204 



characteristics may seem^ standing as they do now without a 

 distinct and organised embodiment, without any defined 

 reasons for their existence, yet they must point to the intrinsic 

 nature of early Hinduism. Here we have certain marks of 

 Hinduism, which are '' ubique, semper, ah omnibus.' What 

 is the true meaning of this ? Are these well - defined 

 characteristics only indications of a pi'ocess of upward 

 growth ? which is the theory of Mr. Herbert Spencer ; or are 

 they vestiges of a former perfect organism already in a state 

 of decay ? If we see a building in an incomplete state, walls 

 without a roof, portions of walls only indicative of what the 

 walls ought to be ; here a perfect window, there only a 

 window-sill ; here a door, there only a door-step ; here a 

 pillar, there only the base of a pillar, we must come to one of 

 two inevitable conclusions, — either that the building is a ruin 

 of a once perfect building, or that it is only in the state of 

 construction. And so, if we were to see in diffei'ent places 

 portions of what appears to us to be evidently the same ideal, 

 some more, some less complete, some conveying only sugges- 

 tions of the ideal, some more nearly approaching it, we should 

 conclude that all were either fragments of, or approximations 

 towards, that one ideal. Now, comparative religion presents 

 several so-called religions to us, having certain points of mutual 

 contact, between some a few points, between others many, all 

 pointing to one ideal. Does this mean that these several 

 religions are each in a state of growth towards the ideal, or 

 that the ideal now exists in many of them only in a state of 

 ruin ? This is, no doubt, the one vital question that, of all 

 others, comparative religion has to solve. All the ancient 

 religions had, to a greater or less degree, characteristics 

 similar to those of the Hinduism of the Vedas, — priests, 

 altars, sacrifices, propitiations. Can we refer all these to 

 one ideal ? We can. The ideal is seen in its completeness 

 in the Mosaic Dispensation, which is doubtless a Divine re- 

 construction of a primeval revelation as to man's religious 

 beliefs and duties. There these same parts have their proper 

 places, functions, and appointments in a perfect system of 

 divine worship. That dispensation is the restoration of an 

 ideal upon which we could reconstruct the edifice of which 

 these chief characteristics of Vedic Brahmanism, and other 

 ancient religions, would be fitting parts. And cei'tainly, when 

 we fiud the disjecta membra of early religions, exactly such as 

 we should expect to find in the ruins of such an ideal, we come 

 very near to the proof that such an ideal did exist.'" 



15. But to return to Buddhism. Even Dr. Oldenberg, whose 



