159 
Mr. Gibson. — There is just one question which I wish to ask the Bishop, 
and that is whether he was struck in any way by the missionary spirit or 
operations of the Buddhists. He is quite aware that a very strong statement 
has been made by Professor Max Muller, placing Buddhism on a par with 
Christianity in regard to its missionary machinery. I should like to know 
whether Bishop Claughton saw any exhibition of that machinery. A very 
bold statement has been made, and I must say that I am a little doubtful 
concerning its correctness, and I do not know any one better able to answer 
the question than Bishop Claughton. 
Dr. Irons. — May I be permitted to say that the passage in the paper 
which has been commented on by Professor Chandler, happens to be a 
passage which I myself marked as it was read in the sense of Professor 
Chandler, and not in the sense of Bishop Claughton. 
Mr. Wace. — I am happy to hear that observation from Dr. Irons. Pro- 
fessor Chandler’s remarks seem to me to touch so closely our interest in this 
question, that I should like to draw more attention to them. The question 
that interests us is not, I think, principally that of the relative excellences 
of Christianity and of Buddhism. That is, indeed, out of the question in this 
room ; for it is a foregone conclusion, and I do not think it can be other- 
wise even with those to whom Mr. Row has referred. What we want to 
understand is, how we are to deal with this extraordinary manifestation of 
human nature which we call Buddhism ; because, although in what we call 
the civilized world — the countries of Europe and other western countries — 
these heathen religions appear comparatively insignificant, yet we must do 
justice to the stupendous fact that they form the religions of by far the 
greatest part of the human race. Buddhism is the religion of far more 
human beings than Christianity,* and people who want to understand 
human nature cannot leave out of the account such an important fact. 
We want to know what Buddhism means, and what are its excellences ; 
and, as Dr. Irons has led the way, I will venture to say that the essential 
principle of Buddhism concerns us now most intimately, not so much in 
the direction of Strauss’s “Old and Hew Faith,” which is, no doubt, pure 
Pantheism, but much more in those speculations to which great currency 
has been given in a book to which I refer with the utmost respect for its 
author and for its motive, — I mean Mr. Matthew Arnold’s “ Literature and 
Dogma,” a book which seems to me to advocate a kind of semi-Christian 
Buddhism. The author’s view is that the essential part of the Bible is the 
bringing to light “ the Eternal, not ourselves, which makes for righteous- 
ness ” ; that you cannot verify a personal God, but you can verify a stream 
of tendency which makes for righteousness. How is not that the principle 
of Buddhism as explained by Bishop Claughton ? In what way can we 
deal with it ? There are two ways. One is to go to the Indian, or to the 
English Buddhists, and start from the principle of having a revelation from 
God ; and the other is to see whether we may, in arguing with them, start 
from the principle of right and ■wrong, which they all acknowledge, and 
* See note at commencement of discussion. — Ed. 
