1836.] Authorities on Buddhism. 33 



ing that Buddhism, in its first, and most characteristic form, admits 

 the distinction of Clerus et Laicus. It is difficult expressly to define 

 that distinction ; but it may be seen in all its breadth in Brdhmanism 

 and in Popery ; whilst in lslamism, and in the most enthusiastic of the 

 Christian sects, which sprung out of the Reformation, it is wholly lost. 

 According to my view, Apostolic Christianity recognised it not* ; the 

 congregation of the faithful, the Church, was a society of peers, of 

 brethren in the faith, all essentially equal, in gifts, as in place and 

 character. On earth, there were no indispensable mediators, no exclu- 

 sive professional ones ; and such alone I understand to be priests. 

 Again, genuine monachism all over the world, I hold to be, in its own 

 nature, essentially opposed to the distinction of clergyman and layman, 

 though we all know that monastic institutions no sooner are rendered 

 matters of public law and of extensive popular prevalence, than, ex vi 

 necessitatis, the distinction in question is superinduced upon them, by 

 the major part of the monks laicising, and the rest becoming clergy\. 



There are limits to the number of those whom the public can support 

 in idleness : and whoso would eat the bread of the public must perform 

 some duty to the public. Yet who can doubt that the true monk, whe- 

 ther coenobite or solitary, is he who abandons the world to save his 

 own soul ; as the true clergyman is he who mixes with the world to 

 save the soids of others ? The latter in respect to the people or laics has 

 a distinctive function, and, it may be also an exclusive one : the former 

 has no function at all. Amongst entirely monastic sects, then, the 

 exclusive character of priest is objectless and absurd : and who that has 

 glanced an eye over ecclesiastical history knows not that in proportion 

 as sects are enthusiastic, they reject and hate, (though nothing tainted 

 with monachism) the exclusive pretensions of the clergy ! Whoever 

 has been able to go along with me in the above reflections can need only 

 to be told that primitive Fuddhism was entirely monastic, and of an 

 unboundedly enthusiastical genius]:, to be satisfied that it did not recog- 

 nise the distinction in question. But if, being suspicious of the validity 



* I would not be understood to lay stress on this opinion, which is merely 

 adduced to illustrate my argument. 



f History informs us that, soon after monachism supervened upon our holy 

 and eminently social religion, there were in Egypt as many monks almost as 

 peasants. Some of these monks necessarily laicised, and the rest became clergy. 

 The community of the Gosdins, atd several others, of strictly ascetical origin, 

 exhibit the same necessary change after the sects had become numerously followed. 



X Its distinguishing doctrine is that finite mind can be enlarged to infinite; all 

 the schools uphold this towering tenet, postponing all others to it. As for the 

 scepticism of the Sivabhavikas relative to those transcendent marvels, creation 

 and providence, it is sufficient to prove its remoteness from " flat Atheism," sim- 

 ply to point to the coexistence of the cardinal tenet first named. 

 P 



