Tamerlane than to the heart of Christian society in this century. But to turn to the spirit of toleration to be found in other creeds. The toleration of the Brahman or Buddhist philosopher, striking as it appears at first sight, proves when examined to be simple indifference or neglect. The absence of all active spirit of persecution, as long as the opponent is quiescent and submissive, which makes both Brahman and Buddhist practically so tolerant, is the offspring of contempt, and has nothing in common with the toleration which springs from the desire to do by all men as we would that they should do by us. Time is wanting for any detailed comparison of the civilizing tendencies of either class of creeds with those of Christianity. I will mention but one obvious tendency of the teaching of each, which seems to me to place it, as compared with Christianity, in a position. of decided inferiority. Of the innumerable schools of Brahmanism, none is more popular in India than that of materialists, who teach that we can know nothing, certainly, save of matter and its properties; and that belief in what we call life or spirit, save as functions and properties of matter, -and by consequence any belief in a spiritual deity, -is a hopeless error and delusion. Something of the same kind is sometimes taught among ourselves, and into its truth or falsehood we will not now enter. But 337 of its value as a civilizing agency we may form some idea, if we consider that there is hardly one of the practices which the English Government has been engaged in putting down, in the interests as we believed of all humanity and civilization, which is not clearly defensible under any moral code which can be deduced from such a creed. For instance, infanticide, or at least the slaying of all children for whose nurture ample provision cannot be assured, is clearly defensible upon materialistic principles. So is the practice of Suttee, and the slaughter of all who have an incurable disease, or who from age or infirmity are unable to provide for their own subsistence. The great community of Thugs have excellent materialistic reasons for their mode of possessing themselves of the property of others, nor do I see how any form of rapine or appropriation, which practically enunciates the right of the strongest, can be objected to by any strict materialistic philosopher. Clearly there is no form of vice, so long as it is not directly prejudicial to health, from which a thorough-going materialist need be restrained. He is himself the sole judge of right or wrong, nor need he regard anything except in its relation to his own physical enjoyment. Pressed with considerations of this kind, the Brahman materialist generally evades all obligation to construct any theory of moral duty. The only obligation he acknowledges is to find out the true nature. and laws of matter, and how he can best live in accordance with those laws. The search is a long one, and while it is in progress the whole world may go on its way-unenlightened, unless it will follow the researches of the philosopher. Surely there is nothing in such systems which can compare to the work, past or possible, of Christianity as a civilizing agency. Nor is the case much better if we turn to Buddhism, the worship of pure reason, of which also one could find examples under other names among ourselves. No doubt it has achieved, in times past, triumphs of civilization of which there is scarcely any parallel in history. But it is equally clear that there is some defect which causes it now to give way, as a practical civilizing element, before Christianity. As a religion for all mankind (apart of course from all question of its truth) Buddhism is proved, by the inexorable logic of facts, to be weaker than Christianity. It seems to me, the cause is not far to seekBuddhism places its summum bonum in escape from passion, and from all connection with matter, from life and from existence, as involving passion. Such a system may evolve a high morality, or construct a great fabric of political wisdom; but it has nothing to offer mankind, nothing which comes so home to the instincts of all humanity as the Christian doctrines of the resurrection of the body and life everlasting in union with a glorified body. We may debate for ever over the proof of either doctrine; but as matter of fact and experience, there can be no doubt that they appeal to the hearts and instincts of mankind in a manner which the atheistic annihilation taught by the Buddhist philosopher never can. Something of the feeling which I have endeavoured to express, of the paramount power of Christianity as a civilizing agency, and a bond of political union, is apt to show itself instinctively where it might least be suspected. If a despot in Christendom is anxious for his throne, or if politicians find that the people long neglected are getting loose from all social and political ties, they are apt to call in the Christian teacher, as though he possessed some spell, the utterance of which could calm the wild passions of unrestrained and untaught humanity. Such men forget that Christianity is no charm or magical device, and that its power rests in the hearts of believers. Let them be wise in time, and before they put away from them the teachings of Christianity, and deliberately abjure its obligations as their rule of political and social life, let them remember that such gifts are not often twice offered to men or nations; and that to nations, as to men, it may happen, after once rejecting them, to find no place for repentance, "though they seek it carefully with tears." |