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 preëxistence of Jesus.

The assertions by which the claim to a preëxistence 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