Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the subject. We know not to what section of the Church Mr. Mercer belongs, but certainly the statement that we "can offer. proper sacrifice," savours strongly of popery.

There is very little in common between the Congregational Lecturer and the author of "Why the Cross of Christ ?" Their conceptions of God's relation to the eternal law and his government of the moral universe differ totally. Mr. Mercer, in his anxiety to maintain that there is complete harmony between God's nature and the eternal law, and identity between the Divine will and the punishment of sin, seems to us to represent God as helpless in relation to the penalties of transgression. Speaking of the suffering due to sin he says: "God's holy nature. could not be satisfied without the full measure of this suffering being meted out somewhere. . . . Nay, it will of itself fall somewhere,—would of itself fall somewhere,—even if God wished it to be otherwise." If this were true, who could unfeignedly believe in the forgiveness of sins? Where is the possibility for any exercise of mercy? We do not believe that God governs the moral universe on such commercial principles, as to require that "Christ should really endure as much pain as was deserved, as a punishment for the sins of the redeemed."

Mr. Mercer's treatise is certainly not a successful reply to Mr. Dale. It is refreshing to turn from the former book to the latter, which abounds in passages of beauty, power and eloquence. May we quote one passage from this great work? We select the reply of Mr. Dale to the question which the Rev. James Martineau says has "never been answered." Mr. Martineau asks:

"How is the alleged immorality of letting off the sinner mended by the added crime of penally crushing the sinless? Of what man-of what angel-could such a thing be reported without raising a cry of indignant shame from the universal human heart? What should we think of a judge who should discharge the felons from the prisons of a city because some noble and generous citizen offered himself to the executioner instead?"

To this Mr. Dale replies:

"Mr. Martineau must accept all our facts before he has a right to bring a moral charge against our doctrine. He must not discuss the evangelical theory of the Atonement on the Unitarian theory of the Person of Christ. But his analogy is doubly false false to his own conception of God; false to our conception of Christ. On his theory, God can pardon the sins of men without an atonement, but a judge can only acquit or condemn-the prerogative of pardon does not belong to him. On our theory, Christ is infinitely more than the most 'noble and generous of citizens' who could offer himself to the executioner instead of the guilty. He is Himself the Representative-and more than the Representative-of the law which has been violated. The question which Mr. Martineau has asked is irrelevant. The true question is, Whether the act of Christ, in enduring the suffering which He must otherwise have inflicted, is an 'immorality,' 'a crime' which should raise a cry of indignant shame from the universal human heart'?

"For an answer to that question I can trust the universal human heart' to which Mr. Martineau appeals. Wherever the real facts have been known, instead of

a cry of indignant shame' there has been a cry of thanksgiving and of worship. Had God insisted that before He would forgive sinful men, some illustrious saint or some holy angel should endure the agonies of Gethsemane and the awful sorrow of the Cross; had He refused to listen to the prayer of the penitent until His anger had been allayed, or His retributive justice received what would have been an unreal satisfaction, through the sufferings of one of His creatures who had kept all His commandments, then Mr. Martineau's question could have received no answer. However voluntary, however eager, might have been the sacrifice on the part of saint or angel, God could not have accepted it without perplexing and confounding all our conceptions of His moral character. But is there any 'immorality,' any 'crime,' anything to provoke a cry of indignant shame' in the resolve of God Himself, in the Person of Christ, to endure suffering instead of inflicting it? Will any man who confesses that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh cry 'shame' when He, the Moral Ruler of men, to avoid the terrible necessity of condemning us to eternal death, assumes our nature, is tempted in the wilderness, endures the ingratitude, malignity, and scorn of those whom He has come to save; submits to be charged with blasphemy, spat upon, scourged, nailed to the Cross, passes into that 'outer darkness' into which He must otherwise have driven the human race for its crimes, and dies of a broken heart through the greatness of His sorrow? 'Immorality!'—it is the most wonderful proof of the infinite love of God. 'Crime!'—it is the supreme manifestation of God's moral perfection. But for this, we might have thought that self-sacrifice, which is the flower and crown of all human excellence, was impossible to God. We see now that every form of heroic love and mercy by which our hearts are thrilled in the story of the noblest of men, is but the shadow of the transcendent and eternal perfection of the Most High. 'An indignant cry of shame'! It is this expression of the righteousness and grace of the Moral Ruler of mankind which has kindled the most passionate love that has ever glowed in the hearts of men on earth, and it is this which is celebrated in the most rapturous anthems which are ever heard in Heaven."

W.

THE LAST BOODHIST CONTROVERSY IN CEYLON.

PANTURA is a small town twenty miles from Colombo, where there is a very large Boodhist temple, situated on an elevation by the side of the road. It is often well filled with devout worshippers, especially on poya, or new and full moon days, and other festival times. To this place, our late laborious Native missionary, the Rev. David de Silva, was appointed in 1873. He was known throughout the Island as the learned champion of Christianity, and being well read both in Pâli and Sanscrit was considered even by the Boodhists to be no despicable foe. Scarcely had he settled down in his new Circuit when he commenced a course of lectures on the VOL. VI. FIRST SERIES.

teachings of Boodha relative to the human soul; and so roused his enemies that they challenged him to an open discussion.

Accordingly the 26th of August, 1873, was fixed upon. A temporary building was put up, with a bamboo partition across the centre, as well as on the platform, which had been erected at one end of it, to divide the Christians from the Boodhists. The Boodhist side of the building was ornamented with festoons of sacred flowers, that is, such flowers as the people are accustomed to offer in the temples, while the Christians contented themselves with the graceful feathery leaves of the sago palm, which are evergreen

2 D

and fit emblems of the glorious cause they had espoused, and were assembled to vindicate. On the one side were Goon-a-narda Unnânsay,—the latter word being equivalent to honourable, generally known as Migettu-watte, with about two hundred yellow-robed priests. On the other was the Rev. David de Silva, supported by a large array of European and Native clergymen, and catechists, representing the Baptist, the Church and the Wesleyan Missionary Societies. Every district had sent its quota of villagers, and by seven o'clock in the morning all available standing places in the enclosure were well filled.

Migettu-watte is perhaps fifty years of age, and as described in the Official Report of the Controversy, "rather short, very intellectual-looking, with eyes expressive of distrust, and a smile which may be construed to mean either satisfaction or contempt." Years ago, having quarrelled with his brethren, he was turned out of the priesthood, but built a temple of his own at Mutwall, near Colombo, where he established a printing-press, and issued many pamphlets against Christianity. The Rev. David de Silva was of middle height, with a pleasant expression of countenance, having a noble forehead which denoted deep thought and hard study. He was accustomed to dress in the European costume, and had mixed so much with English people that he was able to express himself in their language with almost as much ease and fluency as in his own. Migettu-watte possesses a fine voice and is a thorough orator. He addressed the audience in simple language appealing continually to them as to the likelihood of his opponents understanding Pâli. Mr. de Silva on the other hand, never at a loss for words, spoke in classic and chaste

language, which was perhaps rather above the comprehension of the greater part of the assembly, and his voice was thin and somewhat shrill, though clear. Arrangements had been made that the discussion should extend over two days, commencing at eight A.M. and terminating at five P.M., with an interval of four hours for rest and refreshment.

As Mr. de Silva was considered the aggressor, he opened the proceedings, thus giving Migettu-watte the advantage of the last word. He commenced by stating the point at issue, namely, "What is the doctrine of Boodhism with reference to the soul?"

He showed that Bood

hism taught that man had no soul, and that the identical man received not the reward of his own good or bad actions. He brought forward extracts from Boodha's sermons and from a standard poetical work to prove that "sentient beings are

those who have the five Khandas: namely, organized bodies, sensations, perception, reasoning powers, and consciousness." Then followed other extracts which made "sentient beings" to be those who possessed the twelve Ayatarnas ("organs"), an eye, bodily form, an ear, sound, a nose, odour, a tongue, flavour, a body, touch, mind, and events; and other extracts making out that "Nâma Rûpa" constituted the whole man; i this "Nâma Rûpa" meaning sensation, perception, the faculty of reason, touch, and mental objects. Next he proceeded to quote Boodha's own words to show that he taught that the soul existed neither in the Khandas nor the Ayatarnas, nor yet in Nâma Rûpa, but that all these could be completely broken up; seeing that nothing was to survive of the present man, any being which should exist hereafter, and suffer punishment or reap rewards for

actions committed in this world, | one, the complete change sensa

He re

must be a different being. ferred to various passages of Scripture to show why Christians believed in the existence of the soul; as, for example, Luke xxiii. 43, 1 Cor. v. 3, etc., and ended by pointing out the inducements Boodhism holds out to unrighteousness, imploring the audience at all risks to weigh the replies and hold fast to the truth.

[ocr errors]

Migettu-watte began by attacking Mr. de Silva's speech as desultory and rambling. He said, "Because the living principle is a thing not easy to explain, it did not follow there was no such thing. The Christian's idea of a soul was, that without any change that soul goes to a state of happiness or misery at death. If So, the soul goes to heaven with all its imperfections, and is human still, therefore the being who enjoys heaven must be man. He then produced one of Mr. de Silva's pamphlets, in which were some verses of the Bible, which Mr. de Silva had translated into Pâli, and endeavoured to prove his incapacity for explaining Boodha's abstruse metaphysics, by the errors of translation found in those verses. "The body," said Migettuwatte,-"namely, sensation, perception, discrimination, and consciousness, at a man's death does cease to exist; but the being produced simultaneously with this extinction, is not a different being. The Bible is not the original Bible written by Moses and others, and used by the first believers in Christ; but they could not say it was a different book, the substance in both being the same. In like manner, though

no part of a human being was transferred to another world, the human being produced in consequence of death, was not a different one. Human beings have two deaths:

[blocks in formation]

we had when we were infants. Simultaneously with the termination of man's career, a change takes place, causing the production of a being, to whom the quintessence of man's desires is transferred. It is not a new being, because the desire producing the being is not a new desire, but the result of those that preceded it."

Migettu-watte then burst forth into a contemptuous tirade against the idea of the existence of a soul: asking of what shape it is, whether like an egg, a stick, or a fruit, and adding, if Christians could not explain the exact nature of a soul, that was a proof that no such thing existed. He assured his audience that Christianity teemed with errors, and proceeded to point out a few of them. Wherever the Christians went, in order to enlist the sympathies of the people on behalf of the Being they wished them to adore, they gave to Him the name of some god already worshipped in that country. Thus at Calcutta, Christ was called “Iswara,”—Iswara being a god highly venerated by the Hindoos; and in Ceylon, Dewi-yanwahansa, the gods in whom the Singhalese believe, is the word the Christians apply to Jehovah. Migettu-watte next attacked various expressions in the Bible. God is

called a "jealous" God in the English Bible, and in the Singhalese version that word had been altered to mean something different. "Would that the Protestants would imitate the Roman Catholics, and never alter words in their Bible." said to have "repented."

God is Is He

then omniscient as the Christians assert? God told the Israelites to place a mark on the lintels of their doors on the night of the Passover, that He might distinguish between their houses and those of the Egyptians. Is God then omniscient? What need was there for commanding Moses to perform a miracle? and if he could not persuade Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of Egypt to perform a second, and so on? If God were omniscient He would have known beforehand the effects of those miracles. The Christians say, God is Almighty; and yet we read, "He" (God, like the evil spirits) "could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." (Judges i. 19.) The orator ended his remarks by saying he had clearly explained what the Boodhists mean by a living principle; and now it remained for Mr. de Silva to explain what a soul is. Also he challenged him to bring forward his authorities to prove that Boodha likens a human being to a brute, otherwise he should consider him guilty of having uttered falsehood.

The meeting then adjourned.

At the next session, the first point taken up by Mr. de Silva, was the attack of his opponent as to his knowledge of Pâli. The title of the pamphlet he had referred to was "Selections," and the passage which had been pointed out was copied from a Burmese Testament. The title given to Christ in Calcutta is Iswara a Sanscrit word signifying a being endowed with great power and might, hence the propriety of applying it to our Saviour. The title Dewi-yan-wahansa is used when speaking of God in Singhalese, simply because the language does not afford a better word. Neither of these titles had been adopted, as Migettu-watte had

insinuated, to deceive the people. Mr. de Silva next quoted a passage of a Boodhistical work, to prove that the same word may have various significations, and such was the case in all languages. Even his opponent had continually used the word artma ("soul"), though denying its existence. He, however, wisely refrained from entering into any lengthened refutation of the supposed errors in the several texts of Scripture brought forward by Migettu-watte, as these same objections had been, as he said, already refuted by him in previous controversies.

He

Migettu-watte then rose. argued that Mr. de Silva's explanation of the errors in Pâli, in the pamphlet that had been spoken of, was by no means satisfactory, because he ought not to have copied the passage without alteration. He appealed to the people. Had any attempt been made to explain the reason why God was called in the Bible a "jealous" God? No. It was impossible to do so. True, Mr. de Silva had alluded to the refutation of the expression, "It repented the Lord," in "The Banner of Truth," a pamphlet published by the Christians after a previous controversy. He himself had read and answered that, but to refer to it was no reply. What answer had Mr. de Silva made as to the reason of the various miracles Moses was to perform before Pharaoh? What proof had he given that the Christians' God was not afraid of iron, and that He delighted not in sacrifices of blood? Then about the soul. The audience could easily understand why Mr. de Silva had not explained the nature of a soul. The Boodhist doctrine of man's future was not intelligible to persons of limited knowledge. The being who would hereafter

« AnteriorContinuar »