ness, instinct, reason, volition, and the perception of moral relations and qualities. They appear to believe that in some inexplicable way, a kind of personal identity is acquired, and that the same being has successive states of existence, a kind of transmigration on the disorganization of one body into another. They believe that certain beings, called Budhas, have acquired the first rank in the scale of existence by a long course of virtuous actions and austerities in successive states of being or transmigrations.

The Budhists believe that the number of these Budhas who have thus raised themselves in the scale of beings is large,* and some of these at long intervals have appeared or become incarnate again and again in the world to reform mankind and restore religion to its original purity. Among the most distinguished of these incarnations was Gaudama, who appeared at several different times. His last appearance or incarnation was at Benares in the 6th century before the Christian era. He reformed Budhism, which had become very much corrupted, and taught the system as it now exists. He also established its rules of worship and its moral precepts. He is now regarded by the Budhists as the head of their religion and of the religious world, and to continue so (though long since passed into a higher state of existence) till he shall complete his allotted period which they generally hold to be 5,000 years.

In a religion so widely spread and where in its progress it must have come in conflict with previous forms of superstition, much difference in doctrine and practice might naturally be expected. The Budhists have a large body of literature which is as extravagant and absurd as the Purans. These works are in the Pali language which is the same with them in India, as the Sanscrit is with the brahmins. Pali appears to have been the language current in Magada, one of the ancient kingdoms on the Ganges where Gaudama was born and where Budhism was the prevailing religion for several centuries. Some of the kings of Magada were zealous in propagating this system.

The Budhists differ from the brahmins in some doctrines which each class regard as fundamental, and it does not appear

* Mr. Hodgson in his account of Budhism in Nepaul gives a list of 130 Budhas of the first class. Asiatic Researches, vol. 16, p. 446.

strange that the two classes should call each other by odious names; that the brahmins shall call the Budhists atheists, and the Budhists should call the brahmins polytheists. The Budhists deny the authority of the Vedas and Purans and have their own sacred books. They believe in the primitive and natural equality of all mankind, and allow no distinctions of caste. Among the Budhists the priests can be from any class in the community. They must live in a state of celibacy and continence. They live together so far as their circumstances will permit, in monasteries, and are subject to particular rules of eating, sitting, bathing, and sleeping. They carry their respect for animal life much further than the brahmins, for they do not eat after noon, nor drink after dark for fear of swallowing minute insects. Some of them carry a brush with them to sweep places before they sit down, lest they should crush some living creatures. And some of them even keep a thin cloth over their mouths to prevent their taking in minute insects, with their breath. As their priests can be from any class of the community, so they can at any time leave the priesthood, and resume their former place in the community. The difference between the priests of the two systems is much greater than between the laity. And some of these differences are of a nature to be peculiarly offensive to the brahmins.

The monuments of Budhism scattered over India show that its followers must once have been numerous, wealthy, and powerful. The cave-temples of Kennery in Salsette about 25 miles from Bombay, and of Karlee on the road from Bombay to Poona above the Ghats are Budhistical. Of the celebrated cave-temples of Elora, 16 miles north from Aurungabad some are Budhistical and some are brahminical, and some exhibit a mixture of both systems. Those last mentioned have the appearance of having been first made by the Budhists, and afterwards altered and appropriated to brahminical worship. Many Hindu temples exhibit evidence of their materials having previously been used in Budhist temples. The history of neither party furnishes any reliable accounts of the struggles between them, nor by what means the brahmins succeeded in triumphing over their enemies. For 2 or 3 centuries after the time of Gaudama, the Budhists were active and zealous in propagating

their religion, and it was at that time carried into Ceylon, where the inhabitants had previously practised demonolatry, similar to the religion of the primitive inhabitants of India. Budhism continues to be the religion of the southern part of Ceylon, though many of the lower class still practise the worship of demons, which is often called devil-worship. From Ceylon Budhism was propagated eastwards to Burma, Siam, and China, and it is now supposed to be the religion of a larger number of the human family than any other system.

I

MOHAMMEDANS.

The Mohammedans of India are variously estimated at, To, 12 of the entire population of the country. This appears to be a small proportion when we consider the great number of this religion who immigrated into the country, their avowed purpose in conquering it, the long period they governed it, and the efforts they made to proselyte the inhabitants to their faith. And yet when we consider the population of India, commonly estimated at 150,000,000, the whole number of the Mohaminedan population will probably amount to 15,000,000 or 18,000,000. They are most numerous in the valley of the Ganges, where their power was first established and the invaders and immigrants chiefly settled. In some districts in Bengal they make one fourth, and in a few places are said to make nearly

one half of the population. In the southern parts of the peninsula their proportion is small; in some districts they are not more than 1 in 25 or 30 of the population. It has been estimated that half of the Mohammedan population of India are descendants of the conquerors and immigrants from Persia, Afghanistan, and Arabia, and half are the descendants of proselytes from Hinduism during the Mohammedan dynasties. As the conquerors and the subsequent immigrations were from Persia and Afghanistan, so the peculiar type of the religion they introduced and propagated, resembled what has existed in those countries far more than the pure and primitive form which has existed in Arabia.

Persian was the court language among the Mohammedan princes of India, and it still continues to be used among their descendants. But the language in general use among the Mohammedans is Hindustanee, which is formed of the language they brought with them into India, and of Hindee or Hinduee, the language they found in the valley of the Ganges where they first established their dominion, and which was the chief seat of their power. Hindustanee may be called the military language of India. It is easily acquired for colloquial purposes, and is the common medium of intercourse between Europeans and natives. It is easily combined with the vernacular languages, and so varies very considerably in different parts of India. The Mohammedan population is so much dispersed over the country, and their language is so easily acquired and already so much used, that some orientalists have urged the expediency and importance of making Hindustanee the lingua franca of the whole country. But this attempt is not likely to be made, and if made, would fail of success.

Some of the native princes are Mohammedans and a few of them, as the Nizam of Hydrabad, the Nabob of Lucknow, and some others, yet retain considerable territory and power. But these, through a failure of direct heirs to succeed them, or the mismanagement of their affairs, are diminishing in number, influence, and power, and it appears not unlikely that in a few years all will be divested of territorial possessions, and be reduced to a state of dependence upon the English for pensions and annuities to sustain some shadow of their former pageantry. The generally acknowledged principles of Mohammedan governments in matters of war, finance, the administration of justice, etc., are superior to those of the Hindus. But we look in vain for any evidence of their superiority in the state of their territories, which are generally in a bad state. Their misgovernment originates in part in the feelings of contempt they cherish towards all who are not of their faith, and the various offensive and oppressive ways in which they manifest these feelings.

Mohammedans in India all practise circumcision and attach great importance to it. The rite is generally performed by barbers, and it may be performed at any time before the 13th year.

They carefully abstain from eating pork. Their princes have often been intemperate, but the great body of the people, so far as I have seen them, do not use any kind of spirituous liquors, and drunkenness among them is disreputable and is seldom seen. I never heard of any Mohammedan being in any way engaged in trafficking in liquors. The general sentiment among them would not allow any one of their faith to follow such business in any place I knew. Polygamy is practised. Their domestic habits are such that it is difficult to know how far this custom exists. Their princes generally have several wives and concubines, but few of them have so many as their prophet Mohammed had. Wealthy men have generally more than one wife, and instances of polygamy are not unfrequent among the middling and lower classes. Perhaps taking all the population, one man in 5 or 6 may be a polygamist. But the custom prevails more in some provinces than in others. This custom has a very unhappy influence on families and on the general state of society. It is not a corruption of their system but an integral part of it. Mohammed himself practised it, and it has his authority in his example as well as in the doctrines he taught. So Mohammedanism can never be reformed so as to forbid polygamy, and this practice more than any thing else in the system is working the destruction of the countries and communities which profess this religion.

The Mohammedans have more intellectual character than the Hindus. This superiority appears to be the natural result of the more rational and consistent doctrines concerning God, his attributes, and his providence, contained in the Koran, than any doctrines found in the Hindu sacred books or in their worship. The object contemplated in religious worship must exert very considerable influence upon the mental character of any people, and when looking at the Hindu deities and at their rites and ceremonies, I have often wondered that the people who profess and practise such a religion do not become more stupid and dull of understanding than they are. The Mohammedans have generally more physical strength than the Hindus, which is owing probably in part to their northern origin, and in part to their eating more meat for food.

Mohammedans have generally a great contempt for the relig