In Europe we are accustomed to associate the ideas of sacerdotalism, hierarchy and dogma, mainly because they are united in the greatest religious organization familiar to us, the Roman Catholic Church.  But the combination is not necessary.  Hinduism is intensely sacerdotal but neither hierarchical nor dogmatic:  Mohammedanism is dogmatic but neither sacerdotal nor hierarchical:  Buddhism is dogmatic and also somewhat hierarchical, since it has to deal with bodies of men collected in monasteries where discipline is necessary, but except in its most corrupt forms it is not sacerdotal.  The absence of the hierarchical idea in Hinduism is striking.  Not only is there no Pope, but there is hardly any office comparable with a Bishopric[127].  The relationships recognized in the priesthood are those springing from birth and the equally sacred ties uniting teacher and pupil.  Hence there is little to remind us of the organization of Christian Churches.  We have simply teachers expounding their sacred books to their scholars, with such combination of tradition and originality as their idiosyncrasies may suggest, somewhat after the theory of congregational churches.  But that resemblance is almost destroyed by the fact that both teachers and pupils belong to clans, connected by descent and accepted by the people as a superior order of mankind.  Even in the most modern sects the descendants of the founder often receive special reverence.

Though the Brahmans have no ecclesiastical discipline, they do not tolerate the interference of kings.  Buddhist sovereigns have summoned councils, but not so Hindu monarchs.  They have built temples, paid priests to perform sacrifices and often been jealous of them but for the last two thousand years they have not attempted to control them within their own sphere or to create a State Church.  And the Brahmans on their side have kept within their own province.  It is true that they have succeeded in imposing—­or in identifying themselves with—­a most exacting code of social, legal and religious prescriptions, but they have rarely aimed at temporal power or attempted to be more than viziers.  They have of course supported pious kings and received support—­especially donations—­from them, and they have enjoyed political influence as domestic chaplains to royal families, but they have not consented to any such relations between religion and the state as exist (or existed) in England, Russia, Mohammedan countries or China.  At the ancient coronation ceremony the priest who presented the new ruler to his subjects said, “This is your King, O people:  The King of us Brahmans is Soma[128].”

2