as forethought could make them. However much

the theologian may believe in prayer, he cannot deny that it is less

efficacious than action. Now Buddha preached action whilst Christ

preached inaction, e.g., "take no thought for the morrow," &c. (Matt.

vi. 25-34), consequently we are more disposed to give the palm for

correct judgment to the Indian than to the Jew.

We must, in the next place, notice that many followers of the son of

Suddodana and the son of Mary have both acted, and do still act, upon

the belief, not only that prayer is a duty, but that every supplication

has positive power in the world above--consequently the more extended

the utterances the greater their influence. In point of fact, prayers

are spoken of as if they were equivalent to sacrifice, alms-giving, or

any other supposed virtue. For this there seems to be some foundation

in Acts x. 4, where Cornelius is told that his prayers and his alms have

come up before God; in James v. vv. 15, 16, we are told that "the prayer

of faith shall save the sick;" and that "the effectual, fervent prayer

of a righteous man availeth much." In Revelation v. 8, we are told that

the prayers of the saints are kept in golden vials in heaven, and used

as odours. In chapter viii. 3, we find they are offered with incense

upon the celestial altar, and that the two conjointly come before the

presence of God. This being so, there is a desire to accumulate prayers

on the creditor side of the heavenly books, just as in the days when

sacrifices were trusted in, there was an attempt to increase their

influence by augmenting the number of the creatures slaughtered. This

propensity to multiply orisons was distinctly rebuked by Jesus, who

ordered his followers not to make vain repetitions, for that the custom

was heathenish and to be avoided; a prohibition which had been made by

Siddartha to his followers some centuries before.

To me, I confess, that a life of perpetual prayer without action

indicates a belief that God can be "pestered" into doing something that

He did not intend; and that it is infinitely worse than a life of

action such as Sakya Muni inculcated. I can see no sense in praying for

something that I do not want, or that I cannot have without personal

exertion. It seems to me sheer nonsense for anyone to pray that he may

not grow older, and equally foolish to supplicate that he may live to be

a king. In like manner it would be silly in me to petition for power to

read Assyrian writing, and yet never study its characters. If, then,

by diligent and steady plodding a man can attain his desire, it appears

wholly useless in him to pray for it. We may say the same of one who

wishes to curb his passions--he can do so to a great extent by assiduous

self-control; but he cannot do so any more completely by a lifetime

passed in prayer. From this point of view, therefore, we must again side

with Siddartha rather than with Jesus.

It now remains to us to make some observations upon the developments of

Buddhism after the death of Sakya Muni, but we need not linger over them

long. His doctrine of self-denial, of patient suffering, of celibacy, of

fasting, of preaching and of meditation, gradually produced a system in

which asceticism, solitude, and penance were the prevalent duties.

Men and women desirous of being saintly and of attaining to eternal

happiness, selected some den, cave, or tree in which they could live

a life devoted to contemplation, or else they banded themselves into

companies where they could practise the Buddhistic virtues in each

other's presence, and one could encourage or correct another. Buddhist

monkeries and nunneries are almost as common, and certainly more ancient

than Roman Catholic monasteries, and they had very nearly the same

numerous accessories in worship, which we are familiar with in papal

countries. It is almost impossible to read the accounts given by the

Abbe Hue, and other Eastern travellers, of Buddhism in China, Thibet,

and Japan, without seeing the close resemblance of the Roman Church to

that founded by Siddartha. Indeed, the Abbe was sorely tried by what

he saw; and it is rumoured that he was punished by some ecclesiastical

authority, and his book suppressed. Pure Buddhism, moreover, was, like

pure Christianity, a very painful religion in practice, consequently

both the one and the other have degenerated, and have gradually become

altered much in the same way--both having amalgamated themselves with

other systems, and having gradually eliminated those proceedings which

are most repulsive to human nature. In both there is now, apparently,

the idea that the ascetic life may be lived, as it were, by deputy.

In Buddhism, certain men obtain their living by fasting, meditating,

macerating their flesh, and praying instead of other people, being, of

course, adequately paid for their endurance of privation. In a branch

of the Church founded by Jesus the same notion has obtained, and men who

have wallowed in filth, starved themselves, and spent their days in

a miserable round of penance and prayer, are dignified by the name of

Saints, and are supposed to be able to hand over--for a consideration

in money--the benefit of their sufferings to people who wish to live

comfortably as well as piously.

Without burdening this chapter with a dissertation upon the Romish

doctrine of works of supererogation, I will quote a few extracts from

the Roman Missal, in use in England, to show that works done by another

can be made available for the use of any particular individual. On

January 16, the day of Saint Marcellus, the people are told to pray

"that we may be aided by the merits of blessed Marcellus, Thy martyr and

bishop, in whose sufferings we rejoice." On January 29, the day of

Saint Francis of Sales, we find in the prayer to be used by the people,

"mercifully grant that we may by the aid of his merits, attain unto the

joys of life everlasting." Again, on February 8, the day of Saint John

of Matha, we find in the prescribed prayer, "mercifully grant that by his

merits pleading for us, we may be," &c.--and, lastly, we notice on March

19, on Saint Joseph's day, "vouchsafe, O Lord, that we may be helped by

the merits of Thy most holy mother's spouse," &c. The practice of the

Buddhists is then essentially followed by the Roman Christians.

Pure Buddhism was wholly free from the sexual element so common in other

religions of antiquity, and so was the religion of Jesus. Yet in Thibet

the first became intermingled therewith and Vajrasatta or Dorjesempa the

Thibetan "God above all," is represented in _Schlayintweit's Atlas

of Plates_ as a male conjoined with a female; but so ingenious is

the contrivance that the many might see the drawings without noticing

anything particular, for the trinity and the unity are both hidden from

view; and in Europe the latter has introduced St. Foutin and St. Cosmo

into her calendar, and has founded her worship of a trinity and a virgin

upon the pagan reverence given to the creative organs in both sexes.

Veneration for a triune God and his female consort is no more a portion

of the teaching of the son of Mary than it was the doctrine of the child

of Maya Devi, Buddha's mother.

It will probably be quite as difficult for the reader of the preceding

pages, as it has been for the writer of them, to avoid putting the

question to himself, "Was Jesus of Nazareth a Buddhist disciple?" In

answer to this question I reply that we have no direct proof either on

one side or the other, but there is much circumstantial evidence to show

that he was. We may marshal it thus:--

1. There is very strong reason for belief that the intercourse

between the inhabitants of India and the successors of Alexander was

considerable. For example, we find before the time of the Maccabees,

b.c. 280, or perhaps somewhat later, that Antiochus, the king of Syria,

had 120 elephants--things which had never before been seen in Syria,

Palestine, or Egypt, and which took their local name from the Phoenician

_aleph_, a bull--the Jews supposing that they were a new kind of cattle.

From the accounts given us we infer that these were Indian, and were

trained either by Hindoo mahouts or by Greeks taught in Hindustan.

Animals of this size may have come by land or by water. In either

case we have evidence of traffic. We have already seen that the great

missionary effort of Buddhism took place in the time of Asoka about

B.C. 307, and it is not likely that the West would be neglected when the

Eastern countries received such attention as they did. The Greeks had by

this time found their way by sea to India, and thus it is certain that

the route was known. There is then presumptive evidence that Buddhism

was taught amongst the people frequenting the kingdom of Antiochus the

Second, B.C. 261. At this period and subsequently, this king and his

subjects came much into contact with the Jews, so that it is equally

easy to believe that the Hebrews were found out by the Hindoo

missionaries as that the Alexandrian Greeks were.

2. I have been unable to find in the Jewish law, in Grecian story, in

the accounts of old Babylonians, Carthaginians, Romans, Egyptians, or

in any other history except that of India, testimony which shows that

asceticism was an essential part of religion. It is true that we do find

fasting to be occasionally mentioned in the Old Testament as a sign of

grief or of abasement,* but never as a means of gaining salvation in a

future life--whose very existence was unknown to Moses and the Jews. The

observation of a period of hunger formed no part of the Mosaic law. On

the contrary, ancient European religions, and those of Egypt and Western

Asia were associated with feasting and jollification (see Deut. xiv.

26.) The Jews were encouraged to indulge in a plurality of wives; but

they were nowhere directed or recommended to live on alms. Again,

we find nowhere any orders to the priests or Levites to go about the

country expounding or teaching the law. Consequently, when we notice

the rise of asceticism, preaching, and celibacy, between the time of

Antiochus and that of Jesus, we are justified in the belief that they

were introduced from without, and by those of the only religion which

inculcated them as articles of faith and practice.

* In Lev. xvi. 30; xxiii. 27, 28; and Numb. xxix. 7, there

are directions given to the Jews, that on a certain day they

are "to afflict their souls," and a threat is added, that

"whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that

self same day, he shall be cut off from amongst his people."

There is no specific direction as to the method of

afflicting the soul; but it is to be associated with

absolute laziness, for whatever soul doeth any work on that

day shall be destroyed (Lev. xxiii. 28-31). The law is

evidently a very modern one, as we do not find it referred

to in the Ancient Jewish records, and the idea of atonement

was introduced by the Talmudic Pharisees.

3. The Hebrews always showed during the Old Testament times a great

aptitude to adopt the faith of outsiders--and as the Jewish people were

in great abasement and misery at the period when it is probable that the

Buddhist missionaries came into Syria, they would be prepared for the

doctrine that they were suffering for bygone sins. The idea that men

in the present were sometimes punished for sins done in the past was a

Hebrew as well as a Hindoo idea, else Saul's sons would not have

been hanged for their father's misdeeds, or the Amalekites have been

slaughtered by Samuel, because their forefathers had some centuries

before fought with Israel and been conquered by Moses and Joshua.

4. That after the Persian reign it is certain, that three Jewish sects

existed,--the Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Sadducees--the last alone

being purely Mosaic, and the two first being very like the Buddhists.

To strengthen the links of evidence, we may now say a few words about

the remarkable sect of the Essenes, premising our belief that it was

founded by missionaries of the faith of Sakya Muni, whose doctrines and

practice became, subsequently, modified by Mosaism, just as Christianity

was considerably remoulded by Talmudism, or, to use an example nearer

our own times, as the Christianity preached by European missionaries to

the New Zealanders has been altered by the natives, in accordance with

their ancient ideas. To them the Old Testament is the Bible, the New

Testament is of no value.

The Essenes are described by the Rev. Dr Ginsburg, whose authority I

follow (_The Essenes_. Longmans, London, 1864), as a Jewish sect of

singular piety. They did not sacrifice animals, but endeavoured to make

their own minds holy--fit for an acceptable offering to Jehovah. They

provided themselves with just enough for the necessities of life, and

held such goods as they possessed, e.g., clothes and cloaks, in common.

They only allowed themselves to converse on such parts of philosophy

as concern God and man. They abhorred slavery, but each served his

neighbour. They respected the Sabbath. Their fundamental laws were, to

love God, to love virtue, and to love mankind. They affected to despise

money, fame, pleasures, professed the most strict chastity, or, rather,

continence, and they practised endurance as a duty. They also cultivated

simplicity, cheerfulness, modesty, and order. They lived together in

the same houses and villages, and sustained the poor, the sick, and the

aged. When they earned wages the money was paid to a common stock. They

did not marry, or have children; but if any of their body chose to wed,

there was nothing in the regulations to prevent their doing so, only

they then had to enter another class of the brotherhood. When possible,

they worked all day. They were highly respected by those who knew them,

and were frequently receiving additions to their number. They seem to

have resembled, in their habits and customs, a fraternity of monks of

a working, rather than a mendicant, order. Pleasure they regarded as

an evil, having a tendency to enchain man to earthly enjoyments, a

peculiarly Buddhist tenet. Still further, they considered the use of

ointment as defiling, which was certainly not a Hebraic doctrine; but

they dressed decently. They prayed devoutly before sunrise; but until

the orb had risen they never spoke of worldly matters. They gave thanks,

and prayed before and after eating; and ere they entered the refectory

bathed in pure water. The food provided was just sufficient to keep

them alive. When a person wished to enter the community, he underwent

a period of trial, and, if approved, he proceeded to take an oath--"to

fear God; to be just towards all men; never to wrong anyone; to detest

the wicked, and love the righteous; to keep faith with all men; not to

be proud; not to try and outshine his neighbours in any matter; to love

truth, and to try and reclaim all liars; never to steal or to cajole;

never to conceal anything from the brotherhood, and to be reticent with

outsiders." The Essenes reverenced Moses, and so great was their respect

for the Sabbath, that they would not ease nature on that day. They bore

all tortures with perfect equanimity, and fully believed in a future

state of existence, in which the soul, liberated from the body,

rejoices, and mounts upwards to a paradise, where there are no storms,

no cold, and no intense heat, and where all are constantly refreshed by

gentle ocean breezes. Josephus compares this sect with the Pythagoreans;

and I think this fact is worth noticing, for there was, in old times,

a strong opinion that the founder of that sect brought his peculiar

opinions from Hindostan. Pliny, in writing of the Essenes, remarks that

their usages differ from those of all other nations--which we may

take as a demonstration that they did not copy their constitution from

Greeks, Romans, or Jews. Respecting the origin of this sect nothing

certain is known, beyond that they were in existence at the time of the

Maccabees. Critics decline to see in them any direct relations to the

Pythagoreans, and some imagine that the order sprung naturally out of a

spiritual reading of the Mosaic law, modified, probably, by Persian or

Chaldee notions.

It seems to me, however, that the tenets and practice of the Essenes

indicate rather a Buddhist than a Mosaic origin, for celibacy is

everywhere in the Old Testament spoken of as a misfortune, and abundance

of wives as a proof of God's favour; and I imagine that some devout

Indian missionary persuaded many pious Jews to listen to his doctrine,

but that he was unable to convert them sufficiently to induce them

to give up the law of Moses for that of Siddartha. I conceive still

further, that John the Evangelist, and, subsequently, Jesus of Nazareth,

were perfectly cognizant of the doctrines of the Essenes, if they were

not members of the sect, and that there is nothing incredible in

the idea that both these preachers were instructed by some Buddhist

missionary, although neither was ever induced to give up his belief

in the absolute truth of those Jewish writings, which both had been

accustomed to regard as absolutely true and sacred.

We readily allow that our theory may be called a wild one, but we assert

that, in reality, it is far otherwise. Of course a critic may say that

John, and his follower, Jesus, were just as likely to have struck out a

new theory of salvation as Sakya Muni was; or, if exceedingly orthodox,

he may assume that the preaching of Jesus was the pure result of

inspiration, not such as was given to the prophets by Jehovah, but

emanating from himself as a source of absolute truth. But we demur to

both assertions. The profound reverence that Mary's son showed, in the

early part of his career, for the law and for the prophets, would have

prevented his doing anything to upset the former in so marked a manner

as he did, in respect to the Sabbath day and other matters (see Matthew

v. 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 43, 44), unless there had been some strong

influence, from without, brought to bear upon his mind, and to cast it

in a different mould to that of Pharisee or Sadducee. Nor can we

believe Jesus to have been inspired, unless we extend the same belief to

Buddha's teaching, and believe that he also was a fountain of light and

righteousness, which we certainly are not disposed to do.

Our hypothesis respecting a connection between the teaching of the

Indian and the Hebrew, appears to be strengthened when we contemplate

the distinction between the doctrines of the Jewish and the Hindoo

sage. We have seen how they agree as regards the morality which they

inculcate, the celibacy and poverty that they enjoin, the firm belief

in preexistent, or original, sin, and in a future state of rewards or

punishments. They differ in the veneration paid to antecedent authority.

Sakya Muni believed in his own inspiration, and rejected the writings

which were reverenced by his parents and Mends. Jesus seems to have

believed that he was himself supplemental to Moses and the prophets.

He did not want to destroy or to supersede them absolutely, as we learn

from Matthew v. 17, and xxiii. 23. He had, apparently, an unbounded

confidence in their truth, and, with an assurance in their sanctity, he

spoke of their writings as the very words of God, and we shall see

that the main, if not the only, points in which Jesus diverges from

the Hindoo prophet were the products of the Hebrew's full belief in the

sacred truth of the Jewish Scriptures.

The son of Mary taught, as the most important part of his doctrine, that

the world would shortly come to an end, and that he was sent to

show mankind, or, rather, the Jews, how to escape from the terrible

catastrophe. I do not think it possible for anyone to read the words

attributed to Jesus, and not recognize that this was the turning point

upon which everything in his preaching hinged. Sakya Muni spoke of the

future misery of all those who did not adopt his method of salvation;

Jesus treated of the impending destruction of the whole world, of an

immediate judgment of mankind, and of the certain punishment of the

majority. That we are not uttering vague assertions we may show by

reference to Matt. xxiv. 3, wherein we find certain disciples asking,

"What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

After a long preamble, telling of troubles and misery, we have the reply

of Jesus in vv. 29 et seq.:--"Immediately after the tribulation of those

days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens

shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in

heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall

see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great

glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and

they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end

of heaven to another.... Verily I say unto you, This generation shall

not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." This is substantially,

and almost literally, repeated in Mark xiii. 26-30, and in Luke xxi. 32.*

* I have heard the words of this preceding quotation handled

by a great variety of divines, asserting themselves to be

orthodox, and who hold the position of Christian ministers.

All, without exception, profess to regard the expressions

about the sun being darkened and the stars falling, as

figurative or metaphorical, and each, according to his

prevalent ideas, or to the pet theory of the day, explain

the imagery as having a reference to some emperor, king,

queen, general of armies, and I know not what besides. But,

to anyone who examines the phraseology closely, it will be

seen that the words are to be taken in their most literal

sense. Jesus had, as we have shown, a firm belief in the

immediate destruction of the world, and upon that theme he

descants and dilates. Taking the Mosaic account of creation

as strictly true to the letter, Jesus regarded the sun,

moon, and stars as apanages of our earth, and very naturally

drew the inference, that when the world was burned up, there

would be no necessity for the celestial luminaries--the sun

would cease to shine, the moon would be dark, and the stars

fall from the sky under the influence of the same power that

produced the mundane destruction. These defunct bodies would

be replaced by a vast apparition, whose glory would exceed

that of the ancient rulers of the day and night, and he who

now stood on earth as a man of sorrows and acquainted with

grief would be seen and recognized as the arbiter of the

destinies of every man. The passages referred to in the text

bear no other meaning than the one here assigned to them;

nor would anyone, however wild "a divine" he might be, ever

see, or endeavour to discover, in the words referred to, a

hidden meaning, unless the solemn assertion of Jesus of his

immediate advent in the clouds of heaven had been such a

signal failure as time has proved it to be. We have always

protested against those theologians who pronounce passages

in the Bible to be metaphorical or literal as it suits the

event, and we do so now. Why such men should insist upon it

that everything in the Koran and Buddhistic books must be

taken au pied de la lettre and that everything in the Bible

may be allegorised, is a matter beyond my comprehension.

They surely forget the dictum--"with what measure ye mete it

shall be measured to you again" (Matt, vii. 2).

In Matthew x. we find Jesus sending out his disciples as missionaries,

saying to them (v. 7), "as ye go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven

is at hand," a doctrine previously proclaimed by John (Matt iii. 2), and

based upon some words of Isaiah and the more precise presages in Daniel

See also Matt iv. 14-17; Luke ix. 2, and x. 9. We find a yet more

important reference in Matt. xi. 14, in which Jesus is reported to have

said, when speaking of John, "If ye will receive it, this is Elias,

which was for to come." The observation here made plainly refers to

an utterance of the Jewish Malachi, who, in his last two chapters,

foreshadows the advent of a messenger, who should immediately precede

the coming of the Lord to judge the world. There is yet another passage,

of almost equal force, in Matt. xvi. 27, 28--"For the Son of man shall

come in the glory of the Father with his angels, and then shall he

reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, there be

some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son

of man coming in his kingdom." In Matt. xix. 28 we read, "Jesus said

unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the

regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory,

ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of

Israel," &c. Again, we see in Matt, xxv., after a parable intended

to show the possibility of a sudden occurrence, the words, "Watch,

therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of

man cometh." That this belief was due to the Jewish writings we judge

from the frequent references made to them; and we may especially notice

one which is attributed to Jesus after his resurrection, viz., "all

things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and

in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." So firmly was the

belief of an immediate judgment impressed upon the minds of Christians,

that we find Paul affirming respecting it (1 Cor. xv.), "We shall not

all sleep, but we shall all be changed... at the last trump" (vv. 31,

52). This is more decidedly enunciated in 1 Thess. iv. 15-17--"For this

we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive, and

remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them that are

asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,

with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead

in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be

caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air,

and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Compare with this 2 Peter iii.

1-4, in which there is a repetition of the same leading idea, and with

Acts i. 11, and ii. 16-36.

From these passages, it is unquestionable that Jesus preached that a

destruction of the whole creation was imminent, and we, who have the

light of history to guide us, can readily understand the powerful

influence of the doctrine. We have read of panics, even in London, where

some enthusiast has propounded the statement, that the world was to

be destroyed upon a certain day, and can well believe, how a similar

assertion would frighten ignorant, and, probably, learned Hebrew men.

But, as time advanced, and generation after generation passed away, the

original doctrine required to be modified. Yet it has never been quite

given up, and to this day, a part of the system of Christianity is, to

put faith in a second coming of Jesus, to judge the world. The

"second coming" here referred to, frequently passes by the name of the

Millennium, and earnest pietists believe that the son of Mary will come

in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, to punish all who

do not believe in him; and to elevate the existing, and all other past

saints, to be kings and priests in a new Jerusalem, wherein all will

enjoy perfect happiness for a thousand years.

There is another point in connection between Buddha and Jesus, to which

the biblical student should not fail to pay attention. The followers

of the former had a perfect belief that each of them had lived in a

previous state of existence. Upon this point not a doubt disturbed

them. The disciples of the latter, however, had no such ideas, nor when

propounded to them, did they apparently understand it. As far as we can

judge from the first three Gospels, Jesus did not assert that he had

ever existed prior to the time of his birth at Bethlehem. But in the

fourth Gospel, written as almost every scholar believes, about A.D.

150, a claim is repeatedly made by Jesus, of having lived for an untold

period, in the spirit world in company with the Father.

We will not enter here upon the grossness of thought, which is mingled

with the better ideas of the writer of John's Gospel--a notion that

involves the necessity for a celestial spouse of God; for if the son

existed--"begotten by the father before all worlds," it could only be by

some union--for the word "son" implies the necessity of a father and a

mother--more especially when it is declared, that he was "begotten."

Our chief business, however, is not with this point, but with the

preexistence of Jesus.

The assertions by which the claim to a preexistence is recognized, may

be found in the well known words in the beginning of John, also in the

10th verse--"The world was made by him." In these parts, the evangelist

declares that Jesus was coeval with his father, which no son can be. In

chap. iii. 13, we find, "no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he

that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven,"--a

strange text indeed, which totally ignores the ascension of Enoch and

Elijah--or which demonstrates that they lived in heaven before they were

born on earth, and which still further makes Jesus say, that he was in

heaven at the time when he was talking to Nicodemus! In chap, vi. 62,

there is a similar idea, "and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up

where he was before." In chap. viii. 14 to 23, 38, and 56, a similar

idea is propounded; and in v. 58, Jesus is made to assert positively,

"before Abraham was, I am." In chap, xvi. 28, again, we read, "I came

forth from the Father," and in chap. xvii. 5, we see, "and now, O

Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had

with thee before the world was."

We do not believe that the son of Mary made these assertions himself,

nor did the son of Maya. But Sakya Muni had not long been dead, before

his disciples promulgated the doctrine that he was, in reality, a part

of the Supreme, who had existed for everlasting, and had been manifested

in the flesh to become a teacher; what his followers did for Buddha, it

was natural that others should do for Christ. It may be that the latter

were stimulated to do so by noticing the former, but it is quite as

probable that the idea of glorification came spontaneously to both sets

of men. Whichever view of the case we may take, one thing is certain,

viz., that both Buddhists and Christians, have, from the death of their

respective masters, done everything in their power, century by century,

to augment the claims of each, until indeed, individuals are found, who

regard Sakya Muni as the Supreme, and Jesus the All in All. The learned

historian may trace in the East, the rise of Buddha's influence in some

spots, and its decadence in others; and, when he looks nearer home,

he may see the gradual fall of Jesus, and the rise of Mary amongst the

Papists, whilst amongst the Protestants, the son has been raised even

above the Father. Not many months have passed, since a clever preacher

and thoughtful man, told me that he was determined to see nothing in the

world but Christ--for whatever was done, he felt a certain confidence

that it was done by him, and for his glory.

We see then, that both Buddhism and Christianity have been founded

on the assertion that mankind suffers pain, misery, and death, in

consequence of antecedent criminality before "The Great Master"--that

men will be punished after death for certain sins committed in this

life; and that they can attain to salvation by adopting the precepts

and practice laid down by Buddha and by Christ. Those who preach these

doctrines are sure of the facts that misery exists, and that man desires

to escape it. According, then, to the painting of the one, and the

earnest promise of the other, all teachers of the two sects have a

strong hold upon the imagination of their followers. I assert, without

fear of contradiction from any thoughtful man, that the main

inducements held out by our divines to persuade their hearers to embrace

Christianity, are an awful painting of the horrors of hell, and

an assurance not only of escaping it, but of gaining a place quite

different to the Devil's kingdom, provided only that the plan adopted

by the theologian is followed to the letter. Neither Buddhists nor

Christians seem ever to have studied the laws of nature, or the works of

the Supreme, with any largeness of mind or understanding. Had they done

so, they would alter their views respecting sin entirely, and they would

attribute the miseries of life to their proper cause.

It will be interesting to the reader, if we now endeavour to remove from

the two religious systems, of which we treat, all those parts, which are

to my mind, clearly imaginary; and examine what is left behind. There

is nothing beyond a skeleton of morality, pure and simple. But even the

morality is not based upon common sense. It is tainted by what every

thinker must regard as absurdities. For example, when Siddartha

instructed his disciples to become ascetics, and live upon alms, he did

recognize the fact, that, if all men adopted his law, they must starve;

for not one would have anything to give. In like manner, when Jesus

of Nazareth sent off his disciples without any provision for their

subsistence; and when he preached, "take no thought for the morrow,"

he did not appear to take in the idea, that if all the world became

converted to his doctrine, all would suffer, and die of hunger. It is,

therefore, quite as necessary for a modern philosopher, to correct some

of the better parts of the doctrines of the sons of Maya Devi, and

Mary, as it is to emendate their worst features. If such an one were

to pretend--or to believe, that he was "inspired" to rectify the

dispensation of Siddartha and Jesus, as the latter thought himself

commissioned to improve upon, or to fulfil the law of Moses--it is

probable that he would be regarded as a prophet; but if he should only

try to coax men to think, rather than drive them to believe, he would be

unheeded by the majority. Nor after all, does it much signify. Sheep are

tolerably comfortable whoever the shepherd may be, and if there should

be a fight between rivals for the ownership of a flock, the quadrupeds

do not care, so long as they are not trained to fight, to fast, or to

live on an animal diet.

When any one speaks of the morality, pure and simple, inculcated by

Sakya Muni and Jesus, it is a fair question to ask whether asceticism

is included therein. In other words, is there anything of the nature of

absolute goodness in the attempt to make oneself miserable? Or, to vary

the question still further--granting, for the sake of argument, that it

is intrinsically right in the sight of God to abstain from such of our

propensities as induce us to marry, to eat, drink, and sleep heartily,

to fight a duel with a rival, to steal, to lie, to covet, and the

like,--granting, too, that every such abstinence is entered as "an

asset" on the creditor side of the books of Heaven--is it an equally

available item to abstain from brotherly love and comfort generally?

The logician sees clearly that there is no distinction in kind between

controlling one set of animal passions and another, and is forced to

allow that if it be a commendable thing to avoid indulging in one carnal

appetite, it is still more commendable to endeavour to counteract them

all Consequently, by granting the premisses, we find ourselves landed in

a difficulty. If universal asceticism were to prevail, it is clear that

man would be opposing himself to the manifest designs of the Creator,

as shown in the world at large; and we cannot conceive, that direct

disobedience to instincts, implanted in us by our Maker, can be anything

but an item on the debtor side in the books, which Jewish writers

have said that He keeps. Thus we are driven to investigate the very

assertions which in the commencement of our inquiry we took for granted,

and to ask ourselves, is there really any intrinsic value in morality

in the sight of God? Can a most virtuous life command for the individual

who has practised it an eternity of bliss? Jesus answers this tolerably

distinctly in the words reported in Luke xvii. 10, "When ye shall have

done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable

servants: we have done that which it was our duty to do." But we doubt

whether this dictum enunciates sufficiently clearly the abstract value

of morality. To ascertain this we must endeavour to read the book of

nature on other pages than those which treat of man.

There can be no doubt in the mind of a thoughtful observer that man and

the lower animals have much in common--that; all have been framed with a

purpose, and are ruled by natural laws. Some creatures excel in cunning,

some in reason, some in activity, some in sloth--all have certain

proclivities. In some, instinct leads them to eat grass, boughs,

leaves, and fruits; in others, it teaches them to seek insects or

other creatures for their food. All have, more or less, periodically a

propensity to propagate;--which is attended in some by a pairing off

of male and female, who consort for the purpose of having offspring and

assisting each other in rearing them. In others, either where there

is naturally an equality of the sexes or a preponderance of males, the

latter instinctively fight with each other for a single mate, or for a

number of females. Again, in the case of animals actuated by hunger, or

by other motives, there are frequent battles, and the conquered is not

only killed, but eaten. Or where two or more sets of animals are living,

the one on land, the other in the air, we may find that one will rob the

other. Nothing, for example, is much more common than for rats and crows

to steal eggs, or for tigers to commit murder. Nature, then, being such

as we find it, we cannot assert--reasonably--that a young stag when he

covets a neighbour's wife and fights her present consort, for property

in her, commits a crime against the Almighty,--nor can we say that a fox

which steals a goose will be sent to hell. On the other hand, we should

never think of commending a hungry lion for abstaining from killing a

harmless lamb, nor of declaring that he has done a good action in the

sight of heaven. In like manner, a writer in proverbs tells us that

"men do not despise a thief if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is

hungry,"--and the general consent of mankind refuses to see the crime of

murder in the slaughter of one, out of a miserable boat's crew, who

is killed and eaten that the survivors may escape death from hunger.

Society, too, is somewhat lenient when two men fight for the love

of such a woman as Helen. But we readily recognise the fact that a

community, or even a family, would be weakened and disorganized if theft

was encouraged, and every pretty female was the cause of close fighting

between man and man. Hence we see that, in reality, that which is called

"the moral law," is a code which is intended to influence social life in

this world, and not the position of human beings in the next.

However much we might desire to think the contrary, we are driven to the

belief that the moral precepts inculcated on the Jews, the Buddhists,

and the Christians, had a human, and, we may add, a political origin.

Taking the Bible even as being what many believe it to be--the inspired

word of God--we must nevertheless allow that such a code as that book

contains in Exodus and elsewhere, existed in Egypt long before the

departure of the Jews from that country. Had not murder been prohibited

on the Nile bank, Moses would not have run away to escape the penalty

for homicide. Because the Mizraim punished killing, were they taught of

God?

The natural answer to this query when it is addressed to a bibliolater

is that the Egyptians were taught by God to punish murder with death

through the intervention of their forefather, Ham, who heard the command

given by God to Noah, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his

blood be shed," Gen. ix. 6. But if the Egyptians thus knew the law, so

the descendants of Shem must have learned it also; and if so, what need

was there to repeat it amongst the thunders of Sinai. It is plain from

the romantic legend of Joseph and Potiphar's wife: first, that the

Hebrew slave feared to commit adultery, as it was a great wickedness

and a sin against God, Gen. xxxix. 9; and, secondly, that the Egyptian

considered it a crime in anyone to violate the wife of another. But

neither Joseph nor Potiphar could by any possibility have heard of the

laws enunciated on Sinai. So, if we could inquire farther, we should

most assuredly learn that the Mizraim venerated their parents, punished

theft, and took means to prevent and to punish perjury. If, then,

the Egyptians had, long before they ever heard of a Jew, the same

commandments amongst them which were subsequently enunciated in the

wilderness, we can only come to the conclusion that the Hebrew writer

who told the story of Sinai, gave the god whom he described, a great

deal of unnecessary work. Can we for a moment suppose that the Jews when

in Egypt had their wives in common?--and if each man had his mate, and

each woman her husband, it is almost self-evident that adultery would

not be tolerated amongst them. As there were therefore distinct moral

laws long before the Exodus, the decalogue was entirely superfluous.

The morality inculcated by teachers is nothing more than instructions

for mankind how to attain the greatest harmony amongst their fellows.

It is very natural for a thoughtless man to assert that one who wilfully

disturbs the general comfort of the human family during his life-time,

shall be tormented eternally after his death; and, on the other hand,

to proclaim that he who does everything in his power to increase the

happiness of his fellow-men shall be rewarded in a heaven above, with

everlasting music, or other delights; yet we may fairly doubt the

averments, for both are founded entirely upon human ideas of right and

wrong, justice and injustice. The prevalent idea is, that everything

which to some man seems to be wrong on earth, will be righted in another

sphere--Even Jesus appears to have adopted this view, for he talks (Luke

xvi) of a Dives and Lazarus--the one, a rich man who fared sumptuously

every day, and the other a beggar, full of sores, who longed for the

crumbs from wealth's table. After the deaths of these two people, we

are told that the rich man went to Hell, and the poor one to Heaven,

not--apparently--because one was bad and the other good; but simply

because misery in the present is sure to be changed into luxury for the

future, and _vice versa_. We see this doctrine distinctly enunciated by

the imaginary Abraham, in whose bosom Lazarus lay, for he remarks (Luke

xvi. 25), "Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good

things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and

thou art tormented." We nowhere find that his position was a reward to

the beggar for virtue or morality. There is also a current doctrine that

he whom we call a vile man--one who indulges his brutal desires, shall

in another world become more brutalized--meeting with, and being beaten

by, powers whose mischievous propensities are superior to his own;

whilst, on the other hand, he whom we call a saint, one who endeavours

to subdue the affections of the flesh in this world, shall be able to

indulge in any desire that he may have, in the next, unlimitedly. In

short, each individual makes a Heaven for himself, and a Hell for his

neighbours. I have heard, in days gone by, a Southern States lady say

she would not go to heaven, willingly, if she knew that she should meet

negroes there on terms of equality.

In rejoinder to these considerations, the question is put, "Could the

world be habitable by men, without the existence amongst them of a

belief in a future state, in which rewards and punishments shall be

meted out for supposed misdeeds committed in the present?" It is well

for us to look the matter in the face boldly, and ask ourselves whether

fierce tigers, angry bulls, combative stags, kindred devouring rats,

offspring eating alligators, infanticidal birds and pigs have succeeded

in extirpating their race? There are herds, without number, of

graminivorous animals in Africa, and thousands of carnivorous creatures

who could not exist without murdering some of the former; yet the

slaughter committed by scores of lions does not annihilate antelopes. In

like manner there are many folks who have lived in sundry islands of

the Pacific without an idea, so far as we can learn, of an eternity,

who sometimes spend their leisure time in fighting with and eating each

other, and occasionally unite to kill a shark: each individual lives and

dies like any other animal, but the race remains. Even the systematic

"hellishness" of persecution indulged in by the followers of Jesus in

the middle ages did not extirpate the Jews; and if organized murders,

such as were, in days gone by, sanctioned by individuals wielding the

sceptre of powerful governments, could not cut off from existence a

comparatively feeble race, surely we may conclude that a nation can

continue populous even if any individual, in a fit of passion, should

rise against his fellow and smite him to the dust. But we need not go to

New Zealand, China, and Japan to prove that men can live in a community

without an idea of eternity, for we have only to refer to the Jews, the

so-called people of God. To them no knowledge of eternal life was given,

consequently we infer that Jehovah knew that they would get along in the

world very well without it. What Elohim thought was unnecessary, it is

not for man to propound as important.

When the modern Christian philosopher--and there really are a few who

deserve the term--finds that the morality of Jesus did not materially

differ from that of Sakya Muni, he endeavours to show that the doctrine

of "faith in the son of God" is of more value than simple propriety,

and that even the most virtuous life will not enable a man to attain to

paradise unless he holds the Catholic faith. When the "Catholic faith,"

as it is termed, is placed in such a position, we are bound to examine

its pretensions, and inquire in what way doctrines or dogmas are better

than morality, and whether they are in any way superior to what the

orthodox call "irreligion." To my mind the best method of solving

the question is an appeal to history. If, as it is contended by the

orthodox, the teaching of Christianity is far above that of any other

religion, then it must follow that all those who believe in it, or even

profess it, must be paragons amongst men as citizens and rulers. To

what extent many theologians believe in this axiom may be judged by the

frequency with which we hear, from the pulpit, an old anecdote to

the effect, that the expression, "see how these Christians love one

another," was, in olden time, nearly equal to the most powerful sermon

in favour of the religion of Jesus. Without pointing a sneer, by

requesting my readers to substitute the word Buddhists for Christians,

let me lay the very heavy charge against the leaders of the faith, that

the words in question are the heaviest condemnation possible against the

supposed value of the doctrines of the son of Mary, as formerly and at

present expounded. "See how these Christians love!" Aye, see how they

love--read their own histories of the past, and their newspapers in

the present; attend their meetings; listen to their speeches; and

even follow them into private life. In every position "see how these

Christians love one another" is the damning sentence which tells of the

real value of the doctrine attributed to the son of Mary. Whilst I

write (Jan. 7, 1870), a council, called OEcumenical, consisting of Roman

Catholic Christian bishops, summoned to the capital of ancient Italy

from all parts of the world, is sitting, and one of the subjects of its

deliberation is, whether a certain individual, elected by men to assume

the direction of a community of men holding a particular faith in

common, shall be regarded, by those who join such branch of the church,

as absolutely infallible in every statement of opinion which he makes as

a high priest. Men positively have met to clothe, and now have invested,

a man with an attribute of God, and millions of Christians will, by

those men, be compelled to consider themselves bound by the decision!

"See how these Christians love!" they are persecuted by the world at

first, then they persecute their oppressors, and massacre each other;

educated by Jesus, they gradually encourage ignorance until they reach

a superstition as crass as the darkness of a dense fog in a moonless

night. They oppose the advancement of knowledge and science, then, by

degrees, endeavour to exalt each other, until, by common consent, they

deify the chieftain of the order. There is not a known crime of which

the leaders of the Christian church, as it is called, have not been

guilty, both as men and ecclesiastical rulers. "See how these Christians

love!" Yet these very men endeavour to deride, and affect to despise,

those whom they call the godless. The latter, taking their stand upon

morality and common sense, aver that all affairs between man and his

maker ought to be referred to the arbitrement of Heaven. The Christian

hierarchs, on the contrary, declare that they are the earthly agents of

heaven, and that they, and the secular arm--a very mundane court--can

act just as well, perhaps better, than the Supreme Judge. We will

not say whether it was a pleasant pastime for the Spanish, and other

Inquisitors, to torture individuals who were thought to be inimical to

the true faith, inasmuch as we do not know their inmost mind; but

we asseverate that all Europe, except those who had the power of

persecution, and used it, rejoiced greatly when the enthusiastic armies,

of what was designated atheistic France, annihilated the so-called Holy

Inquisition.

I speak with sober earnestness when I say, that after forty years'

experience amongst those who profess Christianity, and those who

proclaim, more or less quietly, their disagreement with it, I have

noticed more sterling virtue and morality amongst the last than the

first. Though I thus express myself, I must also acknowledge my belief

in the dictum, "that many men are better than their creeds would

make them," and, consequently, that all men are not to be taken as

characteristic of their system of belief. I know, personally, many

pious, sterling, good Christian people, whom I honour, admire, and,

perhaps, would be glad to emulate or to equal; but they deserve the

eulogy thus passed on them in consequence of their good sense having

ignored the doctrine of faith to a great degree, and having cultivated

the practice of good works. They have picked out the best bits of the

Bible, and rejected the worst. In my judgment the most praiseworthy

Christians whom I know are modified Buddhists, though, probably, not one

of them ever heard of Siddartha. I would gladly trace their character,

but I forbear, as I think they would be horrified at the thought of

my comparing them with those whom they have been taught to regard as

followers of a false prophet, or something worse. Let it suffice to say

that I honour consistent reasonable Christians everywhere, and that

whatever remarks I make which seem to be opposed to this, are directed

against those whose doctrines, morality, and conduct, ostensibly built

upon the Bible, are irrational and bad.

Since the preceding remarks were written, there have appeared three very

remarkable works upon Buddhism in addition to those which I have already

noticed--and they have the advantage for general readers, of being

clothed in an English dress. The first which I will notice, is _Travels

of Fah-Hian and Sung-Yun: Buddhist Pilgrims from China to India_ (408

A.D., and 518 a.d.; London, Truebner, 1869, small 8vo. pp. 208.) This

work is remarkable as illustrating the fact, that there has been the

idea, even in China, of sending men, or of devout persons spontaneously

going, to distant places, to endeavour to seek for more perfect

religious knowledge, than they believe themselves and their teachers to

possess where they are. With such an example before us, we can give

more easy credence to the stories told of Pythagoras, of Solon, and

Herodotus; how they visited distant countries to learn the way of God

and man more perfectly. Nor must we pass by the proof, which the journey

of the Chinese travellers affords, that, what may be called missionary

zeal is not an apanage of Christianity alone. An account of their

travels will be found in the next chapter. The second publication

to which we refer, is _Buddhaghosa's Parables_, translated from the

Burmese, by Capt. T. Rogers; with an introduction containing _Buddha's

Dhammapada_, or _Path of Virtue_, translated from the Pali, by Max

Mueller; London, Trubner & Co., 1870, 8vo. pp. 374. This work is of such

importance to all students of the Science of Religion, that we shall

notice it in a separate essay. The third contribution, is _The Modern

Buddhist_, being the views of a Siamese Minister of State, on his own

and other religions, translated, with remarks, by Henry Alabaster,

interpreter of H. B. M., consulate-general in Siam; London, Triibner &

Co., 1870, small 8vo. pp. 91. This has now arrived at a second edition,

and is called _The Wheel of the Law_.

This last book is, perhaps, the most interesting of the three, inasmuch

as it enables us to compare the modern development of the religion of

Buddha, and that of Christ. It enables us, moreover, to see ourselves

and modern Christian doctrines as others see them, and to discover the

essential points at issue, between the followers of the son of Maya

Devi, and of Mary.

The first point to which we would call attention, is the statement that

the Siamese are nowhere excelled in the sincerity of their belief,

and the liberality with which they support their religion. "In Bangkok

alone, there are more than a hundred monasteries, and ten thousand monks

and novices. More than this, every male Siamese, sometime during his

life, and generally in the prime of it, takes orders as a monk, and

retires for some months or years, to practise abstinence and meditation

in a monastery." Against this, or side by side with it, what can Great

Britain, or any other Christian country show? We have, it is true,

plenty of monasteries in Christendom, and in the majority of western

kingdoms, there are colleges and universities for the education of

youth, and there is, in some such institutions, a pretence of meditation

and of abstinence. Yet the finger of scandal points, and has pointed,

for many hundred years, to the disreputable conduct pursued in almost

the whole of such Christian institutions; whereas, not even its enemies

can find evidence to convict Buddhist ascetics of indulging in sensual

gratifications of any kind whatever.

We learn, from Mr Alabaster's preface, that the late king of Siam,

though "eminent amongst monks for his knowledge of the Buddhist

scriptures, boldly preached against the canonicity of those of them,

whose relations were opposed to his reason, and his knowledge of modern

science." "His powers as a linguist were considerable, and enabled him

to use an English library with facility." They are his views--which royal

etiquette prevented him from writing, that inspired his prime minister.

What have we here? Surely it is an example that British rulers, and

especially divines, should follow. Yet with all our boasted skill,

science, and powers of thought, our theologians prefer to preach, and to

uphold, doctrines which they know to be repugnant, both to reason and to

science, rather than abandon that which was propounded when reason and

knowledge were almost in their infancy. Certainly, in this respect,

the believers in Sakya Muni show themselves more sensible than those in

Jesus.

Again, let us quote the following paragraph--pointing out the analogy we

wish to draw, by using a literary contrivance--and calling attention to

the fact, that no Roman Catholic authority in Christian Europe, has yet

dared to say, what a Buddhist ruler does.

"Our {Siamese \ Papal} literature is not only scanty, but nonsensical,

full of stories of {genii \ saints} stealing {women \ relics} and {men

\ saints} fighting with {genii \ devils} and {extraordinary persons\

Elijah and Philip} who could fly through the air, and bring dead

people to life. And, even those works, which profess to teach anything,

generally teach it wrong; so that there is not the least profit, though

one studies them from morning to night" (p. 7).

The following observation is equally powerful--Chaya. Phya.

Praklang--the name of the Siamese author, might, "as a Buddhist, believe

in the existence of a God, sublimed above all human qualities and

attributes--a perfect God, above love, and hatred, and jealousy, calmly

resting in a quiet happiness that nothing could disturb; and of such a

God he would speak no disparagement, not from a desire to please Him,

or fear to offend Him, but from natural veneration. But he cannot

understand a God with the attributes and qualities of men, a God who

loves and hates, and shows anger, a Deity, who, whether described to him

by Christian Missionaries, or by Mahometans, Brahmins, or Jews, falls

below his standard of even an ordinary good man" (p. 25).

After the passages which we have quoted, the translator gives many

pages of accounts of conversation between missionaries and the Siamese

minister, which well repay a perusal. They are too long for quotation

entire, but there are three paragraphs that deserve commemoration, as

they show us the reasoning powers of the Buddhist in favourable contrast

to the bigotry of his would-be instructor. "I said, 'then you consider

that even a stone in the bladder is created by God?' He replied, 'Yes,

everything, God creates everything.' 'Then,' answered I, if that is

so, God creates in man that which will cause his death, and you medical

missionaries remove it, and restore his health! Are you not opposing

God by so doing? Are you not offending Him in curing those whom He would

kill?' When I had said this the missionary became angry, and saying 'I

was hard to teach,' left me" (p. 29). Again, when he and Dr Gutzlaff

were discussing the story of the creation and "the fall," as taught in

the Christian and Jewish Bible, and the Buddhist has clearly the best of

the argument, the missionary told him, that if any spoke as the minister

had been doing in European countries, he would be put in prison--and

Chaya Phya adds, "I invite particular attention to this statement" (p.

34). Thus, not only in other parts of his work, but here also, he points

out how that which Christian emissaries say is "a religion of peace

on earth and good will to men" is, in reality, one of intolerance and

persecution, even on the showing of its own ministers. In the third

example to which I refer, Gutzlaff is again talking with Chaya upon the

curse of man, and the Siamese speaks thus--"Besides, the Bible says, by

belief in Christ, man shall escape the consequences of Eve's sin; yet

I cannot see that men do so escape in any degree, but suffer just as

others do." The missionary answered, "It is waste of time to converse

with evil men, who will not be taught, and so he left me" (p. 35). When

men like Gutzlaff, who is really eminent in his way, can be so readily

silenced and put to flight by a native of Siam, whose mind is not

familiar with the science and logical training of European thinkers, it

is by no means surprising that cultivated Englishmen should refuse

to believe in the childish stories and foolish doctrines that are

promulgated by Christians at home, as being an inspired and infallible

revelation from the Almighty. Alas, for our country and her people!

they have much to unlearn as well as to learn before they can lay a fair

claim to the position which they assume to hold.

We may next quote the following, as being useful to missionary societies

here. After having described the religion of Papists, Protestants, and

Mormons, Chaya says, "All these three sects worship the same God and

Christ, why, then, should they blame each other, and charge each other

with believing wrongfully, and say to each other, 'You are wrong, and

will go to Hell; we are right, and shall go to Heaven?' You make us

think that it is one religion which Christians hold, yet how can we join

it when each party threatens us with Hell if we agree with another sect,

and there is none to decide between them? I beg comparison of this with

the teaching of the Lord Buddha, that whoever endeavours to keep the

commandments, and is charitable, and walks virtuously, must attain to

Heaven" (p. 43). The commandments referred to are--

1st. Thou shalt not destroy nor cause the destruction of any living

thing.

2d. Thou shalt not, either by fraud or violence, obtain or keep that

which belongs to another.

3d. Thou shall not lie carnally with any but proper objects for thy

lust.

4th. Thou shalt not attempt, either by word or action, to lead others to

believe that which is not true.

5th. Thou shalt not become intoxicated.

We much fear, that if the commandments which nominal Christians observe

are contrasted with those kept by the Buddhists, that the former must be

regarded as much lower in the scale of religious civilization than the

latter.

The Siamese author next discusses the question, "how shall a man select

that religion which he can trust to for his future happiness?" His

answer is, "He must reflect, and apply his mind to ascertain which

comes nearest to truth." Then follow a few very true remarks about the

difficulty of shaking off any faith once adopted--about the causes

which determine men to change their belief, and, in illustration of the

difficulties, the author quotes a sermon by Buddha to those who were

in doubt, and desired to select a right religion. "And the Lord Buddha

answered, You are right to doubt, for it was a doubtful matter. I say

unto all of you, do not believe in what ye have heard, that is, when you

have heard anyone say this is especially good or extremely bad; do not

reason with yourselves, that if it had not been true it would not

have been asserted, and so believe in its truth. Neither have faith in

traditions, because they have been handed down for many generations, and

in many places.

"Do not believe in anything because it is rumoured and spoken of by

many; do not think that is a proof of its truth.

"Do not believe merely because the written statement of some old sage is

produced; do not be sure that the writing has ever been revised by the

said sage, or can be relied on. Do not believe in what you have fancied,

thinking that, because an idea is extraordinary, it must have been

implanted by a Deva, or some wonderful being.

"Do not believe in guesses, that is, assuming something at haphazard, as

a starting point, and then drawing conclusions from it--reckoning your

two and your three and your four before you have fixed your number one.

"Do not believe because you think there is an analogy, that is, a

suitability in things and occurrences--such as believing that there must

be walls of the world because you see water in a basin, or that Mount

Meru must exist because you have seen the reflection of trees, or that

there must be a creating god because houses and towers have builders.

"Do not believe in the truth of that to which you have become attached

by habit, as every nation believes in the superiority of its own dress,

and ornaments, and language.

"Do not believe because your informant appears to be a credible person,

as, for instance, when you see anyone having a very sharp appearance,

conclude that he must be clever and trustworthy: or, when you see anyone

who has powers and abilities beyond what men generally possess, believe

in what he tells; or think that a great nobleman is to be believed, as

he would not be raised by the king to high station unless he were a good

man.

"Do not believe merely on the authority of your teachers and masters,

or believe and practise merely because they believe and practise.

"I tell you all, you must of yourselves know, that 'this is evil, this

is punishable, this is censured by wise men, belief in this will bring

no advantage to anyone, but will cause sorrow;' and when you know this,

then eschew it" (pp. 45-47). Then follows a long account of the examples

which Buddha gave to his disciples, examining them by questions, whose

answer is obvious; but these, though wonderfully to the point, are too

long for quotation, and we must refer our readers to the book itself.

Nor do we act thus, reluctantly, for we believe that every honest

inquirer will thank us for the introduction. We should rejoice if

some of our divines became acquainted with it. They might draw as

many valuable texts from the discourses attributed to Buddha, herein

described, as they do now from Jesus' sermon on the mount. We may add,

in passing, that, in the conversation of Sakya Muni, he says, "it is

better to believe in a future life, in which happiness or misery can

be felt, for if the heart believes therein, it will abandon sin and act

virtuously; and even if there is no resurrection, such a life will bring

a good name and the regard of men. But those who believe in extinction

at death, will not fail to commit any sin that they may choose, because

of their disbelief in a future; and if there should happen to be a

future after all, they will be at a disadvantage--they will be like

travellers without provisions" (p. 54).

The following exposition of modern Buddhist belief well deserves

attention.

"Buddhists believe that every act, word, or thought, has its

consequence, which will appear sooner or later in the present, or in

some future state. Evil acts will produce evil consequences, i.e., may

cause a man misfortune in this world, or an evil birth in hell, or as

an animal in some future existence. Good acts, etc., will produce good

consequences; prosperity in this world, or birth in heaven, or in a high

position in the world in some future state" (p. 57).

We will only add, that if the value of Buddhism, like Christianity, is

to be known by its fruits, it is clear, that the former, as practised

generally in Siam, is decidedly superior to the latter as practised in

Great Britain, America, and Christendom, generally.

Ancient Faiths And Modern A Dissertation upon Worships, Legends and Divinities in Central and Western Asia, Europe, and Elsewhere, Before the Christian Era. Showing Their Relations to Religious Customs as They Now Exist. · 第 5 / 13 章

The natural rejoinder to this representation is the assertion by the