"_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 a.s.sertion 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 pa.s.ses by his name. The following pa.s.sage in Luke xi. 1 seems to be decisive upon this point:--"And it came to pa.s.s, 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 repet.i.tions which pa.s.s 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 e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.n. 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 appet.i.te 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 circ.u.mstances. 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 pa.s.ses, 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 a.s.saults of our enemies," we did not prepare for battle--or if, after e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.i.n.g. "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 G.o.d; 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 G.o.d. This being so, there is a desire to acc.u.mulate 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 repet.i.tions, 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 G.o.d 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 pet.i.tion for power to read a.s.syrian 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 pa.s.sions--he can do so to a great extent by a.s.siduous self-control; but he cannot do so any more completely by a lifetime pa.s.sed 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 j.a.pan, 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 s.e.xual 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 "G.o.d 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 s.e.xes.

Veneration for a triune G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstantial 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 abas.e.m.e.nt,* 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 a.s.sociated 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 a.s.sociated 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 apt.i.tude to adopt the faith of outsiders--and as the Jewish people were in great abas.e.m.e.nt 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 G.o.d and man. They abhorred slavery, but each served his neighbour. They respected the Sabbath. Their fundamental laws were, to love G.o.d, to love virtue, and to love mankind. They affected to despise money, fame, pleasures, professed the most strict chast.i.ty, 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 cla.s.s 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 G.o.d; 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 const.i.tution 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 G.o.d'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 a.s.sert 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 a.s.sume 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 a.s.sertions. 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 a.s.surance in their sanct.i.ty, he spoke of their writings as the very words of G.o.d, 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 a.s.sertions 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 pa.s.s, 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, a.s.serting 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 pa.s.sages referred to in the text bear no other meaning than the one here a.s.signed 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 a.s.sertion 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 p.r.o.nounce pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sage, 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 G.o.d, 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 repet.i.tion of the same leading idea, and with Acts i. 11, and ii. 16-36.

From these pa.s.sages, 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 a.s.sertion would frighten ignorant, and, probably, learned Hebrew men.

But, as time advanced, and generation after generation pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.ses 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 a.s.sert 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 G.o.d; 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 a.s.sertions 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 a.s.sert 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 a.s.sertions 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 pa.s.sed, 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 a.s.sertion 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 a.s.sert, 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 h.e.l.l, and an a.s.surance 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.set" 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 pa.s.sions and another, and is forced to allow that if it be a commendable thing to avoid indulging in one carnal appet.i.te, 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 a.s.sertions 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 G.o.d? 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 gra.s.s, 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 a.s.sisting each other in rearing them. In others, either where there is naturally an equality of the s.e.xes 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 a.s.sert--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 h.e.l.l. 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 G.o.d--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 G.o.d?

The natural answer to this query when it is addressed to a bibliolater is that the Egyptians were taught by G.o.d to punish murder with death through the intervention of their forefather, Ham, who heard the command given by G.o.d 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 G.o.d, Gen. x.x.xix. 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 a.s.suredly 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sert 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 h.e.l.l, 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 h.e.l.l 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 "h.e.l.lishness" 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 pa.s.sion, should rise against his fellow and smite him to the dust. But we need not go to New Zealand, China, and j.a.pan 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 G.o.d. 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.