DUALISM OF BRAHMANICAL AND ZOROASTRIAN PHILOSOPHERS. 23 
festations and those to whom they were made there was a certain 
connecting link, a certain correspondence, without which those 
manifestations would have been absolutely useless. Brahmanism 
appears to me to be altogether inconsistent with Christianity, 
which teaches me that Iam a fallen being; that I can only enter 
the Kingdom of Heaven by being born again, and becoming a 
partaker of the Divine nature. Brahmanism ignores this. It 
ministers to human pride and to human wickedness by declaring 
that without a radically new birth I can enter into the Kingdom 
of Heaven. Might I be allowed to add another to the very 
interesting list of triads with which Sir Monier Williams concluded ? 
I do not think he mentioned self and not self and the conscious- 
ness which connects the two. 
Sir M. Monter WittiAms.—I have been greatly interested in the 
speeches which have followed my paper; but, to deal satisfactorily 
with all that has been said, I should require to make a very 
tedious reply, or to write a second long paper, which would 
be a bad return for the kind attention accorded to my exposition _ 
of a dry subject on the present occasion. With Dr. Collingwood’s 
striking observations, in which he dwelt on the truth that Nature, 
or all natural phenomena, are, as it were, the written language 
through which we, who are created in God’s image, may read, 
mark, and understaud the ideas, designs, and qualities of Love, 
Wisdom, &c., existing in the mind of our Creator, and so commn- 
nicate with Him; I need scarcely say that I entirely agree, and I 
may add that a well-known Christian hymn supports his view in 
the following words :— 
Thou, who hast given me eyes to see, 
And love this sight so fair, 
Give me a heart to find out Thee 
And read Thee everywhere. 
And still more a well-known verse in the Bible :—‘‘ The invisible 
things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, 
being understood by the things that are made.” The speech 
which followed Dr. Collingwood’s was dealt with by Mr. W. 
H. Robinson, and in some respects sufliciently answered.* 
* The reporters’ notes of this speech—that of Mr. Desai, a Brabman— 
were sent to him for correction, but never received back, and Sir Monier 
Williams writes; “ Before the publication of my paper (now published for 
