and “be silent as a broken gong” might be practicable for a chosen few, if only self were to be considered, but silence and isolation are not worthy ideals in a world of mutual dependence and where all life’s blessings are enhanced by the ministries of the strong to the necessities of the weak.  Infinitely higher was the example of Him who said, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work;” and who accordingly exhorted his disciples to work while the day lasts.  Christ prayed not that they should be taken out of the world, but that they should be kept from the evil.

Again the Buddha’s life furnished but a poor example in the domestic duties.  His abandonment of his wife and child cannot be justified upon any sound theory of life.  Whatever may be said of the merits of celibacy in those who are under no marriage vows, the abandonment of sacred relations once formed must be considered a crime against all society.  As Mohammed’s example of impurity has cast a blight over all Moslem lands, so Gautama’s withdrawal from his home has borne, and is still bearing, its evil fruit.  In Burmah it is common for a Buddhist who desires a change of wives to abandon his family for the sacred life of a monastery, where, if he remains but a single month, he sunders the old relation and is at liberty to form a new one.  Good men are disgusted, but there is the example of “the Blessed One!” It will be admitted that in comparison with Hinduism the Buddhist ethics advanced woman to a higher social condition, but when modern apologists compare Gautama with Christ there are many contrasts which cannot be disguised.

In some respects Socrates stands highest among great philosophers.  Mohammed’s career cost him nothing but gained for him everything that man’s earthly nature could desire.  Gautama made only a temporary sacrifice; he changed lower indulgences for honor and renown, and died at a ripe old age surrounded by loving friends.  But Socrates resolutely and calmly suffered martyrdom for his principles.  The sublime dignity and self-control of his dying hours will never cease to win the admiration of mankind; yet Socrates was by no means a complete character.  He died unto himself merely.  He left no gospel of peace to humanity.  His influence, however pure, could not, and in fact did not, become a diffusive and transforming leaven, either in his own or in any subsequent generation.  The late Matthew Arnold has said, “The radical difference between Jesus and Socrates is that such a conception as Paul’s (conception of faith) would, if applied to Socrates, be out of place and ineffective.  Socrates inspired boundless friendship and esteem, but the inspiration of reason and conscience is the one inspiration which comes from him and which impels us to live righteously as he did.  A penetrating enthusiasm of love, sympathy, pity, adoration, reinforcing the inspiration of reason and duty does not belong to Socrates.  With Jesus it is different.  On this point it is needless to argue:  history has proved.  In the midst of errors the most prosaic, the most immoral, the most unscriptural, concerning God, Christ, and righteousness, the immense emotion of love and sympathy inspired by the person and character of Jesus has had to work almost by itself alone for righteousness, but it has worked wonders."[217]