Kolben's testimony aside. The Fuegians are not known to have any well-defined notions of religion, but they have superstitions and conjurors. We require to wait for information as to what their beliefs really are. Mr Darwin and Mr Matthews seem to have been both dependent on the Jemmy Button mentioned by Sir John Lubbock in their inquiries regarding the religious sentiments of the Fuegians. I must confess I cannot consider Jemmy's explanation of the facts described by Mr Matthews as quite so satisfactory as Sir John thinks it. That people should cry very much when they are sad is natural enough; but the peculiarity of the case is the crying at a particular time, is the assembling to howl or lament at sunrise. No amount of sadness, it seems to me, can account for that; while, of course, a little religious belief would. Then, as to the Khasias, the testimony of Dr Hooker is again misrepresented precisely as in the case of the Lepchas, while nothing is adduced to disprove that of Colonel Yule. The Khasias recognise the existence of a Supreme Being, although they only worship the inferior spirits, who are supposed to inhabit the mountains, glens, and heaths. They offer libations to the gods before drinking. "Breaking hens' eggs" is their method of taking auguries— and perhaps one not more ridiculous than those practised by the ancient Greeks and Romans.1

1 See Appendix XXXI.

I have now laid before you the evidence which Sir John Lubbock has been able to bring forward in support of the position that there are many peoples and tribes wholly destitute of religion. He has shown more industry in the collection of facts favourable to the conclusion which he draws than any other ethnologist or anthropologist, so far as I know, and for his industry he certainly deserves commendation; but it is impossible to credit him with having carefully and critically ascertained what are to be regarded as facts and what not. I do not charge him with having allowed any theological prepossessions to bias his judgments as to the facts. I gladly acknowledge that he displays nothing of the utterly unscientific and anti-religious bitterness which characterises what some have written on this subject. I look at his proposition and proof purely from an anthropological point of view, and I find that the proposition is not made out, that the proof is wholly unsatisfactory-for the so-called facts which constitute the proof are not really facts. But "how," he asks, "can a people who are unable to count their own fingers, possibly raise their minds so far as to admit even the rudiments of a religion?" answer, first, by asking, Is it then quite certain that there are peoples unable to count their own fingers? I know that the statement has become a commonplace among anthropologists, but I do

I

not find that there is much evidence produced for it. The Australians, according to Sir John Lubbock, cannot count above three, and have no word for any higher number. Yet one of his own vocabularies shows how they count far above three. Thus tres, their word for three, thrice repeated is nine, which shows that these Australians can not only count above three but can count by multiplying threes. The evidence on which anthropologists have concluded that the Australians cannot count above three would prove that Englishmen cannot count thirteen and upwards, since thirteen, fourteen, &c., are only three and ten, four and ten, &c., put together. But, further, whether the Australians can or can not count their own fingers, it is certain that they have the rudiments of a religion; and we are bound to accept what is fact whether we can account for it or not, whether we can reconcile it with some other fact or not.

I do not venture to maintain that there are no tribes, no peoples, wholly destitute of religion, wholly without any sense of dependence on invisible powers. It may be that there are. I only say that, so far as I can judge, it has not been made out that there is any such tribe, any such people; and the examination of Sir John Lubbock's instances, far from leading me to his conclusion, leaves me with the conviction that, if

there be any such peoples they must be very few indeed.

But I must not overlook that an attack on the universality of religion, or at least on the universality of belief in a God, has been made from another side. The very marvellous system of thought called Buddhism, which originated in India about five hundred years before the advent of Christ, has spread over a greater area of the earth, and gained more adherents than even Christianity, and by peaceful means-by the power of persuasion-not by force of arms, not by persecution. Disregarding all distinctions of class, nation, and race, and enforcing no social laws or theories, but concentrating its whole energy on showing the way to eternal deliverance from evil, it has propagated itself in a much more remarkable manner than Mohammedanism. Although driven out of India-Nepaul excepted-after having flourished there for centuries, its devoted missionaries have spread it over Ceylon and Burmah, China and Japan, Tartary and Thibet. But Buddhism, we are told, is a system of atheism; and the three hundred millions of people by whom it is embraced, ignore in the most absolute manner the notion not only of a future state but of a deity. "There is not the slightest trace of a belief in God in all Buddhism," says M. Barthélemy SaintHilaire; and many others speak as strongly.

A very little examination, however, shows that such statements are stronger than they ought to be, and that they cannot but mislead unless they are explained and limited. In this religion which is characterised as atheistic, gods are represented as appearing on numerous occasions. In the legend of Buddha the gods of the Hindu pantheon are familiar personages, and never is a shadow of doubt thrown on their existence. "It is not enough to say," writes Saint-Hilaire, "that Buddha does not believe in God. He ignores Him in such a complete manner, that he does not even care about denying His existence; he does not care about trying to abolish Him; he neither mentions such. a being in order to explain the origin or the anterior existence of man and his present life, nor for the purpose of conjecturing his future state and his eventual freedom. Buddha has no acquaintance whatsoever with God, and, quite given up to his own heroic sorrows and sympathies, he has never cast his eyes so far or so high." Now, if by God be meant the true God, this is what no one will either deny or be surprised at; but every account of Buddhism, M. Saint-Hilaire's included, and all the literature of Buddhism yet made known to the European world, agree in showing that Buddha has always been supposed by the millions of his followers to have been familiar with gods, and heavens, and hells, innumerable. You will not