146 
blessing, they will deprecate curses and malice of cruel demons ; 
and though the Buddhist priest does not acknowledge, he does 
not forbid the impious rite. He cannot, however, escape respon- 
sibility for that which is the natural consequence of his system 
of teaching, and its fatal denial of the existence of God. 
(3.) But is the morality of this creed so perfect as, after all, to 
raise it, if not to an equality, yet to a point of fair comparison 
with that of the Christian ? I shall not enter into details, but 
I will take care that Buddhism shall not suffer for my brevity. 
I will admit that the leading virtues are taught, and most of 
the sins which debase our nature in effect forbidden ; that, in 
fact, our own ten commandments are found to be the basis of 
morality as between man and man, if, as we should expect, the 
duty we owe to God is omitted. The error, however, arises at 
this very point. To whom, if not to God, are we responsible for 
moral duties at all? The Buddhist is not, indeed, without a 
reply ; but is it a sufficient reply ? He bids us perform good 
deeds and avoid evil actions— the former for merit , the latter 
under fear of a future loss the one to advance us towards the 
state of Nirwdna, the latter as bringing the consequence of a 
continued existence, and that, it may be, in the lower form of 
some animal. I do not stop to argue the point, how can there 
be merit where there is no standard of excellence, no judge or 
rewarder of goodness, I will simply say that, allowing it to 
be possible to inculcate the practice of virtue on such a ground, 
very few will accept the teaching ; it will not meet the difficulty 
which besets every man — his temptations , his natural inclina- 
tions to evil, or his very inertness and love of ease. The actual 
result is that a few do perform good actions, generally such as 
meet with a present reward of outward respect, and almost all 
perform some supposed duties, too often such as have no intrinsic 
goodness, such, for instance, as saving the life of animals, often 
under circumstances where it might be preferable to act other- 
wise, as the killing of noxious creatures dangerous to the life of 
man. I have pointed out to the people themselves how sad it 
was that, while that was the case, it never occurred to them 
that it must also be a duty to make the lives of animals 
happier whilst they existed. I have seen them very cruel 
indeed to a lame and disabled dog. They would not kill it, 
but they made its life very intolerable, to say the least of 
it. I do not enter upon the question of the performance of 
ordinary duties, or even the practice of the quiet virtue of 
kindness, obedience to parents, love of children and the like, for 
the truth is, the nation I am speaking of in these remarks is 
by no means deficient in these respects. If I could I woulu 
