161 
Pantheism. Then, on metaphysical grounds, it seems to me that the common 
mode of conceiving the relationship of the Deity to the external universe is 
somewhat defective. A great philosopher, Sir William Hamilton, lays it 
down as a self-evident proposition, that the complement of being cannot be 
increased. We cannot believe that anything can actually come into exist- 
ence in the sense that the complement of existence is thereby increased 
and consequently the universe must have existed in the Deity before it 
existed in its present form, in some real, though it might be unintelligible, 
sense. Besides that, Pantheism, as it is emboddied in Buddhism, has this 
recommendation, that it is a very great improvement on the system which 
it superseded. That has been admitted very expressly by the Bight Rev. 
Bishop in his paper, and I think we can sympathize with the author of the 
Buddhist system, and understand him to have been of pure and lofty moral 
aspirations, and actuated by those aspirations in his dislike to the prevailing 
Brahminism. The result of his cogitations was that system which has 
obtained such extensive credence, and which continues to exert so mighty 
influence over the minds of the East. These are some of the things 
which seem to account for the fact to which I have referred. But there 
are some insuperable objections, to the intelligent Christian mind, to the 
acceptance of any form of Pantheism as propounded by Strauss or Arnold, 
or in the rather different form contained in Picton’s book. One of 
the insuperable objections to my mind is that, according to Pantheism, 
there can be no such thing as moral evil. Every action of every being is 
simply a development according to its nature. It does not recognize any 
independent created will, having the power to disobey the will of the 
Creator. Thus it undermines the very foundation of morality, as I under- 
stand it, and certainly in the Christian sense of the word, there can be no 
such thing as a God with such a belief, and consequently the whole super- 
structure of Christian doctrine which rests on that assumption is overturned. 
Then, again, with respect to the wants of human nature. Professor Huxley 
asserts in one of the lectures contained in his “Lay Sermons and Addresses,” 
that modern science has discovered the true way of satisfying the cravings 
of man’s spiritual nature, which is the most astounding utterance I ever 
heard. I think the deepest and most ineradicable desire of human nature 
is for communion with a personal God — a Being morally perfect, as well as 
possessed of the other attributes which we regard as essential to a Deity to 
whom we can look up with reverence, whom we .can trust with implicit con- 
fidence, to whom we can give the most fervent love of our hearts, and from 
whom we may hope to receive that love of which the infinite heart is ca- 
pable. In that essentially and pre-eminently the dignity and happiness of 
human nature consists, and there is no element in our nature which is 
so unmistakable and undeniable. If a man can give me a religion which 
meets those requirements and those demands of my nature for a real morality 
which implies evil and moral good, and an essential distinction between the 
two, together with a God who is worthy of the most profound homage of 
which my heart is capable, and from whom I may hope to receive that love 
