Slike stranica
PDF
ePub

and living Christ, between Christ that lived and that was and Christ that does live and that is.

Chris

'To be a Christian, then, is to be Christ-like. tianity means becoming like Christ, not acceptance of Christ as a proposition or as an outward representation, but spiritual conformity with the life and character of Christ. And what is Christ? By Christ I understand one who said, "Thy will be done;" and when I talk of Christ, I talk of that spirit of loyalty to God, that spirit of absolute determinedness and preparedness to say at all times and in all circumstances, "Thy will be done, not mine."

[ocr errors]

This prayer about forgiving an enemy, and loving an enemy, this transcendental doctrine of love of man, is really sweet to me, and when I think of that blessed Man of God crucified on the cross, and uttering those blessed words, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do;" oh! I feel that I must love that being, I feel that there is something within me which is touched by these sweet and heavenly utterances, I feel that I must love Christ, let Christians say what they like against me; that Christ I must love, for he preached love for an enemy.

'When every individual man becomes Christian in spirit -repudiate the name, if you like when every individual man becomes as prayerful as Christ was, as loving and forgiving towards enemies as Christ was, as self-sacrificing as Christ was, then these little units, these little individualities, will coalesce and combine together by the natural affinity of their hearts; and these new creatures, reformed, regenerated, in the child-like and Christ-like spirit of devotion and faith, will feel drawn towards each other, and they shall constitute a real Christian Church, a real Christian nation. Allow me, friends, to say, England is not yet a Christian nation.'

EXTRACTS FROM A CATECHISM ISSUED BY A MEMBER OF THE ADI BRAHMO-SAMÂJ.

Q. Who is the deity of the Brahmos ?

A. The One True God, one only without a second, whom all Hindu Sâstras proclaim.

Q. What is the divine worship of the Brahmos?

A. Loving God, and doing the works He loveth.

Q. What is the temple of the Brahmos?

A. The pure heart.

Q. What are the ceremonial observances of the Brahmos ?

A. Good works.

Q. What is the sacrifice of the Brahmos?

A. Renunciation of selfishness.

Q. What are the austerities of the Brahmos?

A. Not committing sin. The Mahábhárata says, He who does not commit sin in mind, speech, action, or understanding, performs austerities; not he who drieth up his body.

Q. What is the place of pilgrimage of the Brahmos?
A. The company of the good.

Q. What is the Veda of the Brahmos?

A. Divine knowledge. It is superior to all Vedas. The Veda itself says: The inferior knowledge is the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama Veda, the Atharva Veda, etc.; the superior knowledge is that which treats of God.

Q. What is the most sacred formula of the Brahmos?
A. Be good and do good.

Q. Who is the true Brahman ?

A. He who knows Brahma. The Brihadâranyaka-Upanishad says: He who departs from this world knowing God, is a Brahman. (See 'Brahmic Questions of the Day,' 1869.)

87

XIII.

ON THE

VITALITY OF BRAHMANISM.

THE delivery of a lecture on Missions in Westminster Abbey by a layman, and that layman a German, caused great excitement at the time. While some persons of great experience and authority in Church and State expressed their full approval of the bold step which the Dean of Westminster had taken, and while some of the most devoted missionaries conveyed to me their hearty thanks for what I had said in my lecture, others could not find terms sufficiently violent to vent their displeasure against the Dean, and to proclaim their horror at the heretical opinions embodied in my address. I was publicly threatened with legal proceedings, and an eminent lawyer informed me in the Times' of the exact length of imprisonment I should have to undergo.

I did not reply. I had lived long enough in England to know that no good cause can ever be served by a breach of the law, and neither the Dean nor I myself would have acted as we did, unless it had been ascertained beforehand by the highest legal authorities that, with the sanction of the Dean, there was nothing illegal in a layman delivering such a lecture within the precincts of his Abbey. As to the opinions which I expressed on that occasion, I had

expressed them before in my published Lectures on the Science of Religion.' Whether they are orthodox or heretical, others are more competent to determine than I am. I simply hold them to be true, and at my time of life, mere contradictions, abuse, or even threats are not likely to keep me from expressing opinions which, whether rightly or wrongly, seem to me founded in truth.

But while I refrained from replying to mere outbursts of anger, I gladly avail myself of the opportunity offered by an article published in the Fortnightly Review' (July 1874) by Mr. Lyall, a highly distinguished Indian civilian, in order to explain more fully some of the views expressed in my lecture which seemed liable to misapprehension. Unfortunately the writer of the article On Missionary Religions' had not the whole of my lecture before him when writing his criticisms, but had to form his opinion of it from a condensed report which appeared in the Times 6 of December 5, 1873. The limits of a lecture are in themselves very narrow, and when so large a subject as that of which I had to treat in Westminster Abbey had to be condensed within sixty minutes, not only those who wish to misunderstand, but those also who try to judge fairly, may discover in what has been said, or what has not been said, a very different meaning from that which the lecturer wished to convey. And if a closely packed lecture is compressed once more into one column of the Times,' it is hardly possible to avoid what has happened in this case. Mr. Lyall has blamed me for not quoting facts or statements which, as he will have seen by this time, I had quoted in my lecture. I am reminded by him, for in

stance, of the remarks made by Sir George Campbell in his Report upon the Government of Bengal in 1871-72, when he wrote, 'It is a great mistake to suppose that the Hindu religion is not proselytising; the system of castes gives room for the introduction of any number of outsiders; so long as people do not interfere with existing castes, they may form a new caste and call themselves Hindus; and the Brahmans are always ready to receive all who will submit to them and pay them. The process of manufacturing Rajputs from ambitious aborigines goes on before our eyes.' 'This,' Mr. Lyall observes, ' is one recently recorded observation out of many that might be quoted.'

It is this very passage which I had quoted in my third note, only that in quoting it from the 'Report on the Progress and Condition of India,' laid before Parliament in 1873, I had added the caution of the reporter, that this assertion must be taken with reserve.'

With such small exceptions, however, I have really nothing to complain of in the line of argument adopted by Mr. Lyall. I believe that, after having read my paper, he would have modified some portions of what he has written, but I feel equally certain that it is well that what he has written should have been written, and should be carefully pondered both by those who have the interests of the natives and by those who have the interests of Christian missions at heart. The few remarks which I take the liberty of making are made by way of explanation only; on all truly essential points I believe there is not much difference of opinion between Mr. Lyall and myself.

As my lecture in Westminster Abbey was de

« PrethodnaNastavi »