Furthermore, in relation to the alleged pre-existences, according to strict Buddhist doctrine it was not really he who had gone before, it was only a Kharma or character that had exchanged hands many times before it could be taken up by the real and conscious Buddha born upon the earth.  Still further, even after the beginning of his earthly life he lived for many years in what, according to his own teaching, was heinous sin, all of which is fatal to the theory of pre-existent holiness.

3.  Christ is a real Saviour; His atonement claimed to be a complete ransom from the penalty of sin, and by His teaching and example, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, He overcomes the power of sin itself, transforming the soul into His own image.  Buddha, on the other hand, did not claim to achieve salvation for any except himself, though Mr. Arnold and others constantly use such terms as “help” and “salvation.”  Nothing of the kind is claimed by the early Buddhist doctrines; they plainly declare that purity and impurity belong to one’s self, and that no one can purify another.

4.  Christ emphatically declared Himself a helper, even in this life:  “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”  He promised also to send his Spirit as a comforter, as a supporter of his disciples’ faith, as a guide and teacher, at all times caring for their need; in whatever exigency his grace would be sufficient for them.  On the contrary, Buddha taught his followers that no power in heaven or earth could help them; the victory must be their own.  “How can we hope to amend a life,” says Bishop Carpenter, “which is radically bad, by the aid of a system which teaches that man’s highest aim should be to escape from life?  All that has been said against the ascetic and non-worldly attitude of Christianity might be urged with additional force against Buddhism.  It is full of the strong, sweet, pathetic compassion which looks upon life with eyes full of tears, but only to turn them away from it again, as from an unsolved and insoluble riddle.”  And he substantiates his position by quoting Reville and Oldenberg.  Reville reaches this similar conclusion:  “Buddhism, born on the domain of polytheism, has fought against it, not by rising above nature in subordinating it to a single sovereign spirit, but by reproving nature in principle, and condemning life itself as an evil and a misfortune.  Buddhism does not measure itself against this or that abuse, does not further the development or reformation of society, either directly or indirectly, for the very simple reason that it turns away from the world on principle.”

Oldenberg, one of the most thorough of Pali scholars, says:  “For the lower order of the people, for those born to toil in manual labor, hardened by the struggle for existence, the announcement of the connection of misery with all forms of existence was not made, nor was the dialectic of the law of the painful concatenation of causes and effects calculated to satisfy ‘the poor in spirit.’  ’To the wise belongeth this law,’ it is said, ‘not to the foolish.’  Very unlike the work of that Man who ’suffered little children to come unto Him, for of such is the kingdom of God.’  For children, and those who are like children, the arms of Buddha are not opened.”