22 SIR M. MONIER WILLIAMS ON THE MONISM, PANTHEISM, AND 
in itself is no mean distinction even for a knight. Now I see in 
the discussion that has followed the reading of the paper that a 
great deal of theoretic matter has been brought into the argu- 
ment. Different systems of philosophy have different theories in 
regard to Mind and Matter, and it is difficult to decide which of 
them is correct. A recent writer in the Nineteenth Century takes 
a practical view of all religions and systems of philosophy, and in 
a conflict between religious science and philosophy the latter must 
fare the worse, as it begins in doubt and ends in doubt. Great 
stress has been laid on the Pantheism of the Hindus. It is nothing 
more than the cosmic theism of modern times. It simply illus- 
trates the system of philosophy involved in Herbert Spencer’s 
theory of the Unknown, and the Unknowable; or, in other words, 
that God is but the potent energy underlying the phenomena, and 
can only be known, as far as He is manifested, through phe- 
nomena. This being the case, the Hindu philosophy hit upon a 
theory, in times when Herbert Spencer was undreamt of, which is 
consistent with modern investigations, and is the keynote to all 
philosophical scientific discoveries. In talking of Hindu philo- 
sophy, all that we claim for it is that it laid the foundation for 
different modern philosophical systems. We find that Sankhya 
philosophy is represented in the atheistic doctrines of David Hume, 
and the Vedanta in the ideal philosophy of Bishop Berkeley. How- 
ever, my contention is that neither Christianity nor any other 
religion has anything to fear from other religions, but a great deal 
from science. I join most heartily in the vote of thanks to Sir 
Monier Williams for illustrating to us the different systems of 
philosophy of India. 
Professor H. L. Orcuarp, M.A.—May I be permitted to point, 
out that the two positions of the Brahmans are mutually destruc- 
tive P One is exposed by our Brahmanical friend—that Brahma 
was an undifferentiated substance ; and not only so, but could not 
be differentiated. Alongside with that position we have the other, 
that man is God; butif God is not differentiated, how came He to be 
identical with all the human denominations of sin? Then as to 
Spirit manifesting itself through material signs, this would be abso- 
lutely useless, unless understood by those to whom the mani- 
festations were made, and this surely has some relation to the 
truth that man was made in the image of God (that there might 
be a certain correspondence between God and man), and the fact 
‘that the Messiah manifested Himself in flesh. Between the mani- 
