Christian truth (Acts xvii. 28); and who, writing to Christians, directed them not to shut their eyes to anything true, honest, just, pure, lovely, or of good report, wherever it might be found, and exhorted them, that if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, they were to think on these things (Phil. iv. 8). Surely it is time we ceased to speak and act as if truth among Gentiles and truth among Christians were two wholly different things. Surely we ought to acknowledge and accept with gratitude whatever is true and noble in the Hindu character, or in Hindu writings, while we reflect with shame on our own shortcomings under far greater advantages.

Nor ought we to forget the words of St. Peter, when-looking down from our undoubted pre-eminence on the adherents of false systems, such as Brahmans, Buddhists, Pārsīs, Fetish-worshippers, and Muslims, wholly distinct from one another and separated by vast chasms though they be-we are accustomed to bracket them all together as if they were equally far from the kingdom of God. To continue to label them all, or even the first four, with the common label Heathen, as if they were all to be placed in the same category as

I lately read an able article, written by a Christian and a man of high culture, in which the term 'heathen' was applied to murderers and villains-I presume from the fact that the inhabitants of heaths and outlying districts are often lawless and benighted. Another author, speaking of certain ignorant vagabonds, says, 'These heathen,' &c. In point of fact, I believe that this is not an unusual application of the term, and such phrases as 'heathenish conduct,' 'heathenish ideas,' are commonly current amongst us as opprobrious epithets. Are we, then, justified in still using this single term as a common label for all unbelievers in Christianity, however God-fearing and righteous (like Cornelius of old) they may be. We make an exception in favour of Muhammadans, forgetting that corruptio optimi pessima. True, the translators of the Bible generally use heathen' as an equivalent for rà vn, 'Gentile nations;' but this rests on a false notion of some etymological affinity between the two words. The Greeks and Romans who called the rest of the world 'Barbarians,' the Hindus who call all other persons Mleććhas,' and the Muslims who call all unbelievers in Muhammad 'Kāfirs and Gabrs,' never have, so far as I know, applied these expressions to villains and criminals. It becomes a question whether, if we are to follow the example of the Founder of Christianity, we ought not to substitute some such term as 'Gentiles' or 'Unbelievers' or 'Non-Christian nations' for an epithet now become somewhat too opprobrious.

equally idolaters, seems, under the present altered circumstances of our increasing acquaintance with these systems, a proceeding wholly opposed to the spirit of that great Apostle, who, when addressing Gentiles, assured them that God had taught him not to call any man common or unclean; and declared that God was no respecter of persons, but that in every nation he that feared Him and worked righteousness was accepted by Him (Acts x. 34, 35; see also Rom. ii. 10, 11, 14, 15, iii. 29).

If, then, it is becoming more and more a duty for all the nations of the world to study each other; to inquire into and compare each other's systems of belief; to avoid expressions of contempt in speaking of the sincere and earnest adherents of any creed; and to search diligently whether the principles and doctrines which guide their own faith and conduct rest on the one true foundation or notsurely we Englishmen, to whose rule India has been intrusted, have special opportunities and responsibilities in this respect. For in India the three great systems which now confront Christianity—viz. Brāhmanism, Buddhism, and Islām-are all represented. Brahmanism is, of course, numerically the strongest; yet Muhammadans form, as we have seen (p. xx), a sixth part of its population1. As to Buddhism, we have indicated (pp. 53-61) that its relationship to Brahmanism was in some respects similar to that of Christianity to Judaism; and although it is true that, in contrast to Christianity,

1 It may startle some to learn from p. xx of this Introduction that England is the greatest Muhammadan power in the world, and that our Queen has probably more than double as many Muslim subjects as the ruler of the Turkish Empire. Roughly estimating the present population of the globe at thirteen hundred millions, the Buddhists along with the Confucianists (disciples of Kung-fu-tsze, see p. 4, note 1) and Tauists (of Lau-tsze) would comprise about 490 millions; Christians, 360 millions; Muslims or Muhammadans, 100 millions; and Brahmanical Hindus and Semi-Hindūs, 185 millions. Of other creeds, the Jews comprise about 8 or 9 millions; Jainas, Pārsīs, and Sikhs together about 3 or 4 millions. The Fetish-worshippers of Africa, America, and Polynesia probably make up the remaining 153 millions. The census of 1872 showed that there were only 318,363 converts to Protestant Christianity in all India. The religion of Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims is missionary; that of Jews, Hindūs, and Pārsīs, non-missionary. Without the missionary spirit there can be no continued vitality and growth; and this spirit is part of the very essence of Christianity, whose first missionary was Christ Himself.

which, originating among Semitic Jews afterwards spread among the Aryans of Europe, Buddhism originated with the Aryans of India and afterwards spread among Turanian races (see p. 4, Lecture I, and p. 5, note 1); still India was most undoubtedly the original home of this most popular system-the nominal creed of the majority of the human race. Moreover, it may be gathered from a perusal of the dramas (such as the Mālatī-mādhava, p. 480), that Hinduism and Buddhism coexisted and were tolerant of each other in India till about the end of the eighth century of our era. A reference, too, to pp. 128-132 will show that the Buddhistic philosophy and Buddhistic ideas have left a deep impression on Hinduism, and still linger everywhere scattered throughout our Eastern Empire, especially among the Jainas (see p. 128); and Buddhism is to this day, as is well known, the faith of our fellowsubjects in Ceylon, Pegu, and British Burmah, being also found in outlying districts of India, such as Chittagong, Darjeeling, Assam, Nepal, Bhotan, and Sikkim.

1

It is one of the aims, then, of the following pages to indicate the points of contact between Christianity and the three chief false religions of the world, as they are thus represented in India2.

1

According to the last census the number of Buddhists and Jainas in India amounts to nearly three millions (2,629,200). Sir George Campbell's Report gives 86,496 as the number of Buddhists in the Bengal provinces. Although Jainism has much in common with Buddhism, it is nevertheless a very different system. The Jainas always call themselves and are considered Hindūs (see p. 130, note 1). According to Rajendralāla Mitra, the Jaina scriptures are comprised in fifty different works, collectively called the Sutras, and sometimes the Siddhantas, and classed in two different ways: 1st, under the two heads of Kalpa-sūtra and Agama, five works coming under the former, and forty-five under the latter head: 2ndly, under eight different heads, viz. 1. eleven Angas; 2. twelve Upangas; 3. four Mula-sūtra; 4. five Kalpa-sutra; 5. six Cheddas; 6. ten Payannas; 7. Nandi-sutra; 8. Anuyoga-dvāra-sūtra. Some of them have a four-fold commentary, under the names Țikā, Niryukti, Ćurni, and Bhashya, constituting with the original the five-fold (pantanga) Sūtra. They are partly in Sanskrit, partly in Magadhī Prākṛit, and the total of the fifty works is said to amount to 600,000 Slokas (see Notices of Sanskrit MSS. No. VIII. p. 67).

2 Of course, the religion of ancient Persia, sometimes called Zoroastrianism-a most important and interesting creed (see p. 4)-is also represented, but the Pārsīs are numerically insignificant (see note, p. xviii).

This common ground is to be looked for more in Brahmanism than in Buddhism, and even than in Islam. In proof of which I refer the reader to pp. 53-60 for a summary of Buddhism; to pp. 36, 324, and to p. 12, note 1, for a summary of Hinduism both popular and esoteric; to pp. 22, 228, for the Hindu account of the creation of the world 1; to pp. 32, 394, for that of the deluge; to pp. 5-8 for the Hindu and Muhammadan doctrine of revelation and inspiration; to p. 146, note 1, for the Hindu conception of original sin; to p. 333, note 1, for the Hindu theory of the gradual depravation of the human race; to p. 31, note I, and to p. 251, for that of sacrifices and sacramental acts; to pp. 247-249, 279, for that of the mystical efficacy of water in cleansing from sin 3 (compare also

1 Professor Banerjea (Indian Antiquary,' Feb. 1875) thinks that the Hindu account of the creation of the world preserves traces of the revelation made in the Bible of the Spirit brooding on the surface of the waters; and that the theory of the Nagas, who were half serpents half men, dwelling in the lower regions (see p. 430), confirms the Biblical account of the Serpent, which was originally perhaps a species corresponding to the Nāga, before the sentence was pronounced by which it became a creeping reptile. Compare the story of the eldest of the five sons of Ayus (of the lunar race), called Nahusha, cursed by Agastya to become a serpent, for excessive pride, in having, after gaining by penance the rank of Indra, compelled the Rishis to bear his litter on their backs, and then kicked some of them (Manu VII. 41; Vishņu-purāṇa, p. 413; Mahā-bh. V. 343).

2 The Hindus have two roots for 'to sacrifice,' hu (=an older dhu= Ov) and yaj. The first is restricted to oblations of clarified butter in fire; the latter is applied to sacrificing, and honouring the gods with sacrifices generally. A third root, su, is used for offering libations with the juice of the Soma-plant, especially to the god Indra-the oldest form of sacrifice in India (note 1, p. 31). The idea of sacrifice is ingrained in the whole Hindu system. It is one of the earliest that appears in their religious works, and no literature-not even the Jewish-contains so many words relating to sacrifice as Sanskrit. It is remarkable that the food offered to the gods, when appropriated and eaten by the priests, and the rice distributed by them to the people, are called prasāda (?=evxapioría).

3 Bathing in sacred rivers-especially in the Ganges and at particular Tirthas, such as Haridvār, Prayaga-purifies the soul from all sin. Hence dying persons are brought to the river-side, leaves of the Tulasi plant being often put in their mouths. Hence also Ganges water (as well as other consecrated liquid) was used in the inauguration (abhisheka) of kings (see P. 515, and cf. Rāmāyaṇa II. xv. 5) and in the administration of oaths.

p. 284, line 9 from bottom); to pp. 201, 246, for that of regeneration or second birth; to pp. 278, 279, for that of atonement and expiation; to pp. 321-336 for the Hindu theory of incarnation and the need of a Saviour; to p. 324 for that of the triple manifestation or Hindu Triad; to pp. 104-106, 247 (with note 2), 251, for the Hindu and Muhammadan teaching as to the religious duties of prayer, ablutions, repetitions of sacred texts, almsgiving, penance, &c.; to p. 252, note 1, for the actual practice of these duties at the present day; to pp. 104-106 for the infliction of self-mortifications, fasting, &c.; and, lastly, to pp. 282-294, 440-448, 457-462, for examples of moral and religious sentiments.

Lest, however, it should be inferred that, while advocating perfect fairness and impartiality in comparing all four religious systems, I have aimed in the present work at lowering in the slightest degree the commanding position occupied by our own faith, or written anything to place Christianity in an unfavourable light in relation to the other systems of the world, I conclude this Introduction by adverting to some principal points which, in my opinion, constitute the distinctive features of our own religion, separating it decisively from all the other creeds as the only divine scheme capable of regenerating the entire human race.

It seems to me, then, that in comparing together these four systems-Christianity, Islam, Brahmanism, and Buddhism-the crucial test of the possession of that absolute divine truth which can belong to one only of the four, and which-if supernaturally communicated by the common Father of mankind for the good of all His creatures-must be intended to prevail everywhere, ought to lie in the answer to two questions: 1st, What is the ultimate object at which each aims? 2ndly, By what means and by what agency is this aim to be accomplished?

1. Let us begin with Buddhism, because as a religious system it stands lowest; not indeed deserving, or even claiming, to be called a religion at all in the true sense of the word (see p. 57), though it is numerically the strongest of all the four creeds. With regard, then, to the first question :

The object aimed at by pure Buddhism is, as we have shown at p. 57, Nirvana, the being blown out like a flame-in other words-utter annihilation. It is true that the S'ramanas or Bhikshukas, ascetics and religious mendicants,' alone can be said to aim directly at Nirvāņa (see pp. 57, 58). The Upāsakas or laymen