conduct has been the same as that of modern Christians, and as, moreover, the subject has been treated of in an essay

it translated "pray," and that in the apparently important text Ps. lv. 17, "Evening and morning and at noon will I pray." As a substantive the word is rendered as "complaint," "talking," "meditation," "babbling," and only once "prayer," and that in Ps. lv. 2, "Hear my voice, O God, in my prayer."

99 66

No. 13 is generally translated "ask," as we should remark, "well, if he asks me what must I say?" "beg," as "he shall beg in harvest; consulted," in the text "he consulted with images;" "salute," "to salute him of peace ;” “enquired,” ," "Saul enquired of the Lord;" "wished," "and wished in himself to die;" "lent," "I have lent him to the Lord," "so that they lent unto them."

No. 14 is used exclusively for prayer, but the word is not to be found in the whole of the Pentateuch.

III. There is reason to believe that the most important of these words have come from the Persian, a language allied to the Sanscrit; and if so, it is clear that the idea of prayer was adopted by the Jews after they were patronised by the conquerors of Babylon. Some of the other words are Aramaic, and probably even more modern than the rest. For example, No. 10 is compared by Fürst in his Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, to the Sanscrit phal, and No. 8 may also be derived from the Persian, and Sanscrit root gad, which signifies "to speak to," or "call upon." Anah, No. 1, is Aramaic.

I think that it was Mons. Weill, in his remarkable book called Moise et le Talmud, who first drew attention to the influence of the Talmudists upon the Jewish Scriptures. He pointed out that in the Mosaic law there was no idea of prayer, intercession, or pardon; everything was based upon the "lex talionis," an eye was to be paid for with an eye, murder was to be avenged by murder, and ecclesiastical, ceremonial, and other transgressions were to be atoned, i.e., satisfaction was to be given by sacrifice and payments to the priest or tabernacle. But when the Jews, after their contact with the Chaldeans, Medes, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, began to study theology, two sects arose the Talmudists, who explained away the older Scriptures, interpolated narratives, or simply texts therein, so as to suit their purposes; and the Sadducees, who refused to adopt as matters of faith anything which was not taught by Moses. The first was the strongest sect, and composed the majority in the Sanhedrim. They thus had power over the sacred canon, and could reject manuscripts or adopt them according as the purposes which were aimed at were served. The Talmudic interpolations are supposed to be recognised chiefly in the more modern parts of the Old Testament, in Ezra, Nehemiah, the second Isaiah and Jeremiah, in the books of Zechariah and Malachi, in the Chronicles, Daniel, in many Psalms, more sparsely in the older histories, but very largely in the Pentateuch.

From these considerations, from the absence of any order in the Mosaic law

by Lecky (History of European Morals), I will not pursue this part of my subject further than to remark, that we have

for the priests to offer any supplication, and from the general absence of prayer from the sacrifices of all nations, we may conclude that "intercession" formed no part in the Jewish religion in the early days of its existence.

When working upon this subject I endeavoured to examine the curious Iguvian tables, on which Aufrecht, Kircher, and Newman have bestowed such pains. These are, I believe, the only tables extant which give directions to the old Umbrian, or any other ancient priests, how to conduct public sacrifices and the ensuing feasts. In them there are directions for invocations, but no formula for prayers, unless one can call invocations by that name. I fancy, that in some parts of the tables there are words which may be rendered "speak," or "mutter," or "meditate," or "pray silently."

The fact that a Hebrew historian has composed a prayer, and put it into the mouth of King Solomon, rather than into that of a high priest, shows that supplication for the people was not a strictly sacerdotal duty. Even now, with all our liberality of thought, we take our prayers from the Archbishops, and not from the crown.

But what we have said points to another important consideration, viz., how far our Authorized Version can be trusted as a foundation upon which to build a theory respecting the use of prayer, when we find that the words given in English do not correspond with the words in the original Hebrew.

We have noticed in the text that both John and Jesus taught their disciples to pray; we may now call attention to the idea which the latter had of "prayer." In a parable, which was evidently intended to represent what was common enough in his day, he says, "Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican; the Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself-God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are," &c. (Luke xviii. 10-13). Surely one cannot call a boastful enumeration of one's virtues either "supplication," "prayer," or "entreaty;" but we understand readily that what we should call "meditation" was once included under the name "prayer." This anecdote unquestionably seems to prove that there was nothing like public prayer in the temple ritual. The idea of the Ancients was to obtain what they wanted by costly sacrifice; the idea of the Moderns is to obtain their desires by the expenditure of words only. We know that Pagans used long litanies, and that Christians do so too. In Jezebel's time "O Baal, hear us" resounded on Mount Carmel in sonorous monotony. We have replaced that heathen chant by another, and our cathedrals reverberate constantly with the musical rogation, "We beseech Thee to hear us, good Lord," uttered more than a score of times. Our orthodoxy consists in our using English instead Phoenician words, and in calling Baal by a word more familiar to us; and as the highest commendation which we can give to others is to imitate them, so we praise the Ancient heathen highly, who thought that they would be heard from their "much speaking." It is ever easier to change our words than our practice. Like the

scarcely two articles of faith-if, indeed we have more than one-i.e., respect for one day in seven-which we have not received, directly or indirectly, from Pagans. Even our

Christianity is but a modified Buddhism, as I shall endeavour, in my next chapter, to show.

Pharisee, Christians boast that they are not as other men are; but by their proceedings they show that they are like the Jews, of whose paternity Jesus had not an exalted opinion. (See John viii. 44).

In further illustration of the absence of a set form of prayer in the temple worship in Jerusalem, and of the independence of all devout solicitors of priestly aid, I may point to Matthew vi. 5 to 8, wherein we find that hypocrites offered their supplications, not only in the temple, but at the corners of the streets. It is just possible that in the former locality there might have been some public worship going on, in which the saintly could join, but certainly there was no such ritual at street corners. But if there had really been divine service in the temple, it follows that those who joined in it would not have been conspicuous, or deserving the name of hypocrites. The fault of these which is mentioned by Jesus is ostentatious public prayer, i.e., the doing of that which had not been prescribed by Moses.

F

CHAPTER IV.

Christianity and Buddhism. The new and old world. An impartial judge is said to be a partisan. Works on the subject. Sakya Muni's birth, B.C. 620 (about), position in life, original views. Parallels between Brahminism, Buddhism, Hebraism, and Christianity. History of Sakya Munithat of Jesus corresponds with it marvellously. Sakya receives a commission from an angel-is henceforth a saviour. History of Jesus follows that of Sakya. Siddartha neither dictated nor wrote. A favourite garden. Sakya and the Brahmins. Buddha and Christ equally persecuted. Spread of Buddhism after Siddartha's death. Asoka a royal convert. Buddhist missionaries, B.C. 307. Their wonderful successes. Different development of Buddhism and Christianity. Persecution a Christian practice. Buddha tempted by the Devil, and by women, like St. Anthony. Buddha's life reduced to writing, at least B.C. 90. Hardy on Buddhist miracles. His remarks criticised. Necessity for miracles is doubtful. Sakya and a future life. Resurrection from the dead. Jesus not the first fruits of them that slept. Paul's argument worthless. Buddhists in advance of Christians. Priestcraft at time of Buddha and Jesus. Both did away with ceremonial. Sakya's doctrine-compared with Christian teaching. Another parallel between Buddha and Jesus. Commandments of Tathagata (Buddha), or the Great Sramana. Rules for his saintly friends-for outsiders. Definition of terms. The Sramana's opinion of miracles-a comparison. The history of Jesus told without miracles. Buddhistic confession-remarks on in modern times. Filial respect. Public confession, murder absolved thereby. Asoka, about B.C. 263, sent out missionaries. Objections made against Buddhism. Ideas respecting God. Salvation. Buddha and Jesus. Nirvana. Heaven and Hell-Christian ideas. Apocalypse. The heaven of John and Mahomet compared with that of Buddha. Prayer not a Buddhist institution-nor originally a Christian one. Nature of prayer. The developments of Buddhism, particulars-comparison between the Eastern ancient and Western modern practice. Abbé Huc. No sexual element in Buddhism and Christianity at first-it has crept into both in later times. Inquiry into the probable introduction of Buddhism into the West. Asceticism peculiar to Buddhism and Christianity. The Essenes, their faith and practice-resemblance to Buddhism. John and Jesus probably Essenes. If Jesus was inspired, so was Siddartha. Differences

between Sakya and Jesus. Jesus believed in an immediate destruction of the world. Idea of preexistence in Jesus and Sakya adopted by their followers. The basis of the two faiths is morality-but an unsound one. Nature of the unsoundness. Morality has a reference to a life on earth only. The decalogue superfluous. Ideas of future rewards and punishments. Dives and Lazarus. The world can exist without a knowledge of a future life. God thought so when He taught the Jews. Dogma versus morality. See how these Christians live! There are a few good men amongst Christians. Supplementary remarks.

FROM the Peruvian and Aztec religious systems in what we designate the New World, a phrase which involves the idea that its existence was for ages wholly unknown to the historians of the Eastern Hemisphere, we turn to another form of faith, which demands even greater attention. Buddhism has, probably, done more to influence the minds of men in Asia than any other religion in any part of the globe, and its history is so remarkable, that it deserves the attention of every philosophical student of mankind. To the Christian it ought to be especially interesting, inasmuch as there is strong reason to believe that the faith current amongst ourselves is to be traced to the teaching of Sakya Muni, whose original name, we may notice, in passing, was no more 'Buddha” than "Christ" was the cognomen of the son of Mary.

An ingenious author on one occasion wrote a charming essay "upon the art of putting things," and I cannot read any treatise upon Buddhism, written by a Christian, without thinking how completely "the advocate" is to be seen throughout them all. Ecclesiastical writers, who are Protestant preachers, endeavour laboriously to prove that the teaching of Sakya Muni could not have been inspired, and was certainly false; whilst other writers, who have no particular leaning towards Jesus, extol the author of Buddhism beyond that of Christianity. Truly, in such a matter it is extremely difficult not to appear as a partisan, however carefully the scales may be held. The very fact of endeavouring "to see