156 
into unconsciousness, tie must go through a set of transmigrations. This 
is a moral force which the system of Strauss is positively wanting in, for 
he teaches . us that it is exactly the same with the evil and the good — 
that the greatest villain and the best of all men meet with the same end, 
a painless and everlasting sleep. I wish to add one further observation. 
I apprehend that Max Muller, in his recent work, did not intend to 
assert that Buddhism, as it now exists , is a Missionary religion ; but that it 
was so in its origin, and in the original impulse through which it spread ; in 
one word, that there are three religions only in the world, which can claim 
the character of Missionary ones, Christianity, Mahomedanism, and Bud- 
dhism ; these have been propagated mainly by persuasion and preaching — 
the two former, the second especially, having been aided by the sword : 
these three religions have spread from a well-known historical beginning in 
a single person, until they have embraced millions of our race. — This is what 
I apprehend Max Miiller intended in saying that Buddhism is a Missionary 
religion. To affirm that it is so at the present moment, no one would do 
who has the smallest regard for facts. But it is an equally patent fact, that 
it was so at its first commencement, and until it had spread over a, third of 
our race. The Greek Church is a Church from which the Missionary spirit 
is gone. A person who knew only of this Church, might affirm that Chris- 
tianity was not a Missionary religion. The fact that the whole life and 
Missionary spirit of Buddhism has passed away, by no means hinders that 
at its commencement it was one of the great Missionary religions of the 
earth. Buddhism, though now effete, was Missionary in its origin, and in 
the conditions of its first existence ; and on this account took rank with the 
Christians and Mahomedans, which together with it, formed the only three 
religions of mankind which have been animated by a Missionary spirit. 
The Rev. W. J. Irons, D.D, — I rise to say very little indeed on this subject, 
because I am aware how little is yet known, and have taken pains to ascertain 
as much as is yet knowable by an Englishman who cannot read Sanskrit. I 
have not the advantage which Bishop Claughton has had of living among 
these people, and therefore I am anxious to hear from him more than he has 
yet brought before us this evening. Probably, in his lordship’s concluding 
observations, when he comes to reply, he will enlighten us somewhat further. 
We want to learn how, practically, to deal with this great system of Buddhism, 
which is the religion of so large a part of the human race, submitted, by a 
mysterious providence, to the government of this country. We have to 
govern the believers in Buddhism and the Brahminism out of which 
Buddhism sprang. We have great duties towards them, and we have very 
few sources open to us as Englishmen which will help us to understand 
those duties. There is an excellent work by Mr. Spence Hardy on 
“Eastern Monachism,” which I read some fifteen years ago. Mr. Hardy 
was a Nonconformist missionary, and his book gave me a clearer idea of the 
Buddhist system, as a whole, than I should have obtained from any other 
source. Professor Max Midler’s books are too mysterious, vague,, and unhis- 
torical to satisfy me. I have read them with attention, but I got very little 
