163 
among the Buddhists, we should find that some of the actions which they 
have no compunction in committing are very far removed indeed from what 
would be permitted under our rule of right and wrong. So that where 
we compare Buddhism and Christianity, on the ground of the mere doing 
of what we call right or wrong, not taking God’s will into our reckoning, 
I think we fail to lay any foundation from which we can judge which is 
the better form of religion. (Hear, hear.) 
Dr. Irons. — But the question is, has the Supreme Power any character 
at all ? To say the Creator does as He wills and that is right, simply on 
that ground, would be to destroy the whole character of Deity. 
Mr. Buckley. — I deny that inference in toto. I say we are placed here 
with certain relations to ourselves and everything around us. We must 
first of all ascertain what those relations are. 
The Chairman. — I am afraid we are diverging into the question between 
William Occam and his opponents. 
Mr. Wace. — Mr. Buckley seemed to refer to me as having said that a rule 
of right and wrong was inconsistent with the will of God, what I meant to 
say was that the sense of right and wrong does involve a God as the founder 
of it. But the question is whether you get at the knowledge of God 
through right and wrong, or at the knowledge of right and wrong through 
God. 
The .Rev. T. M. Gorman. — With regard to one speaker’s question, “ How 
are we to deal with Buddhism ? ” I should oppose to it the Bible and its 
teaching— in fact, the truth, preached with boldness and charity, as done by 
the Apostles. I must say I am not satisfied with the tone of Professor 
Chandler’s letter, nor as to the way in which he would propose to settle the 
difficulty. With regard to what another speaker has said, I consider it is 
self-evident that God is the unique source of all goodness and truth, with a 
will, not arbitrary, but absolute in all Divine perfection. 
The Chairman.— I should like to say one or two words before calling on 
the Bight Rev. Bishop for his reply. We have had our attention called to the 
extreme interest of Buddhism as being the religion of one-third of the human 
race, and also as being a religion which is now attracting to itself the affec- 
tions of a great many sceptics. Buddhism is looked upon as a superior sort 
of Theism recommended by historical antiquity or prestige ; in point of fact, 
as a Theism consecrated by long standing. But Bishop Claughton has, I 
think, clearly shown us that it is not a system of Theism, but of Pantheism. 
We can understand the inclination of the human mind towards Pantheism. 
Ho doubt it is a natural thing to endeavour to find everywhere traces of an 
all-pervading Power of Good ; Malebranche (who, as it is said of him, saw 
God everywhere) tells us, I think, that on reading some book in which he 
found his views on this point clearly set forth, his delight caused so violent 
a palpitation that he was compelled to close the volume. But the doctrine 
is not a new one ; it was taught in the West ages ago ; surely we all 
remember reading in Virgil : — 
