This may perhaps suffice for the parallels--partly real, partly supposed--between early Christianity and early Bahaism. I will now refer to an important parallel between the development of Christianity and that of Buddhism. It is possible to deny that the Christianity of Augustine [Footnote: Professor Anesaki of Tokio regards Augustine as the Christian Nagarjuna.] deserves its name, on the ground of the wide interval which exists between his religious doctrines and the beliefs of Jesus Christ. Similarly, one may venture to deny that the Mahâyâna developments of Buddhism are genuine products of the religion because they contain some elements derived from other Indian systems. In both cases, however, grave injustice would be done by any such assumption. It is idle 'to question the historical value of an organism which is now full of vitality and active in all its functions, and to treat it like an archaeological object, dug out from the depths of the earth, or like a piece of bric-à-brac, discovered in the ruins of an ancient royal palace. Mahâyânaism is not an object of historical curiosity. Its vitality and activity concern us in our daily life. It is a great spiritual organism. What does it matter, then, whether or not Mahâyânaism is the genuine teaching of the Buddha?' [Footnote: Suzuki, _Outlines of Mahâyâna Buddhism_, p. 15.] The parallel between the developments of these two great religions is unmistakable. We Christians insist--and rightly so--on the 'genuineness' of our own religion in spite of the numerous elements unknown to its 'Founder.' The northern Buddhism is equally 'genuine,' being equally true to the spirit of the Buddha. It is said that Christianity, as a historical religion, contrasts with the most advanced Buddhism. But really it is no loss to the Buddhist Fraternity if the historical element in the life of the Buddha has retired into the background. A cultured Buddhist of the northern section could not indeed admit that he has thrust the history of Gautama entirely aside, but he would affirm that his religion was more philosophical and practically valuable than that of his southern brothers, inasmuch as it transcended the boundary of history. In a theological treatise called _Chin-kuang-ming_ we read as follows: 'It would be easier to count every drop of water in the ocean, or every grain of matter that composes a vast mountain than to reckon the duration of the life of Buddha.' 'That is to say, Buddha's life does not belong to the time-series: Buddha is the "I Am" who is above time.' [Footnote: Johnston, _Buddhist China_, p. 114.] And is not the Christ of Christendom above the world of time and space? Lastly, must not both Christians and Buddhists admit that among the Christs or Buddhas the most godlike are those embodied in narratives as Jesus and Gautama? WESTERN AND EASTERN RELIGION