LECTURE I.
Gentlemen, — I know that the words which I wish to speak to you ought, properly, and in order to be interesting and impressive, to be addressed extempore. But I am sorry to say that I have not such a command of the English language, in which I prefer to deliver this address, nor over my own ideas and thoughts, as to enable me to deliver an extemporary address. I beg you therefore to pity this my infirmity, and excuse my reading to you what I have prepared to set before you on the present occasion.
I also wish to state at the outset for what sort of persons I have prepared this present discourse. There are many among. our countrymen whose minds are so far enlightened by English • education that they can no longer believe in the religion in which our forefathers believed. Nor can they accept Christianity as a religion revealed by God; yet they believe in God, in virtue and vice, in a future state, in the duty of worshipping, honouring, and loving God, in the efficacy of prayer. They wish to have a religion and have already framed one, which is called Brahmoism or Theism, and have adopted it. Now I presume that there are many such persons as I have described in the present assembly, and it is for such persons that I have especially prepared my present discourse; though I hope that by God^s grace it may profit others also who do not profess to belong to the Theistic Society, yet believe more or less in the doctrines of natural religion.
Now my object in addressing you these words is to show you, if I can, by God's blessing, that you are bound in reason not to stop where you do, but to come on further and embrace Christianity as the true revelation of God,
You think you ouglit to have a religion for yourselves and for your children^ and you have framed one, and you think you cannot do without it.
And indeed a man is not worthy of the name of man if he does not know his maker, preserver, and benefactor, that ia God. If he does not admire, praise, thank, worship and pray to Him, and does not love, honour, fear, and obey him. If he does not love virtue and try to avoid vice; does not strive to be holy, humble, meek, and loving; does not believe in a future state of existence. For to know God and to do these things is the essential characteristic of man, without which he is not a man but a brute, whatever else he may possess — learning, wealth, power, or anything else. This, I presume, is your opinion also, and therefore you have adopted a religion, i.e. Theism, and worship God and oflfer Him prayers and praises, and try to regulate your conduct according to the rules of that religion. You greatly value this religion and think you cannot do without it. But do you not consider this, that you would never have known this religion which you now profess, that is, you would never have been able to frame this religion for yourselves, unless your minds had been enlightened by Christianity, directly or indirectly; that is, by becoming acquainted with its truths directly from the mouth of its professors, and from books written purposely to set forth the doctrines and precepts of Christianity, or from other books based upon the teaching of Christianity, and deriving from it all the religious or moral truths that are contained in them. And this fact appears to me, and has always appeared, to be a sufficient reason for your embracing Christianity.
But whether I can make you see this matter as I do see it I cannot tell; I will, however, trusting in God's blessing, try to do so.
I beg you then to take into your consideration not only the fact that it is the light of Christianity which has enabled you to acquire such enlightened views about God and other religious truths, but this also, that you could never have acquired such views but for the light which you have received from Christianity,
In this consists the reason which proves that Christianity is not from man, but is the revelation of God, and then it is clear of course that it is your duty to obey God and accept -what He has revealed. For the examination of all the religious and philosophical systems of all countries and of all ages proves that man is incapable by his own reason and efforts to acquire such enlightened views of God and other religious truths. It is sufficiently proved by the history of the whole world that man's understanding and intellect are so faulty and defective, in this respect, that whenever he tries to think about, or to teach, religious truths, he is sure to go astray, and to entertain and to enunciate most inconsistent, perverse, and foolish notions about them. It is only the religion which is revealed by God that can give to man pure and correct notions of those truths. I beg you to think carefully whether what I say is true or not. If it be true, then Christianity, which gives men the correct knowledge of God and of all his duties towards God, towards himself, and towards his fellow creatures, must have been revealed by God, and we must accept it, and cannot reject it without being disobedient to God's will.
I beg you to mark that I do not say that men do not know God at all, or that they know nothing at all about the great fundamental truths of religion without Christianity. O, no. In the religious books of our own forefathers there are many sublime descriptions of God. He is often called Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient. He is called Most Holy, Most Merciful q-i'^arr <Tm ^r Jtir^T^f^ ^^^ I ^t \f^TRt =^ 33^ m ^ s^: fqrrr"
says the Vishnu Sahasranama.* Then there are many books
* "Who is Holy of all Holy (or the most Holy), is Good of all good (or most Good), and is the God of all gods. Wko is the Everlasting Father of creatures." I feel inclined to think that of all the nations of the world who have. not come in contact with the Jewish or Christian Scriptures, the Hindoos come nearest to the knowledge of God and other religious truths which Christianity imparts. I was told that of all the Greek philosophers, Plato was most enlightened with regard to those truths. I therefore read some of araoTig the Hindoos which contain beautiful precepts on morality, beginning from the Upanishads down to the poems and songs of our Sadhus, such as Tukaram and others. Indeed no rehgion could be considered a religion if it did not inculcate some of these fundamental truths of religion, and a man would no longer remain a man at all if he were deprived of all knowledge of them. But I wish you to observe that while all these religious books of our forefathers contain these great truths, they inculcate, at the same time, thousandfold erroneous notions about those very truths, so that in his treatises (by means of translations) with the view of ascertaining how far he was enlightened on those subjects. The impression which I have derived from reading those treatises is that compared with tlie notions of Hindoos about those truths, the notions of Plato were very poor and vague, and in fact it struck me that God and religion did not occupy tliat prominent position in his speculations which they are entitled to, and which they do occupy in the systems of the Hindoos. But the fault of those systems is, as I repeatedly say in these lectures, that with right notions of God, &c., they contain thousnnd-fold erroneous and absurd notions too about them, so that no one, by being trained in those systems, can learn religion in its purity. For instance, the very sublime passage quoted from Vishnu Sahasranama, is followed by another which shows what huge error was lying in the mind of the author under those sublime notions of God to which he gave utterance in the above quoted passage. The following passage is qTT: OT^T ^^s^ ^?qTR^^TPT% I TiT^TW ^TrTq" Tff^ [J^T^ ^^^ " From "Whom all the creatures spring up in the beginning of the world, and in Whom, at the destruction of it, they are absorbed." Now this sets forth the Pantheistic notion of God. It is clearly borrowed from the well known passage of the Upanishad: qryt ^ fTTHT ^(^ sn"^ 'F^^T^'^'^RlTr^. " From Which all these creatures spring up, to Which they return, and into Which they enter." Pantheism has been the tenet of Hindoo religion from the beginning, for the Pantheistic notion of God is to be found in the oldest book of the Hindoos, the Rig Veda Sanhita. As in the passage
JTTfTfc^)'1*ll| • 1 " They call Him Indra, Mitra; Varuna, Agni (fire), and the glorious, goodly feathered Garutman. It, being one, the Brahraanas call manifoldly. They call Agni (fire), Yama, Matariswan." Now I call Pantheism a huge error, for it destroys all distinctions between good and bad, superior and inferior, creator and creature, and takes away all reality from those high sounding words, " Holy of all holy, Good of all good, the Evcrlast- reality those truths become of no avail to ns, but our minds are filled with ei'roi's only. How could I have known God or the mode of worshipping Him as I now know (thank God) through Christianity, when I was taught from my childhood that that God Whom Hindoo books also describe to bo Almighty, Holy, Merciful, &c., was Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna, Rama, Vithoba, or Ganapati, whose character, you know, is utterly unworthy of God, God is represented in Hindoo books only in two ways, namely, as Nirguna Brahma and Saguha. As Saguna He is represented only in one of these forms, namely Vishnu, &c. as the object of worship and devotion, or Bhakti.
ing Father of creatures," and from otlier sublime descriptions of God. I say Pantheism is destructive of all true religion; but happily those who hold it do not allow it to do its whole destructive work, but do, by the promptings of natural instinct, hold many religious truths which are inconsistent with it.
But I must say that the Hindoos do entertain many right notions about the attributes of God and about the virtues to be cultivated by men, and Christian missionaries will be disappointed if they entertain the idea that by giving right information to the Hindoos of some of the attributes of God or of some Christian virtues, they will make them consider it a new discovery and thus convince them that Christianity is a divine revelation. It must not be supposed that even such a sublime portion of the Christian Scriptures as the Sermon on the Mount will bring to their knowledge ideas which were utterly unknown to them (scattered here and there), though it cannot fail to raise in them sentiments of admiration. No, what proves Ilindooism to be a human, and Christianity to be a divinely rtvealed religion is, what I have already said and do repeatedly say in these lectures, that the former, while containing truths, mi.\es and surrounds those truths with manifohl errors and absurdities, and so makes those truths to a very great extent u.'seless; and the latter, and it alone in the whole world, teaches U3 religion in its purity and perfection.
I wish also to state that though there are right and exalted statements about God and other points of religion in Hindoo books, yet I cannot bring myself to believe, as many Christians do, that the Hindoos, i.e. the Hindoos of bygone ages, the authors of those books, had got this light from either Jewish or Christian Scriptures. The light which they possessed may be a remnant of that light which Almighty God first gare to man when he created him, or may have been acquired by them by the guidance of natural reason, enlightened by tliat " Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."— S. John i. 9.
As for the Nirguna Brahma, the only devotion' to Him is the thinking art^^iW I am Brahma, rT^^i^ Thou art That. Now this is no worship of God at all, but rather, to suppose that I am Brahma or God, is the greatest of all errors. And when I received the Sacrament of Upanayana and was supposed to be regenerated, or made dwija, that is, twice-born, what was I taught as the chief devotion of a Brahmana? It was Gayatri, which is a prayer to Savita, that is, the Sun, and this I was to repeat morning and evening, as my chief devotion, a hundred and eight times, or at least ten times; and all the other Mahayajnas, and various homas which a Brahman is ordered to perform as his devotions, what are they but offerings to fire, wind, sun, and other imaginary deities? Now think, I pray you, of what use are those truths about God and His true attributes which are to be found in Hindoo books? Could I, I ask you again, as a Hindoo, have known and worshipped God as I now do by tlie teaching of Christianity?
The notions which Chi-istianity imparts about the attributes of God are thoroughly correct and perfect, and to whatever degree you now entertain correct and sound notions about those attributes, you owe them to the light of Christianity. But.be sure that though there is a great deal said in other religious books about Holiness, Justice, Mercy, and other attributes of God, the notions which the authors and readers of those books entertained about them were not at all like those which you now entertain, but were most dark, defective, apd inconsistent. For instance, God is described in Hindoo books as most Holy. But see how very dark and erroneous must have been the notions of their authors about God's holiness, when in those very books they state that that very God becomes manifest in the form of Shiva and Vishnu and Krishna, to whom, in those very books, many immoral deeds are ascribed.
And one thing more will show you how utterly defective and perverted their notions were about God's holiness. At the end of the Rasa Panchaddhayi, in the tenth Skandha of the Shrimad Bhagavata, Parikshit is made to ask Shuka, " How could God, the author and preserver of the rules of virjue, commit the wicked act of adultery? ^ C4 ^il'W^^Trfl' ^W\ ^(iK(m\ I ^pff'Wi^^- ^W\^ 'K^^\l^^^^^_? Now observe that in the answer of Shuka it is not denied that Krishna did commit sinful acts, but on the contrary it is confessed that mighty ones often do violate the law of virtue and do rash things. ^T'^R+'ii'lfK: t-^Prf ^ ^TFf^. But the answer is that sinful acts do not defile the mighty Beings; as if to commit sin was not in itself the defilement, but that a mighty one may commit sin and yet remain holy!* Now this is an utter perversion of truth.
* It is extremely difficult to describe to those who hare not been born and brought up as Hindoos, the exact state of the mind of the Hindoos regarding the nature of God, as well as other subjects of religion. It must not be concluded from what is stated here that the Hindoos ever entertain the idea that God is an immoral or unholj', or an unjust Being. No: that God is holy, just, and good is the conviction of their inmost heart. Yet it is also true that they do ascribe actions which are unholy and unjust to those whom they hold to be manifestations or incarnations of God. And the inconsistency of such a belief is not altogether unperceived by them, as the feeling of it sometimes gives expression to itself as it has done in the question put into the mouth of Parikshit, by the author of Bhagavatee, and they try to remove it in some way. All this shows very clearly that their notions of the holiness, justice, and goodness of God, &c., were after all very vague and imperfect.
Even their Pantheistic theory that our souls are one with God, — one in substance, — does not lead them to give up the belief that God in His essence is ever pure, though it is really a contradiction to believe that we, who are sinful, are one substance with God, and yet God is pure. But into whatever contradictions such a theory may lead them, they have not lost that inmost w itness of the soul that God is good. The great systematizer of Pantheism, that is, Adwaitamata, Sankaracharya, often repeats his favourite phrase in describing God, or Brahma, that He, or It, is ppq^T^^^g^^^^R"* " By nature ever pure, ever wise, ever free [from ignorance, sin, and miserjj. "
And to show that this doctrine about the nature of God is not contradicted by the belief that human souls are one in substance with God, they contrive most extraordinary ways. I have stated them in my " Refutation of the Hindoo Philosophical Systems." But it is clear again that had not the notions of our forefathers about God's nature been, after all, very imperfect and superficial, they could never have been able to entertain the Pantheistic idea that our souls are one in substance with God. Just as men of the present generation who have pot better light than our forefathers regarding
Why do we admire and love a person? Because lie is possessed of good qualities, that is, he is truthful, just, and so forth. But if one said that he tells lies and yet remains truthful, and does acts of injustice and yet remains just, I would say whatever he may technically be called in the language of a strange system of morality, he cannot be the object either of admiration or love. In fact such a thing is absurd, it is enunciating contradictions. So we think Almighty God worthy of the highest admiration and love, because He is most holy and just, &c., that is, it is impossible for Him to commit acts of unholiuess or injustice, but not because though He commits such acts he yet remains holy and just. But the truth is, as I said, that man^s understanding has become very defective and liable to go astray about religious truths, however clever he may be about other things, and therefore it is impossible for him to save himself from such errors whenever he would attempt to think about them and to teach them.
Now I will give you another instance from the Upanishads. For many of our reformed brethren in these days think that though there are very corrupt statements of religious truths in the later books of the Hindoos, yet the Upanishads teach us the pure knowledge of God. But this is a great mistake. IntheChhandogya Upanishad, a number of most curious modes of Upasanas, or devotions, are prescribed; one of.these is so obscene that one cannot venture to describe it in a public assembly like this. Those Upasanas are, moreover, joined with certain vratas, or vows, to be observed by those who practise them, and so this Upasana has also a vrata enjoined to those who would practise it. And what do you think is that vrata or a vow? It is that he who is practising this Upasana ought not to refuse any woman that would come to him! ^ 5rf^^ Tl?^?i; I And the great commentator Sankar^charya, and Anandagiri his scholiast, com- religious truths by coming in contact with Christianity, and are setting up new religions by the help of tliat light just to satisfy the natural craving of mind after a religion, have thrown away that Pantheistic idea which has been the fundamental article of the religion of our forefathers from time immemorial, as I have shown in the last note.
menting on this passage, say, tLat this act cannot be sinful but a duty, since the Veda orders it. How defective and dark must be the notions of the authors of the Upanishads, and of our most learned philosophers, like Sankaracharya and Anandagiri, about the holiness of God and about morality! While I speak of philosophers of our country, let me bring to your notice what Viswanathapanchanana, the learned author of Muktavali, a book on Nydya philosophy, says of God in the very MangaMchai-ana* of his book, ^=Rlf?^<^"^^
3fr7^\jjr5f^<rnT I ^r^ f^^ ^h- %^n:iT#i^^q" ^m^ I " Salutation to that Krishna, whose appearance is like a new cloud, the stealer of the cloths of the Gopis, who is the seed of the tree of the universe." It is said that the Greek philosophers did not believe in the gods and their stories in which ignorant people of their country bislieved. I do not think this is true, and certainly such was not the case with the philosophers of bur country. The great Sankaracharya, and all other mostlearned philosophers of this country, as fully believed in all the stories of the Puranas about the gods and of their incarnations, as the ignorant do, as is clear from their writings. In the introduction of his commentary on the Bhagavadgitd, Sankaracharya states, in accordance with the orthodox faith of the Hindoos, that God who created the universe, to preserve the Brahmanas became incarnate from Vasudeva and Devaki, iHTiT^ ^?T"'fr
Now I will gi -e you another instance from the Vedas to show how very defective man's views are about the holiness of God and about morality. There is a ceremony mentioned in the Shadvinsa Brahmana of the Sama Veda, in which the god Indra is to be invoked by the title 3Tf?^nr 5frr, O adulterous lover of Ahallya! as by an endearing appellation. Now that the Veda should prescribe a ceremony in which a god who is believed to be an adulterer is to be worshipped is itself very wrong. But what is still more lamentable
* A prayer to God mostly in metre, placftl in the beginning of a book with the view of obtaining a blessing on the enterjjrise, and security from all impediments [fk^l in the way of itsaccomp'ishmeiit.
is the fact that his adultery, instead of being reprehendedj is considered a matter of glory and praise. What a contrast the Holy Bible presents with these books. It mentions failings in the lives of some eminent servants of God. And it is no matter of wonder that they should have failings. But does the Bible ever set them forth as things to be gloried in, or does it say that sins do not deJfile God's saints? No, but on the contrary, when they are of a very gross nature, it openly condemns them. David for instance is called by God as the man after His own heart. And he well deserved to be called so, for he was undoubtedly possessed with many excellent qualities, and his love and devotion to God were of a very exalted kind. But when he committed a gross sin, God sent to him a prophet to rebuke him, who after convincing David of the heinousness of his sin by means of a parable, conveys to him this sentence of the Lord, "Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord to do evil in His sight? Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword and taken his wife to be thy wife. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house, because thou hast despised Me and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord, behold I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, " and so forth. Thus to show that God abhors sin, though they who commit it be his beloved ones, He made David to suffer much in this life, as his subsequent history shows, though on account of his true repentance he forgave" him and saved his soul. And how bitterly David was grieved at his sin and how deep his repentance was, will be seen by reading the 51st Psalm, which he composed on that occasion. So great a difference, you see, there is between the Holy Bible and all other religious books.
What a great mistake, then, those make who think that though the later books of the Hindoos do not teach pure Theism yet the'Vedas do. The Sanhitas and the Brahmanas of the Veda are filled with prayers and praises of, or with the ritual of sacrificing to, the sun and wind and fire, and Indra, Varuna and other imaginary beings. And though in the
Upanishads there are some sublime descriptions of the attributes of God, yet there is much more in them which is erroneous and absurd. The great Upanishad Brihadaranyaka begins with the instruction on the Upasand or devotion to the sacrificial horse. The Chhdndogya is filled with most curious Updsands of all sorts of objects, and one of them is even very obscene, as I have already stated. But again the notion of God in the Upanishads is pantheistic. ^p'Tiq;^ TTsfT^T The supreme Spirit said in the beginning of the creation, " Let me be many and be produced;'' e# ^af^?"^, " All this is Brahma;" art ^^rf^, '' I am Brahma;" rf?^i'^, " Thou art That." Such is the doctrine of the Upanishads. This spoils everything. Surely you do not call it Theism. Of what use, then, are those apparently sublime descriptions about the attributes of God? When they teach that that God Himself becomes this universe, and that you, and I, sinful, ignorant, miserable creatures, are ourselves that great God, they teach the greatest absurdity.
Please to remember, gentlemen, what I said before. I said that I do not deny that even the religions which are invented by men do contain the great and fundamental truths of religion. Take care that you do not fall into those errors, in this respect, into which learned men, born and brought up in Christian countries, do fall. They are apt to imagine, it seems to me, that false religions can contain nothing but errors from beginning to end, and that no statements about one God or His true attributes, no inculcation of moral duties, &c., can be found in them. But again, on the other hand, if they happen to see in books written by heathen authors, excellent passages about one God, and some sublime descriptions of moral duties, &c., they are apt to fall into an opposite error, and to think that those authors must have possessed as correct a knowledge of religious and moral truths as that which Christianity imparts. And they are so far blinded by this latter error that if they happen to find in other parts of those writings of the heathen authors erroneous and unworthy statements about God and moral duties, they try to explain them away. For instance, it is plainly stated of Socrates, the wisest and best of the Greek philosophers, that when he was ahout to die, the last thing he said was an injunction to his friend Crito, to offer a cock to the heathen god -^sculapius. Now Bishop Blomfield, in his article on Socrates, attributes this act of his to the delirious effects of the poison which he drank. But there is not the slightest reason for such a speculation. And besides, there are many passages in the dialogues of Plato from which it is clear that Socrates believed in and offered prayers to the various heathen gods, when he was in his most sober senses. Here is one of his prayers which he offered to those gods when he was quite sober — '^ 0 beloved Pan, and all ye other gods of this place, grant me to become beautiful in the inner man, and that whatever outward things I have may be at peace with those within. May I deem the wise man rich^ and may I have such a portion of gold as none but a prudent man can either bear or employ.'' This prayer occurs in th& end of the dialogue called Phaedrus. What reason, then, is there to suppose that Socrates could not have asked to offer a cock to ^sculapius in his sober senses? But the reason why Bishop Blomfield has put forth such a groundless speculation was, I think, this — he being brought up in the light of Christianity, bis mind was incapable of conceiving that Socrates, who sometimes speaks about one God and about some moral duties like an enlightened man, could think of offering a cock to a false god. But we know that such a thing is possible, for our own philosophers and learned men did the same thing. They also believed in one^ God and propounded elaborate arguments to prove the existence of one God, omnipotent, omniscient, and yet believed in and worshipped many gods also. Nay, we ourselves also did it before our minds were enlightened by the light of Christianity. But when I say " we" I fear I cannot include in that word most of the persons present here. I suppose they have been put in English schools from their youth and have begun to imbibe English' ideas, that is, Chfistian ideas, from that time. Young men breathe quite a different atmosphere in English schools, so much so, that no sooner does a man enter an English school than he begins to be quite a different manf and begins to be gradually anglicised in his ideas. My case was however quite different. I was brought up in thorough orthodox and old fashioned Hindoo notions. I did not know anything of English in the early part of my life, nor did I associate with those who knew it. I therefore, and those who are like me can understand how apparently correct notions about very high doctrines of religion can co-exist with most perverse and erroneous notions about them. I say apparentlij correct notions, for should they be really correct and thoroughly sound, they would not co-exist with error. And because Christianity does impart ^rttZy correct and sound notions about religious truths, men who have been brought up in the light of Christianity, cannot conceive how any one could enunciate, at one time, such notions about God and other religious truths as appear quite correct and sound, and at another time the grossest absurdities and follies. And hence when they find in some parts of the writings of non-Christian authors apparently correct and sound statements about one God and other religious truths, they make two mistakes; — first, they ascribe to them the same enlightenment which they themselves possess from Christianity, and suppose that those non-Christian authors understood those truths in the same correct sense in which Christianity teaches; and secondly, when in other parts of those writings they find erroneous statements, they try to explain them away. So has Bishop Blomfield done with regard to the teaching of Socrates. By the same mistake Paley was led to make this groundless statement in a note in his Evidences of Christianity, that learned Brahmans did not believe in the idolatry of their country, though they persuaded the ignorant people to believe in it. And why did he think so? Because to his mind it was inconceivable that men of education could believe in the popular superstition. But he did not take into consideration the fact that the learning of heathen philosophies never gives that light to men which Christianity gives.
By the same mistake Dr. Colenso has also selected some fine sayings of Nanak about God and other religious truths.
and quoted them in his book, and thus being himself deceived, has led others to the false belief that Nanak's writings may as truly be said to be divinely inspired as the Holy Bible. But the truth is that Nanak was in no sense more enlightened than the authors of the Bh^gavata, Bhagavadgita, and other Hindoo books. Whatever good things may be found in Nanak's writings or teachings, may be found in these also; and whatever errors and absurdities are to be found in these, may be found in Ncinak's teaching too. Ndnak believed and taught the 3T%rr Trf of the Vedanta, that is, Pantheism. I have got in my possession passages which I took down from men who were well versed in his religion, which prove this. And you will agree with me, I suppose, that he who holds Pantheistic views of God is in the grossest darkness about the nature of God. It appears also from other passages which I took down from the religious books of the Nanakpanthis, that he and his successors believed in the incarnations of Vishnu, in the various doctrines of the Sankhya and Yedanta philosophies, and other articles of the Hindoo systems. How absurd then it is to call him a reformer, or to think him to be more enlightened than other teachers among the Hindoos, as many Europeans do. If he did not teach image worship to His followers, that is nothing very remarkable. You must know that even among the orthodox Hindoos worshipping God in an image is considered rather a low stage of religion, and as chiefly fitted for men who are not capable of the higher modes of worship, that is JTi'ST^pi' or mental worship. Nay, it is even plainly condemned, in passages like the following 3i[f^5JT^^^f?^^ft-^ < ^«i ^: | RT'tr^^TOr ^: TTf ^h% rT Ttfrf^l And as these modern founders of sects, like Ndnak, Kabir, Prdnanath, and others, professed to teach a higher form of devotion, it is no wonder that they chose mental devotion in preference to image worship, which, as I said, was no new idea but a doctrine of orthodox Hindooism. But moreover, perhaps the influence of Mahomme-
* Those who believe the image of clay, or a stone, or a metal, or wood, to be God, are tormented by a fruitless penance; ignorant fellows, they do not attain to the supreme felicity.
danism was the cause of their rejecting image worship. And if you will read the Kur^n, you will see plainly that whatever true light Mahommedanism contains, it has received from Christianity.
I beg you therefore to guard yourselves against those mistakes into which European Christians are apt to fall. They are even unable to see the superiority of Christianity over human systems of religion and philosophy as clearly as those can who had been first brought up in pure heathen darkness and afterwards were made acquainted with Christianity. For when they who are brought up in the light of Christianity find apparently good and exalted statements of religious truths in the writings of non-Christian authors, they think that those authors understood and set forth those truths in the same pure and correct sense in which they are revealed by Christianity, and so they cannot but think that the difference in their teaching and that of Christianity is very Uttle, if any at all. And I am sure that most of those of our own countrymen who have been educated in English schools from their youth do not escape these mistakes.
What therefore I wish you to observe is this. Many of the great and fundamental truths of religion may be found, and are found in books written by non-Christian authors. But it is clear that their authors did not possess true, correct, and consistent notions about those very truths, because they also teach many erroneous and absurd things which are quite contrary to those truths. As I showed before, for example, that Hindoo books often say that God is holyj and yet those very books say that that very God became incarnate and did unholy acts. Hence it is clear that though the authors of those books teach that great doctrine of religion in words, namely, the holiness of God, yet they had no true notion of it.
I will give you a few more examples about other truths of religion. It is a truth that we ought to obey God's commands. But it is also a truth that God will never command a sinful act. But in this matter men have fallen into great mis- takes. They think that God can command even a sinful act, and when he commands it, it becomes a duty to do it. As for instance, the author of the Chdndogya Upanishad and his commentators Sankarachdrya and Anandagiri taught that sometimes fornication and adultery become duties because the Sastra has enjoined it. So again in a Vedic ceremony called jt^RcTj and at a certain season of the year, viz. Holi, using abusive and obscene language is said to be a duty, because the Sastra, that is, God, has enjoined it, and therefore it is not only not sinful, but is even a duty. Is it not a perversion of truth?
Again, it is a truth that we ought to call upon God. But see how men have perverted this truth. They say that if any one would utter the name of God even with a wicked heart, his sins are purged away fK^O^ TTTT,'^ 55I%%Cft ^T: | And it is not a mere poetical exaggeration, for facts are stated to prove the truth of this doctrine, such as the story of Ajamila, Valmiki, &c.
Again, it is a truth that men ought to honour their parents. But see how this truth is exaggerated and psrverted, for it is said that father and mother and teachei's ought to be honoured even more than God. It is said of Pundarika that while he was serving his parents, though God Himself came and stood near him, he quite disregarded Him and took no notice of Him, and this act of Pundarika is supposed to have been most meritorious and praiseworthy.
Now in showing to you that man's understanding and intellect have become very blind and corrupt with regard to divine and religious truths, I have brought some proofs from the religious books of the Hindoos only, but you may safely take them as examples to prove that such has been the case with man in every other part of the world also. Still however, since besides our own foreftxthers, the ancient Greeks and Romans were noted for learning and civilization, I will tell you briefly in what gross errors they too were lying with regard to divine and religious truths.
I have already meutioned tliat the last act of Socrates, the widest and Lest of Greek philosophers, at the most solemn time of death, Avas a request to his friend Crito, to ofl'er a cock to -ZEsculapius. This was not Theism surely. In the book called " The Republic of Plato," which is supposed to be the best production of the best age of Greek intellect, and in which also (Socrates is represented as the teacher, there is abundant pi-oof to show that Plato and Socrates believed in the gods of their country, and that in their view religion consisted in worshipping them. But this is not all. In that very book immoral and licentious practices are prescribed by Socrates to the guardians of his republic.
In another dialogue of Plato called ''Ph^drus," 'Socrates speaks of the act of unnatural lust as only a coarser and less philosophic mode of living, and says about the parties who have perpetrated the act, that they also, being subject to the madness of love, are to be reckoned among those who have "set out in the heavenward path," and that 'Hhey should never again enter on darkness and the paths beneath the earth, but that passing a splendid life they should be hapjDy walking with each other," and so forth!! See into what miserable darkness even the greatest intellects are apt to wander away without the light of revelation! Now you will readily acknowledge that those whose notions of morality are so corrupt, cannot have a right knowledge of God and His holiness, and so you will not call such men Theists.
In his dialogue called "Tima3us," Plato says, " All that is termed the intemperance in pleasure is unjustly charged upon those who do wrong, for no man is voluntarily bad, but the bad become bad by reason of ill disposition of the body and bad education." And so, as Prof. Jowett says in his introduction to Timffius, " Plato hardly leaves any place for the freedom of the will." According to him " the lusts of men are caused by their bodily constitution.'' Now you will acknowledge that these notions are subversive of all religion. And please to remember that Socrates and Plato are considered as the most enlightened of all Greek philosophers. And as far as I have read, there appeared to me very little of true Theism in their teaching or of our duty towards God, though there is a great deal of worshipping gods.
What they say accidentally as it were of God and of His making the world, is not better than what may be found in Hindoo books; nay, I am inclined to think that it is not even so good.
Of the philosophers of Greece and Rome in general hear what Canon Liddon says:
'' The most intellectual of the Greeks, whose thoughts about God and the soul might at times almost seem to anticipate' Christianity, as they have been welcomed with the respect of many a generation of Christians, has unwittingly warned us of the religious importance of mere culture, by staining his pages,^ not once or twice, but habitually, with sympathetic referencesto crimes, tolerable enough to the public sentiment of Athens^ but the very names of which are defiling to Christian lips."
Again, " In Greece and Rome, suicide was a precept not of religion but of philosophy. It was recommended by philosophies the most opposed to each other. In Greece the great representatives of the cynic school, Zeno, Diogenes, and in Chi'istian times Peregrinus, died by their own hands. At Rome Lucratius, the Epicurean poet, as well as Cato and Brutus, under Stoic influences, destroyed themselves. The Epicurean feeling, that when life had been made the most of for the purpose of enjoyment it was time to end it, coincided as to its practical result with the Stoic doctrine that the stem effort by which man could in extremity make good his self-mastery is a voluntary death. Of this doctrine Seneca is the great master. Suicide is, he contended, the act by which man asserts his rights over himself, when face to face with the menaces and oppressions of tyranny. Suicide is the door through which liberty may retire from a world of slaves."
As to what Canon Liddon says about the " thoughts" of Greek philosophers " about God and the soul" as " at times almost anticipating Christianity," that need not surprise us. T. think that if Canon Liddon saw some passages about God in the Upanishads and other Hindoo books, he would perhaps ■ say the same thing about them.
Now from all the foregoing observations the conclusion which I wish to draw is this — I say that even without the assistance of the light of Christianity men have possessed, and do possess, a certain kind of knowledge of many truths of religion, yet it is not a correct and consistent knowledge of them, but it is very corrupt, confused, and full of errors.
It is a fact thoroughly proved by examining the history, not of this country only, but of all other countries also, that however clever men may be in other matters, in mathematics, logic, poetiy or any other science or art, yet sin has so corrupted and blinded the understanding of men in the things of God and *rue religion, that they can never, never form correct and (Consistent notions about them, but will certainly go astray, and fall into all sorts of errors.
When, however, Christianity comes, and men come in contact \with it and their minds are enlightened by it, they begin to think that it is not difficult to know the true religion. We can.easily find it out, they say, by our reason and intuition. But if you will judge in this matter by the light of facts and not follow mere fancy, you will be convinced that it is a great mistake.to think so.
I hear men say in these days repeatedly that they can fi.nd the whole of true religion in Hindoo religious books, all that they have to do is to collect what is true and reject what is erroneous. But I say that no one can do it unless he has come in contact with Christianity and has received much light from it either directly or indirectly. Were not those men as wise and clever who wrote those religious books? Why could they not discriminate between truth and error, as young men in these days pretend that they could without the light of Christianity? Were not those hundred of Sastris who lived and died within my memory as clever and wise? Why could they not make such discrimination, but believed all equally?.Here again I would say to such young men that they cannot judge in this matter so well as a man like myself. For they have been familiar with English ideas from their youth, and they cannot know the state of the minds of tliose who have been brought up altogether out of the influence of those ideas as I was. They think, for instance, that they can easily pick out those passages from the Bhagavata in which worthy descriptions of God are given, and can throw away all those portions in which Krishna is set forth as God, and those which contain the description of his immoral acts. And had I been brought up under the same circumstances under which they have been, I should have been apt to think so too. But I was not so brought up, and I assure ' you that in the whole of Bhagavata, Rasapanchaddyayi was mj' most favourite portion, in which Krishna^s licentious sports ai*e described, and that not on account of my being fond of licentious poetry; 0 no, but on account of my hhaldi, or devotion, and it was from a purely devotional motive that I made it a custom for some time to read it ev^ery da}'. And I assure you that not one of the great sasti-is and learned men of Kasi differed from me in their estimation of it. This assertion of mine.would be a great puzzle to English Chi'istians, and I am not sure that it is not so to those native gentlemen also who have been anglicised in their notions from their youth. I assert, however, simple facts.
Judging, then, from all the religious and philosophical systems and books, not only of our country, but of all the countries in the Avorld; judging from the state of my own mind and judgment befoi'e I was enlightened by Christianity; and judging from the state of minds, understandings and judgment of all the sastri.s and pundits who have never come at all under the influence of Christianity; judging from these (but not from the state of your mind) it seems certain that men can never find out pure religion without revelation, and that though they do possess a certain kind of knowledge of divine and religious truths, yet there is some such weakness and some such defect in men^s understanding and judgment with regard to those truths, that whenever they would try to think about them or teach them, they are sure to go astray and fall into all sorts of errors.
Therefore, gentlemen, I beg to tell you this, as my firm conviction, that the light which you now possess and the religion which you have now adopted you owe entirely to Christianity, and not only do you owe them to Christianity, but if you will consider the subject carefully and impartially, you will see clearly that you cotild never have got this light and this religion in any other way.
No unprejudiced man could believe for a moment that this Brahmism or Theism which you now profess, but which has never been known in this pure. form unmixed with many errors, absurdities, and impurities, to any set of men, learned or unlearned, in any country or in any age, excepting only where the light of Christianity has reached, whether in Europe, Americn, Calcutta, or Bombay; no unprejudiced man, I say, could believe for a moment that you have discovered this Theism by your own reason or intuition, and that you have not, however unconsciously, got it from Christianity. Nor can any reasonable man believe that you could have got it in any other way except from Christianity, nor could he believe that Christianity is a production of the human mind and intellect, which gives what the human mind and intellect never have been able to find out, and which it is impossible in the nature of things that it shoidd find out. If then Chi'istianity is not a production of the human mind, then it is a revelation of Almighty God, and if so, it is your duty not to stop where you now do, but to believe and accept the revelation which God in His great mercy has sent to us all.
A Brahmo gentleman, however, before whom I once liad an opportunity of propounding this argument, tried to evade this conclusion by the following consideration. He said, ''though we have learned a great deal from Christianity and have derived much benefit from it, still we do not think that we are wholly indebted to Christianity, or that we have learned, what we now. know, from Christianity alone, inasmuch as Christianity itself is indebted to other systems which preceded it for the light which it gives." Therefore, he argued, " were it even true that we have derived all our knowledge directly from Christianity, still we cannot be said to be entirely indebted to Christianity, nor can Christianity be said to be the original source of that light which it imparts to others.^' His opinion was that God has been carrying on from the beginning the religious education of the world, through various gifted men whom He raised up by His Providence from time to time, such as Socrates, Plato, Mahomet, Nanak, and others, (among whom he would reckon, of course, the holy prophets and our blessed Lord and Saviour Je&us Christ too,) and these have severally been acting, their part, and helping forward the progress of religious knowledge, till at last it has arrived at that perfect stage which Brahmoism now represents. Just in the same way, in his opinion, Christianity also has only acted its part in this great work of the religious education of the world, and nothing more. Thus this gentleman wanted to make it appear, that there is nothing extraordinary in Christianity, but that it is only like the many other religious systems that have made their appearance in the world, and which have all been the products of man's natural intellect and reason. But this I consider to be altogether a misrepresentation or a misconception of facts. Is it true that the world has gone on improving in matters of religious belief? Is it true that as these imaginary prophets, namely, Socrates, Platoi Mann, Kapila, Buddha, &c., arose one after another, each improved upon what his predecessor had taught, so that they might all be said to have gone on building up this mighty structure of religion, till nothing was left for Christianity, or Brahmoism, but just to add the topstone? If this was all that Christianity has done, then no one could claim for it a super, natural origin, merely on the ground of the excellence of its teaching. But this is not the case. Lay aside the Bible and those systems which are derived from the Bible, and there is no progress towards purity and perfection in religion anywhere to be found in the world. Is there any philosophic or religious system, or any progressive series of systems, of which you can say that it approaches in purity and perfection so near to Christianity, that Christianity might be said to have done nothing more than to have only given a finishing stroke to it? Not at all. I have shown you already how people, by picking out some fine portions from the writing's of some authors, as Colenso from Nanak's, mislead themselves and others, and imagine that they come verynear to Christian enlightenment, and how a little consideration shows all such ideas to be a delusion. The fact is, there are fine sentiments to be found in all these religions; and there are absurdities, follies and impurities likewise to be found in them all. Nay, when we examine them each carefully, and try to find out what were the true views of those who have enunciated such fine notions on those very subjects, by comparing one part of their writings with another, we soon discover that their own ideas about those very sublime truths which they seem to enunciate are very defective; and, as I said, we should guard ourselves against the error of supposing that they held those truths in the same correct, consistent, definite, and perfect sense in which we, who are enlightened by Christianity, do hold them. If there ai'e fine sentiments to be found in Tukaram, Nanak, Socrates, or Plato, so there are equally fine, nay, it may be, finer ones, to be found in the Bhagavata, Gita, Upanishads and other books; and if there are follies and absurdities in these, there are likewise in those, — so that what I wish to show is that there is no progress. No one of these religions of man's invention can be said to have come nearer to Christianity than another. They all bear one common characteristic, and Christianity bears quite another, so that while they enable us to see what man's natural reason can achieve, and how far it can go in discovering true religion, Christianity is proved to be a system which human reason is unable of itself to discover.
I know, however, that you think that there are some objectionable points in the teaching of Christianity also, and this thought must prevent you from coming to the same conclusion with me. I am sure, however, that a careful consideration of those points will remove all objections about them. I should be very glad to say something about those points at another time, if it shall please God to give me opportunities. In the meantime I beg to udvise you to pray God for His light.