To the Editor of the Norra-Curxa Dany News, Deak Sr,—Your Correspondent P.D. is very versatile. He can evidently break a lance with any antagonist. To use an old adage, ''all is grist that comes te his mill." Not long ago we were favoured with an borate dissertation on Darwin and Wallace, Having disposed of them and left them hors de combat, he proceeds so try his hand on Buddhism in general and Sir E. Arnold in particular, Asan interested reader I venture to offer a few remarks, To begin; I should like task what design the articles in question contemplated Surely they are not written, aimlessly; they must have & purpose. What is it? Are they meant to enlighten " foreigners"! If so, I think some of us will be disposed so regard that as a work of supererogation. Did it not savour of discourtesy, we should be disposed to exclaim. "Thank you for nothing." We have read "The Light of Asia" and are not totally ignorant of Buddhism. As regards the former, while its historical allusions are not always correct, uor its theology and psychology accurate, it is, I submit, worthy of more than a sneer. ' Pecksnifian" is hardly the phrase suitable to a poem so abounding with literary beauties and ethical truths, One is tempted to ask if P.D. has read it? If so, why does he not show himself more generous toward its good points Again Lask why are the essays in your columns published, Mr. Editor? If not forthe benefit of foreigners" then Chinese must be the objects of the author's solicit tude, He wishes, we will assume, to incline them toward Christianity. Does he? Well, I confess that he seems to me to go about his work in a strange style. Not thus is human nature usually influenced. Denunciation only increases already exist-fully easy, but equally exasperating, Per-aversion, Calling names is. wonder-
swusion is the true and only effectual means of convincing. What says the old Book? We persuade men Almost thou persuades me." The other day I met with Melauethon's golden rule of coutroversy." We shall all do well to remember it. Here it is:—" Exhibit first of all the points which you hold in common with your adversary, and then seek to convince hits by recommending only those points on which you differ which are of real practical importance." Tobe sure. This is sterling, strong common-sense.
Tam no Buddhist. Far, very far from it. But 1 am for fair play all round and fair Buddhist. PD. gives us the shady side lay to e comer, Buddhist or anti-of this religion. Very well; he has a perfect right todo so. But is he not bound also to give us the bright side, and nobody who is acquainted with Buddha's teachings can for a moment deny how noble, exalted, even Christ-like some of thei A distinct and an emphatic assertion of th would have well become your correspondent. When Paul preached to the heathen he was never slow to acknowledge the truth and goodness to be found in their systems. "Certain of your own poets" were quoted with evident alacrity and zest on Mars Hill at Athens.
My opponent may possibly complain of will ask me to be more specific. Very on the score of vagueness. Perhaps he good. Iwill try at once to substantiate and exemplify what I have said. Among other quotations (nut defective in point of number) is one from Sir Menier Williams in which he declares that there are only two points in the historical narrative of the New Testament which bear any intrinsic resemblance to the life of Buddha. These he proceeds to specify as Simeon's words in Teference to the infant Jesus and t Temptation in the wilderness of Judea, Now, I do not hesitate to stigmatise such a statement as being palpably unveracious.
These two incidents the only points of analogy between Christ and Buddha? Why, Mr. Editor, the grand end and aim of Bud dha affords an impressive counterpart to that of Christ. For what did the Saviour come?
seek and to save the lust. And for what did Buddha sacrifice life's comforts, riches, honours? For the same purpose. Now, that he erred most lamentably a& to his method of delivering men from sin and suffering is too true, Nevertheless in aim, was he not one with that divine Being who "though He was rich, for our sakes became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich." Do let us be just, Honour to whom honour is due. Buddha's grant renunciation" is second to nodeed of self-saorifice save that which is s0 sublimely displayed in the Incarnation.
One other renmrk: P, D, reminds us that Buddhists are often callous and inhumane, despite the inculcation of kindness and benevolence by Buddha. That is so: the roof is not far to sock in the very land we five in. But the shortcomings of its votaries are hardly condemnatory of system. Other wise atheists and heathen might raise formidable, if not unanswerable, objection to Christianity, A man fails to live up to his creed, therefore the said creed is false That is nut logic. Your correspondent reminds us that the cruel, sanguinary Ki Thebaw of Burma was a Buddhist, Yes and Pope Alexander VI, Philip IT of Spain, the brutal upholders of the notorious inquisition, andotherstoonumeroustomention professed to be Christians. Are we therefore to denounce and discard Christianity Hardly 5 Again; your contributor is careful to remind us that Buddhism is largely an tumizture of heathenism and even of hea thenism in some of its lower forms. It is and, unfortunately, certain manifestations of Christianity are much the same. Can P. D. deny that the pretended melting of St. Januarius's blood, the winking Madonna of which we heard so much years ago, the healing of the sick by relics, &c., &. are essentially heathen? They are a miserable burlesque of Christianit What Buddhists and all men need is Jesus Christ. Let the living, loving, redeeming Christ be put before them, This should be our ceaseless cry,—Ecce Homo, The Baptist's message should be that of the church:—"* Behold the Lamb of God."
Yours, &e., T. R, Srevenson, 20th March.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.