151 
creed, or every-day system of the majority* of mankind, I take a great 
interest, and I would very willingly know more than I do of its practical 
working. It seems to me that if the bishop (whose fairness I much admire) 
were to treat us English as he does the Sinhalese Buddhists— were he, that 
is, to subtract all of our practice which springs simply and solely from the 
‘ natural virtues ’ of our race— we should hardly be in any better position 
than the Buddhists, perhaps we should show (all things considered) to con- 
siderable disadvantage. In page 146 of his paper he seems to me to fall into 
something like a contradiction. Near the top of the page he implies (if I 
do not misapprehend him) that if there were no God there could be no moral 
duties, nothing that a man ought to do. At page 147, he complains that 
these poor Buddhists have never been taught to do ‘ right because it was 
right.’ This seems to me inconsistent, and— if it be a true exposition of 
Christianity— to reduce our morals and religion to that purely utilitarian 
system which Mr. J. S. Mill maintains it is, — I, for one, believe with all my 
heart and soul that even on the hypothesis of atheism (or the nearest 
approach to it that an honest man can muddle himself into), 1. That there 
are distinct moral duties ; 2. That men have, do, and always will acknow- 
ledge the existence and obligation of such duties ; and 3. That they have, 
do, and will approve of all who practise such duties, and will themselves 
practise them, more and more in proportion as such duties are set before 
them simply as duties, plain to all rational men, incumbent on all rational 
men, and not as something which derives all or any of its binding force from 
present comfort and security, or future happiness in heaven. Keligion — 
rational religion, that is,— so far from being the basis of morals either 
speculatively or practically, seems to me to be the consequence of that feeling 
or sense (call it what you will) of right and wrong which all but babies and 
a few philosophers possess in some degree or other. There seems to me 
nothing more likely to bring Christianity into contempt with reasonable 
people than the proof (if proof there could be) that it makes all moral duties 
depend on the arbitrary will of God. My only wonder is that, after so many 
years, centuries of pulpit utilitarianism, Englishmen retain even any rags of 
virtue at all. If Buddhism does teach that there may be — must be right 
and wrong, even though there be no God— then I no longer wonder at its 
influence. It is a strong thing to say, but it is, I believe, true, that we are 
all of us far more certain that there is a binding right, a repellent wrong, 
than we are that there is a God, and that, had man no distinct sense of right 
and wrong to begin with, he would never have dreamed of a God, or would 
have soon awoke from it. So yOu see it is from no want of interest that I 
shall be absent. I cannot come, having all sorts of things to do. 
“ Believe me (in great haste), very truly yours, 
“ Capt. F. Petrie, Hon. Sec.” 
“ H. W. Chandler.” 
* The population of' the globe with reference to religious worship, has 
been estimated as follows : — 
Balbi. Dieterici. 
.T ft ws 
..... 4A millions 
5 millions. 
Christians T 
389 „ 
510 ,, 
Mahometans .... 
155 „ 
.... 160 
Idolaters 
665i „ 
.... 800 „ 
Among these last Balbi estimates the Brahmins at 60 and the Buddhists at 
170 millions, which is considered an under-estimate. — Ed. 
VOL. VIII. M 
