TWO COMMENTS.

Southland Times, Issue 14439, 9 June 1910, Page 2

TWO COMMENTS.

(To the Editor). Sir, —It is quite evident that Mr Forbes Eadie lias no further stomach for the tight with the Rev. H. H. Barton. In your issue of the 6th he says that “Mr Barton has declined to have anything more to do with our argument owing to this Buxton person coming into it.;’ That is nonsense. Mr Barton merely stated that ho declined to enter into controversy with Mr Buxton. He is, I take it, still quite willing to expose the fallacious arguments and correct the erroneous statements of Mr Forbes Eadie, Personally, I am opposed to the forcing of Christianity on the Chinese, for the simple reason that Christianity has no more valid claim to be regarded as divinely revealed than any other religion. But that is not the question at issue. Mr Eadie says that Christian missions In China are doing more harm than good. Mr Barton has shown that many of .Mr Eadie’s statements are not. in accordance with fact. Thereupon Mr Eadie wants to hack out of the argument oh the plea that Mr Titos. Buxton has written on the subject, and curiously enough he (Mr Eadie) tries to saddle Mr Barton with bucking down for the same reason. Either Mr Eadie must give his promised explanation of the Kla Chan business or lie must be content to remain under the stigma of having grossly misrepresented the facts of the case. In conclusion, I must enter a protest against the extremely discourteous tone of Mr Eadie’s last communication. “Drivelling rot” is not the sort of term one gentleman should use with reference to the controversial efforts of another. I am, etc., A. 7th Juno. ! (To the Editor). Sl ri —Who is this Forbes Eadie person that he makes such a fuss about Mr T. Buxton daring to write a letter to your paper ? Surely if two men are discussing a question Jjnd a third thinks he can put them both right or point out where oho or the other Is wrong, it would be foolish sentiment that would hid him withhold. I certainly thought that it was for the public to learn the views held by different people on various questions of Interest that the press Is thrown open to all who wish to express themselves, in order the better to arrive at what is right and true. It seems to me that Mr Barton must be afraid his belief will not stand discussion when he refuses to go further, because Mr Buxton has drawn attention to another phase of the same question. If Christianity Is true, then Christian missions are right, and If untrue they are wrong. This seems to me to be Incontrovertible, and ,Mr Buxton Is not “all alone in his glory.”—l am, etc.,* SINCERE. 7th June.