brook denial, and they force a passage for themselves and Wycliffe, and some of their men-at-arms. Bishop Courtney, proud among the proudest, and not the least bold man there, frowns his displeasure, and exclaims: "Lord Percy, if I had known what masteries you would have kept in the Church, I would have stopped you out from coming hither." Then John of Gaunt: "He shall keep such masteries though you say nay." Earl Percy (not deigning to notice the Bishop): "Wycliffe, sit down, you are tired, and "have need of a seat," Bishop (still more excited): "He must and shall "stand. He is cited befove his superiors." John of Gaunt: "Lord Percy's "motion for Wycliffe is but reasonable. As for you, my Lord Bishop, you are grown so proud and arrogant-but I will bring down your pride, and "that of all the prelacy in England." Bishop (sneeringly): "Do your "worst, Sir." John of Gaunt (enraged beyond measure): "Thou bearest "thyself, so brag upon thy parents which shall not be able to keep thee, they "shall have enough to do to help themselves." The Bishop (remembering his dignity): "My confidence is not in my parents, nor in any man else, but only in God, in whom I trust, by whose assistance I will be bold to speak "the truth." John of Gaunt (aside to Percy): "I will pluck him by the "hair out of the Church, if he insult me further." A real scene this, of that rough old time.

John of Gaunt's last remark, though intended for Percy's private ear, was overheard by some of the bystanders, who, thinking he meant to carry his threat into execution, called upon the people to defend their Bishop. This was the signal for a tumult, easy to imagine but impossible to describe. Lancaster, Gaunt, and Percy had to fight their way with Wycliffe out of the Church, and had some difficulty in making good their retreat. This, however, was but the beginning; the citizens flew to arms, and, followed by the mob, proceeded to the Duke of Lancaster's magnificent palace of the Savoy, in the Strand, which they sacked and burnt, while another party attacked the residence of the Earl Marshal, but did no further mischief than to reverse his arms, in order to notify to the world their opinion that he was a traitor. The same evening an unfortunate clergyman, who was mistaken for Percy, was murdered by the mob, and it was with some difficulty that the authorities succeeded in quelling the riot without further mischief. There is very little doubt that Courtney and his coadjutors had some part in urging on the mob (ever ready for confusion and plunder) to these outrageous acts.

This popular tumult is made use of by the Catholic historians to support the inference that the people were opposed to Wycliffe, although no such inference is properly deducible. The action of the mob is explained by the unpopularity of the Duke of Lancaster, who was suspected of having designs on the throne, to the detriment of young Richard, who, as the son of the Black Prince the conquerer of France, was the people's darling at this time, although afterwards, by reason of his tyranny, as king, to become hated by them. Moreover, Lancaster had insulted the bishop, whose popularity was very great among the citizens. Furthermore, Earl Percy was an unpopular character, it being believed that he was in league with Lancaster in his nefarious intentions of usurpation, and the citizens of London had a peculiar grudge against him, because it was rumoured that he had sought to take away their municipal privileges. These considerations fully explain the course of events, without in the least warranting the idea that Wycliffe and his cause were unpopular; the proof of their popularity, indeed, will be found in the succeeding events,

Courtney was not the man to be disappointed of his prey without a struggle. The writings of Wycliffe were now ransacked (probably with the assistance of his old enemies the Mendicants), and a series of propositions styled heretical and blasphemous extracted therefrom. These were sent to the Pope, the result being three Papal Bulls, one addressed to the University of Oxford, one to the King, and one to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Bull to the University directed them to deliver up Wycliffe to take his trial for heresy, which, by the Bull to the Archbishop, the Pope had authorised him to conduct, while the King was requested to lend his assistance in the matter, and to authorise the carrying out of the Papal mandate to commit Wycliffe to prison until further instructions were received from the Pope. The University had stood by Wycliffe throughout, and did not fail him now, they treated the Bull with contempt. John of Gaunt being still supreme at Court, the demand for assistance there was no more successful. The Archbishop, however, cited Wycliffe to appear before him, and a meeting of bishops delegated by the Pope to act with him, at his palace at Lambeth; this he did in the early part of 1378. This time he is not accompanied by Lancaster or Percy, but knows that he is backed by a power greater than theirs, that of the people. As the prominent opponent of the Pope, Wycliffe had endeared himself to thousands, while the part taken by the hierarchy against him (the more especially as they had called in the authority of the Pope to aid) had rendered them proportionately unpopular. The priestly party were not prepared for the turn affairs had taken; and thus unintentionally provided Wycliffe with the chance of a victory over them.

JAS. L. GOODING.

THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF SAKYA (BUDDHA).

§ 10. SAKYA UPON HUMAN EQUALITY,

THE mere superficial reader is certain to form a false idea of the essential nature of Sakya's teaching, if he merely fix his attention upon the Buddhist heavens and hells and forms of prayer, for in truth his life-work was much greater and more fruitful; he was antagonising the more ancient teaching of Brahminism, with its endless minute detail of sacrifices and ablutions, prayers and forms of worship. He imported somewhat of the practical moral life into India, and struck boldly at the foundation of the whole system of caste and birth-born inferiority. He was a thorough patriot, who smote hard and home against the evils of his age, neither condescending to pay respect to wealth, station, or power, nor speaking low when boldness became a duty. In India, as in all other lands, the practice extensively prevailed for the rich and powerful to order that the beautiful daughters of their slaves, or, indeed, of any of a lower grade than their own, should be brought to them to become their mistresses. Strange as it may sound, our Saxon ancestors were bound to submit in like manner; and many a life was lost in the struggle to save the loved one from the lewd embraces of the master. Sakya raised his voice against this immoral and brutalising system. He does not appear to have argued the point, but was content to call it evil, and impressed upon all his followers that they must ever set themselves in opposition to the continuance of such a crime.

Many similar and infamous institutions were denounced by this independent teacher, without the introduction of any modifying clauses; so that so far

as the ordinary forms of oppression were concerned, we might esteem him as a reformer whose influence for good was to be for all the world. The rich in India, as well as in Jerusalem and everywhere, laid heavy burdens upon the backs, and even upon the hearts, of the poor; burdens which themselves would not touch with the tips of their fingers, and this, too, he denounced as bad enough to be called unpardonable. For the rich luxuries of the mighty the poor were compelled to toil, and still to toil, hopelessly; and Sakya could not see this without bitterness of soul. He was tender-hearted, having in his nature a large share of the womanly sensibility which caused him to shrink not merely from himself inflicting pain, but also from witnessing its infliction by others. Hence it was that to contemplate all this heavy toil and unrewarded labour was sad to him; his better feelings rose into rebellion against it; and although he did not stand forth prompting men to take up arms to avenge the cause of injured poverty, yet with greater success he attacked the doers of evil, and won large advantages for the poor. These poor, too, could hardly believe what had happened. What! were they then not born to sweat and suffer under heavy loads? Were they not intended by heaven to be as bondmen and bondwomen unto the Rajas and others who ruled and possessed the land? Sakya said, No! but we can readily understand that many rather wished than believed it were true.

*

But, apart from and far above others, the great distinguishing feature of Sakya's teaching, as a social reformer, and that which caused the most opposition to, perhaps, indeed, the overthrow of Buddhism, was the fact that all men were alike free to enter his congregation, their goodness alone securing them the chief places. Major Cunningham, a good authority, seems to be of opinion that at first Sakya maintained the doctrine of caste; or, at least, that he did not vehemently oppose it. This may be true; and, indeed, considering how he had been educated, it is most probable that he did so. But are we, therefore, to coincide with the critic, who says that "afterwards and in "order to obtain more converts, he abolished the caste system, and was upon quite as friendly terms with Sudras as with Brahmins"? Are we necessarily to be accounted selfish if, at the age of twenty, we did not adopt all the principles which we may feel called upon to teach at forty? Do we not all know that the systems in which we are trained exert an almost fatal power over the mind, rendering us incapable of casting them off all at once? If a man gradually wean himself from them, it is all we can fairly demand. And if it require, even in Europe, a considerable degree of courage for a man to stand up, alone, to oppose a system which has been the honoured of ages, why concede less when such was the case with caste in India? Instead of reflecting upon Sakya because this was not his first step, we hold that he is to be honoured for having taken it, without regard to whether it was early or late in life. But, in truth, it requires considerable time and thought before a man arrives at an intellectual perception of this truth. We may jump at it, as many do, but then they only hold it as a theory which they seldom practise when brought into the society of men of a lower social grade. Sakya, however, saw it in its true light, and hence taught that all men were equal; all were to be taught, and all honoured for their good actions, punished for the bad. He had lived as a prince, and as such had mingled with princes; he had lived with the poor and had studied them; and so out of his own experience, aided by his good sense, he had arrived at his conclusion, and once there, no power could change or cause him to be silent. The word had been

* Bhilsa Topes,

uttered, his disciples repeated it, and so, to the alarm of all Brahmins, it went forth through India, that the new teacher recognised no distinctions of class, caste, or birth, but only the difference between good and bad men, and that all classes were equally received to his teaching. Abbe Huc, in his work upon China, gives the narrative of Sakya's mode of action, as now related among the Chinese. He says:

"The Brahmins mocked him, because he received into the number of his disciples miserable men, who were rejected by the first classes of Indian society. But he contented himself with replying, 'My law is a law of mercy "for all.' One day the Brahmins were scandalised at seeing a daughter of "the inferior caste of Tchandala received as a religious woman.

Sakya said: "There is not between a Brahmin and a man of another caste the difference "that there is between gold and a stone, between light and darkness. The

Brahmin, in fact, did not proceed out of the ether, or the wind. He did "not cleave the earth to appear in the daylight like the fire that issues from "the wood of the Arani. The Brahmin was born of a woman, like the “Tchandala; where, then, dost thou see the cause that should render the “one noble and the other vile? The Brahmin himself, when he is dead, is "abandoned as an object vile and impure, precisely like a person from "another caste; where, then, is the difference ?'"*

This doctrine of human equality is, properly speaking, the grand Buddhist centre of religious relationship which yet prevails in all countries where the religion is known. It is not, as so many suppose, a purely Christian doctrine, but was taught and believed in every land where Buddhism had made its way. P. W. P.

SOUTH PLACE CHAPEL SUNDAY EVENING LECTURES. BY P. W. PERFITT, PH. D.

THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES.

(Continued from page 352.)

THE general style of the language of this book is that of an used up man; and as a rule which has its exceptions, the ideas are low when compared with those found in the book of Job, or in Prometheus, and in similar works of modern times. The author thus opens:-Mere vanity, mere vanity, "all is vanity. What profit hath a man by all his labour, with which he wearies himself under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth "for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place "where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the "north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to "his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things are full "of labour: man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear "filled with hearing. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that "which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with "those that shall come after."+

66

66

It has been argued by many orthodox writers that, independently of the "pro"found wisdom" which they profess to discover in this book, there is something so noble in the arrangement of its ideas as to suggest the Divine Authorship. They remind me of the story related of a noble personage having been induced to listen

to the reading of a work under the impression that it was by Sir Walter Scott. As the reader proceeded, the noble listener commanded many pauses, in order to dwell upon the fine passages which, as he frequently urged, none but the masterhand could have traced. When it was ended, he was informed of the fact that the work was by another hand, and, with curious inconsistency, he immediately began to find fault with many of those parts which he had previously praised. I think, strange as it may appear, that he is but the type of a common class, for in modern times there is a sort of literary despotism. Men read through the spectacles of the critics. If a book be well praised by a few, then the many must add their applause, and I fear, without having any sufficient reason. It seems to be thus that the orthodox writers have been induced to extol the language and composition of this book; it has no justification in the facts.

According to the author, all the changes he enumerates produce nothing new. All moves in settled and unchanging circles. There is nothing to be seen or found which was not previously known, and consequently there can be no real progress. Now, however much may be said about the wisdom or the want of artistic tact of an author who thus opens his discourse, it must be freely admitted, even by his friends, that the egotism and ignorance displayed are equal to it. Because it is not true in any other than an abstract metaphysical sense, that there is nothing new under the sun, it is not true that things move in ever-recurring circles. Newness, in the sense in which mortals must understand the term, is a requisite condition of life, and is not absent save from dying nations. The Hebrews knew very little of the new, and practically their system ignored the theory of new systems and ideas growing up; they believed themselves to be in full possession of all which mortals could need, and consequently came easily to the conclusion of there being no possibility of further progress; but we have learnt the greater truth that if a nation cannot work out a new life it must perish.

This

Then follows the celebrated attack upon knowledge-the decrying of wisdom, "I, the Preacher, was King over Jerusalem, and I gave my mind to seek and to "search out with wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven, an evil "business, which God has given to the sons of men with which to vex themselves. "I saw all the things which are done under the sun; and behold, it was all vanity "and feeding upon wind. That which is crooked cannot by mere wisdom be made straight, nor can that which is wanting be numbered. I communed with my heart saying, Behold, I have gained more and greater wisdom than all who have "been before me at Jerusalem, yea, my mind has gotten much wisdom and know"ledge. And I gave my mind to know wisdom, and to know senselessness and "folly; and I perceived that this also is striving after wind. For in much wisdom "is much vexation, and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."* passage has proved to be as pernicious in its effect as any of those which are the most loudly condemned in ancient literature, at least so when taken in connexion with what follows, where wisdom and folly are shown side by side, and the state of one is made out to be the same as the state of the other—the fool faring no worse than the wise. "Then I turned myself to behold wisdom, and "senselessness, and folly. I saw, indeed, that wisdom excels folly, as far as light excels darkness. The wise man's eyes are in his head, but the fool walks "in darkness; yet I perceived also that one event happens to them all. Then I "said in my heart, as it happens to the fool, so it happens to me. Why, then, was I wiser than others? Then I said in my heart, This also is vanity. For "there is no remembrance of the wise man more than of the fool for ever; for in "the days to come shall all that now is be forgotten; and, alas! the wise man dies 'as well as the fool." So he hated life, hated all his labour, found that wisdom and folly were equally vain! Why had he worked so earnestly, building and planting, beautifying, and otherwise adding to the stock of materiel comforts, when he must die and leave them to be enjoyed by others who may be fools? Why, then, better not labour at all. Better take no trouble in the world, either about its works or ways, but just go on as if we were the all. "There is nothing

Eccles. i. 12-18,