365 
any other race in the world. I would put the morality of the Buddhist teach- 
ing next to that of the Christian doctrine ; but I cannot speak, I am sorry to 
say, m the same terms of the Mahommedan system ; there is no doubt, 
however, that it was intended to be a protest against Polytheism and 
co a ry. Why did Buddhism fail ? Just because man camiot of himself 
become wholly good. He is a fallen creature, and in order to become good 
he must go to the Source of all goodness. We know that we have in our 
esse d Saviour the source of an inspiration of goodness, and we can recover 
from Him that which we have lost. Well, the reason why the morality of 
the Buddhist nations is not successful is, that their system is inconsistent 
with true religion as the basis of morality. If you take Mahomme- 
anism, you find that it is widely at variance with true morality, 
o not misunderstand me. I do not wish you to suppose that there is 
nothing good and true in Mahommcdanism, and that the Mahommedans 
have not great virtues and high qualities, but these are all marred and blurred 
by that which drags them down ; namely, first of all, the fact of their being 
linked to a gross imposture, and next, the false and carnal morality, or rather 
immorality, which is mixed up with the religious system itself. Now, we as 
Christians inherit the learning and faith that have come to us from the very 
highest and first source; we do not borrow, and have not borrowed in the 
least, from those other systems of which we have heard in the Paper read 
to-night. Our monotheism, our belief in one great God and Father and 
Creator, comes to us as our first fathers knew it ; and it has been 
handed down to us unimpaired, although often lost to the great part 
of mankind. Still it did come to us, and if it came in no other 
way, God preserved it among His own chosen people, who were 
selected as the repositories of His truth, until Christ came, as the True 
Light of the world, and we now are the inheritors of that great light. I 
do not think there would be much edification in going very deeply into 
these questions. I would not deny the usefulness of those antiquarians 
who take us into these things, nor the gratitude we owe them, but there is 
this difficulty, that in going into these matters of the far past we may be so 
easily mistaken ; and I must say for myself that I cannot follow them with 
the zest I should like to feel in these interesting, but sometimes not veiy 
edifying, paths of history, or rather of conjecture. Still, I think we are 
much indebted to those who prepare for us papers such as that which we 
have heard to-night, and who thus create an interest in this sort of investi- 
gation. I am afraid I have not contributed much in the way of throwing 
light on the subject of this evening, but I must thank you for the kindness 
with which you have listened to me. (Hear, hear.) 
Eev. Principal J. H. Bigg, D.D. — I could have wished that my excellent 
and learned friend Dr. Rule had not been quite so strict in his adherence to 
his own particular object. He has set the example of not indulging even in 
an introduction to his subject, and I think that that is one reason why the 
subject itself is liable to be more or less misunderstood. I do not under- 
