Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Progress of
Samaj.

Better things hoped of.

REY. T. EVANS.

actually fighting against Hinduism. This advice he had given to his highly valued friend Keshab Chandra Sena at a large meeting ably addressed by him in Manchester; who had received it with regard, adding that he was not wedded to the name Brahma Samáj, which (much to the satisfaction of the meeting) he had declared to be Theistic and not Pantheistic. He and his followers have accepted the new marriage bill, considerably changed from the form in which it was originally drawn, and when using it distinctly aver, according to the requisition of the Act, that they are not following the Hindu ritual. This leads to the hope that the New Samáj will take another title than that of "Brahma Samáj." He cordially rejoiced in its abandonment of polytheism, abandonment of idolatry, abandonment of caste, abandonment of many evil social practices, and above all, in its abandonment of the fearful system of pantheism, which leaves no God for the soul, while it converts everything into God, and even makes Deity, as conceived by it, the sinner and the sufferer, and the changing and erring one. Mr. Keshab Chandra Sena deserved the thanks of all for what he had done; and fervent prayers should be offered up to God in his behalf and that of his associates, that they may make advances on the path of truth; that they may accept the divine Revelation which is given in the Bible; and that they may look to the great Saviour who has been there revealed from the beginning, and who is the centre of history and the hope of the world. In conclusion, he would say that there is nothing novel in spirit or character in what is called the Brahma Samáj, looked at from a general point of view. When the first propagation of Christianity was advancing, the votaries of gentilism, and gentile philosophy, influenced to a not inconsiderable extent by its doc trines and indications and external reforms, tried to accommodate to it their own beliefs, and religious systems and practices, so as to modify or mitigate its high demands for absolute faith and obedience, and at the same time conserve the essentialities of their own systems. Hence the movements produced by the Neo-Platonists, Gnostics, Manicheans, etc. etc., which have passed away, as will every system of thought and practice continuously declining to receive the accredited revelation of Heaven, and looking to man himself for judicial justification before God, and for the restoration by the same means of that nature of man, which is obviously fallen, to prevailing obedience to the law of God and the enjoyment of God as the supreme good of the soul. But better things were yet to be hoped of the Samáj, which com prehends, it is believed, sincere inquirers seeking after God, if haply they may find him, and also effecting important changes in certain important sections of the Native Community, and who should be treated with all due regard and sympathy.

The Rev. T. EVANS, B. M. S., Allababad, said:-No doubt many Brahmos hold Jesus Christ in very high esteem. This was clearly shown in the case of Keshub Chunder Sen in the startling

Brahmos.

Lecture which he delivered in Calcutta, some years ago, on "Jesus Christ: Europe and Asia," in which he described the Saviour as the "Son of God"-the "Way," and the "Door" to the "Father." But the Brahmos are in a dilemma. They Dilemma of the speak of Christ as the great and good teacher, and yet they impugn the doctrine of his divinity. Keshub Chunder Sen felt that he had gone too far in his lecture on "Jesus Christ," &c., and modified his former views by a second lecture, on "Great Men," in which he put Christ in the same category as all other Reformers at the same time essaying to show that all "Great" men were, in some sense, "inspired," or "divine." But as Jesus Christ assumes an infinitely higher status than any other Reformer, yea, says Himself, "I and the Father are one," the Brahmos must accept him as equal with God, or else, impeach him as a false teacher and an impostor. This is a dilemma ont of which the Brahmos will find it difficult to extricate themselves.

The Rev. W. McMORDIE, I. P. M., Ahmedabad, wished to REV. W. know what had been done by Missionaries in Calcutta with McMORDIE. reference to the Brahmo Somaj. What views of sin, the immor- Information tality of the soul, the relativity of truth, &c., were held by its asked.

members?

MITCHELL.

Brahmoism.

The Rev. Dr. MURRAY MITCHELL, F. C. M., Calcutta, said that Rev. Dr. M. Dr. Jardine's paper was a very fair and temperate statement of the character and position of the Brahmo Somaj. The Somaj was in some points doing very important service. It contended earnestly against Polytheism and caste. It contended no less Services of earnestly against a system that was morally more ruinous even than Polytheism, namely Pantheism, a dreadful creed that had eaten out the heart and soul of India. The Brahmos also strove against Comtism with all their might. He never could forget the sadness with which the distinguished leader of the Progressive Somaj said some time ago, when speaking of the spread of Positivism, This alone was wanting to complete the miseries of my country." Then, the social reforms which the Somaj was straggling for were of the greatest consequence. As a matter of simple justice let all these things be frankly acknowledged, and heartily commended. Some seemed to think that because the Somaj was so grievously far wrong in regard to the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, they should not be praised for any thing they did. With that view Dr. M. said he had no sympathy. And assuredly the coldness, or severity often, with which they were treated had repelled them from Missionaries and Christian influence.

46

But in speaking of the Somaj a distinction must be made. Original Somaj. The original Somaj, though presided over by a most respectable gentleman, Babu Debendernath Tagore, seemed steadily retracing its steps towards Hinduism. On the other hand the Progressive

Progressive
Somaj.

Treatment of
Brahmos.

REV. J. BHAT-
TACHARJYA.

Somaj, or the Brahmo Somaj of India, as it called itself, was firm in its attachment to theistic principles: and its leading men had testified with honest indignation against the backsliding of the Adi Somaj. It was truly lamentable that the Society founded by the great Ram Mohan Roy-for he really deserved that epithet-founded as a strictly Monotheistic Society, and drawing its principles largely from the Christian Scriptures, should depart so far from its original character. Its leading minister had lately given a public lecture, proving Hinduism to be the best of all religions! His arguments were as singular as his conclusion; but they need not be stated here. Apparently the Adi Somaj would furnish but another instance of a reformation of Hinduism going on hopefully for a time, and then entirely losing its character. Over and over again this had happened in India. There seemed to be some fatal gravitation downwards, by the force of which the highest wave of religions thought in India fell back, by and by, into the magnum mare of Hinduism.

But what of the Progressive Somaj? It could hardly go back; its eminent leader had burnt his ships, and retreat was impossible. Would the Progressive Somaj advance till it blended with the Christian Church? He believed that many of its members would do so; but perhaps not soon. He could trace a remarkable resemblance between the Somaj and some of the heresies of the early Christian centuries, and in particular, Marcionism. That system passed away-though not speedily; and so would the Somaj.

Meantime, how shall we treat the Brahmos? He would repeat it-let us treat them kindly. Some time ago he had met four Brahmo Missionaries and had been a good deal moved by a request they made, that he would help them to come in contact with Christians. Between the Brahmos and the Hindus there was little sympathy, and the little was becoming less; but if we showed a deep affectionate interest in them, they would be drawn nearer and nearer to the truth. He had rather a thousand times be blamed for showing too much sympathy with all, however far astray, who acted up to the light they had, than treat them with suspicion or coldness. One need not lower his colours one iuch, in dealingly kindly with the Brahmos. He believed he never met a Brahmo without frankly telling him how deeply he lamented the gulf of separation between them and Christians; but when this was done, it created no bad feeling whatever.

The Rev. J. BHATTACHARJYA, F. C. M., Bengal, thought that Brahmoism could not stand long. Christianity has the Bible; Muhammadanism, the Koran; all other religions have some Insufficency of thing to rest upon; but Brahmoism has nothing. Its doctrines can never satisfy the longings of the soul. Still, it was doing some good in opposing caste and idolatry. Some of its members he thought would embrace Christianity; while others would go back to Hinduism.

Brahmoism.

PHEN.

The Rev. W. STEPHEN, F. C. M., Bombay, said that what struck Rev. W. STEhim most about the Somaj was its early organization into a Church. Theism in India, it appeared, claimed to be a church, and Theistic Church. as such to be animated by a Missionary spirit. This was a claim which all Christians would repudiate. The idea of a church implied a divine founder and also a divine commission in view of its proper work-and both these essentials were wanting in the case of the Somaj. He allowed that the Somaj had protested against many errors, and hoped that its members might yet come to embrace the truth as it is in Jesus.

movement.

The Rev. S. DYSON, C. M. S., Calcutta, said :—I very gladly, REV. S. Dyson. but perhaps unnecessarily, bear testimony to the accuracy and trustworthiness of Dr. Jardine's account of the Brahmo Movement. There is no doubt, I think, that its influence is now declining, especially with that portion of the community, the educated youth of Bengal, over whom, at the commencement of the movement, its influence was greatest and most conspicuous. State of the A very small percentage of the alumni of our Colleges avow themselves to be distinctively Brahmos. On the contrary, within the last few months, a strong reactionary movement, under the control and guidance of the leaders of Hindu Society, has set in, in favour of the national superstition, viewed simply as a bond of society. Certainly the Brahmic movement has now issued in a complete severance from the prevalent idolatry, and this is a real step in advance and a very hopeful fact. This has been clearly shown in the line of action followed by Keshub Baboo's paper the Indian Mirror, on the occurrence recently of a gross scandal in their community, viz., the marriage with idolatrous rites of a young Bengali Civilian with the daughter of a leading member of the Brahmo Somaj. The paper at once and boldly denounced the whole transaction, and cleared itself of all complicity in the disgraceful business. I gladly testify to this fact. Now with reference to the three questions proposed.

(1) Their views as to the origin of sin.

They cannot but acknowledge the existence of sin as a fact, Origin of sin. perhaps the universality of the fact; they certainly do not realize the importance of the fact. I am not aware that they have ever attempted to speculate in any way as to the mode of its origin. They do not attempt generally to explain the origin of anything which goes to make up their creed. Usually, they practically ignore the existence of history and of course its lessons. They deny the existence of any innate sinful tendency in human nature most vigorously, and, when pressed with the alternative difficulty that if sin does not originate in the creature, it must originate in the imperfect intention or defective power of the Creator, they refuse to discuss the subject. They are satisfied with their present position. They say, they want no dogmas and controversy is not edifying. They hold that repent

References.

Immortality.

Relativity of truth.

Dogmas.

ance is an adequate atonement for sin. Sin and punishment are causally connected so intimately that forgiveness is not possible. Punishment exactly proportioned is an effect of which the sin is the cause, and, beyond this, somehow or other, either in this life or the next, this exact punishment is sufficient to secure and in every case does secure the adequate repentance of every sinner. The salvation of every human being is simply a question of time.

On this point I may draw the attention of Conference to Keshub Baboo's Tract on Atonement and Salvation; also to an excellent Lecture by the Rev. J. Welland in the First Series of the Cathedral Lectures, and to incidental remarks in my Tract on The True Revelation.

(2.) With reference to their doctrine of immortality, they avow that they see it in the eye of Intuition. All discussion is thus precluded. They do not enter into the doctrine of the Immortality of Human Nature. They mean only the Immortality of the Soul. When pressed with the difficulty, that learned philosophers of ancient times in India and Greece had no clear and settled views on this important point, no reply to this obvi ous difficulty is made, nor as far as I know, ever attempted to be made. The immortality predicated of the soul, is, again, exclusively one of happiness. Sin, they allege, can only be finite, therefore infinite punishment is plainly unjust, and opposed to God's merciful character. When it was pointed out that continuous sin beyond this life would entail continuous punishment and that endlessly continuous sin, from all we see in this world, is proba ble, they again decline discussion. They have never made any attempt to vindicate their statements.

(3.) It was enquired whether they held the doctrine of the relativity of truth. As I understand it, that which is true to some beings but which is false to others, is relative truth. Absolute truth is that which is true to all intelligences at all places and times. The Brahmos have never entered into this question, but I think they would repudiate with some indiguation the charge of perceiving only relative truth.

No recent tracts on Brahmoism have been published, because I think discussion has been declined by the Brahmos. They fervently denounced all dogmas and urged exclusively religious emotions. Now there can be no argumentation about emotions, and no appeals to the emotions except through the understanding. But religion, they say, is not an affair of the understanding. Brahmoism has become something like a vapour, and we could no more discuss with them than we could tie up vapour with a piece of string. Of course a religion without emotions is barren and dead, but emotion without truths and dogmas is baseless and unfixed. Keshub Baboo, both in India and in England, has been constantly with much fervency and unctuousness preaching

« ForrigeFortsett »