« ПредишнаНапред »
states that the institution of free-schools, for teaching English, was proposed and adopted in India so early as 1785, or 1786, wHen the English resident at the court of Tanjore zealously and successfully exerted himself to induce the Rajahs of Tanjore and the Great and Little Marawa to establish such schools in their capitals, that the Court of Directors expressed tlieir high approbation of these proceedings of their agent, conferring an annual donation of 250 pagodas o.n each of these schools, with an assurance of a similar sum to any other schools that should be established for the same purpose, and that this measure, instead of having any tendency to "arm all India against us," caused not the least uneasiness to the natives. He adds,
'The fitofile of India are inquisitive after knowledge; and I am persuaded the higher orders of them, both Hindoos and Mahomedans, would cheerfully and thankfully send their children to our schools, if they were in situations they could reach, and under those regulations that they should fully understand They would not require " compulsion," a measure that those who sanction such schools held in abhorrence." p. 48.
Acknowledging the bigoted attachment of the Hindoos to their superstitious customs, he observes that this attachment cannot well be stronger than that which was once felt to other forms of paganism by the ancestors of nations that now erabrace Christianity; and he proceeds,
• I will here cursorily remark that you rate the attachment of the Hindoos to their local customs rather too high. They are not what they were forty years ago. We have since that time violated some of their local customs—and yet they remained passive. It was a' violence, it is true, that humanity led to; yet it still was a violence. I allude to the horrid custom of burning women to death on the funeral piles of their deceased husbands. Formerly a Brahmin would not approach the door of a gendeman's house when he was at dinner, lest he should be contaminated by the effluvium of the meats on his table; now he will, if permitted, sit down in the same room with the utmost indifference. At the period alluded to theyshewed a disinclination to enter on the topic of their religion; now they discuss it freely, and will candidly acknowledge a number of its gross absurdities.' p. 70.
Too slight a notice has been taken, in this controversy, of the number and condition of the Outcasts, and of their value as men, and as subjects for the efforts and influences of Christianity. For the enemies of that religion, inUeed, it is perfectly in character to hold in contempt the class of the people which is held in contempt by the superior ranks: call them il dregs of the people," and no more need be said about them. This is strongly contrasted with the just and generous sentiments of eur author.
'The missionaries both of the Catholic and Protestant persuasion, have, to my own knowledge, made numerous converts in all parts of India; and they have the greatest facilities open to them for making many more: but then,you insist that they must be outcasts and from the dregs of the people such as the Hallachores, and those who associate with them. For a moment I will coincide with you; and then we will consider who these people are. The Hallachores are of the lowest description of the Aborigines, and "perform every menial office ;" and'I know the Hindoos will no more unite with them than they wilt with the Europeans: consequently, there can be no objection to the converting of these. But.there is nothing said against their moral character, and their numbers are very considerable. As to outcasts, or those who have suffered a kind of perpetual excommunication, they may, notwithstanding the stigma thus affixed by the society to which they once belonged, be men of- good morals; as we are told by you that a Brahmin, merely for having had a little coiv-broth forceddown his throat, became an outcast, and all the influence of the Government of Bengal could not obtain his reinstatement. If then, we should be able to convert such men, so situated, do you not imagine it would be an ample compensation for all the trouble we should take, and the trifling sums we should disburse to that end:—But we will consider the whole of those people to be as depraved in their morals as they are debased by their situation: they would still be men; and to render them moral men, by giving to them the lights of Christianity, and prevailing upon them to "sin no more,'' ■would be the most acceptable offering that could be made to God, the. Maker of us all, and in whose eye all men are equal, unless distinguished by their acts.' p. 68.
The writer intimates an intention of resuming the subject. He certainly owes all the aid that his knowledge of India can afford, to a good cause; we only wish he may be cautious in his assertions, and somewhat more attentive to connexion and accuracy of composition.
Mr. Fuller's intimate acquaintance with the missionary system, acquired in the execution of his office of secretary to the Society maintaining the principal mission to India, has given good scope for the exercise of his well known acuteness. The Apology contains some Strong general observations, but its main purpose is to refute, in a series of particulars, the notions and falshoods of Messrs. Twining and Scott Waring; and to do justice to the manner in which this purpose is effected,! we mustquote, as in the preceding article, some pages in the writer's own words. Perhaps the niost remarkable thing in this controversy is the new and liberal doctrine of toleration so zealously preached by the new party of philanthropists ; it is therefore one of the first objects of Mr. Fuller's notice.
« Mr. Twining « hopes our native subjects in India will be permitted quietly to follow their own religious opinions." We hope so too; but it this gentleman's wishes could be realized, we should not be permitted ta follow ours, nor to recommend what we believe to be of eternal importance to our fellow-men, and fellow-subjects. Yet this is all we desire. If missionaries, or any other persons on their behalf, should so far forget the principles of the gospel as to aim at any thing beyond it, I trust the government will always possess wisdom and justice sufficient to counteract them. The question, Sir, which Mr. Twining proposes to submit to a general court of proprietors, whatever be the terms in which it may be couched, will not be, Whether the natives of India shall coatinue to enjoy the most perfect toleration, but 'whether that toleration shall he extended to Christian missionaries.
* I have observed with pain, Sir, of late years, a notion of toleration entertained, even by some who would be thought its firmest advocates, which tends not only to abridge, but to subvert it. They have "no objection to Christians of any denomination, enjoying their own opinions, and it may be their own worship; but they must not be allowed to make proselytes. Such appear to be the notions of Mr. Twining and his friends. They do not propose to persecute the Christians in India, provided they would keep their Christianity to themselves; but those who attempt to convert others are to be exterminated. Sir, I need not say to you that this is not toleration but persecution. Toleration is a legal permission not only to enjoy our own principles unmolested, but to make use of all the fair means of persuasion to recommend them to others. The former is but little more than might be enjoyed in countries the most distinguished by persecution; for few would wish to interrupt men so long as they kept their religion to themselves. Yet this is the whole of what some would wish to allow, both in the East and West Indies. In former times unbelievers felt the need of toleration for themselves, and then they generally advocated it on behalf of others; but of late, owing perhaps to the increase of their numbers, they have assumed a loftier tone. Now, though for political reasons, all men must be allowed to follow their own religion, yet they must not aim at making proselytes.' p. 5.
• May I not take it for granted, Sir, that a British Government cannot refuse to tolerate protestant missionaries; that a Protestant Government cannot forbid the free circulation of the7 Scriptures; that a Christian Government cannot exclude Christianity from any part of its territories; and that if, in addition to this, the measures which have of late years been pursued in India, without the least inconvenience arising from them, can be proved to be safe and wite, they will be protected rather than suppressed? I trust I may.' p. 23.
Here it would not be impertinent to repeat the sentiment avowed by the advocates of liberty in better times, that even the very term toleration, as applied to religious freedom, involves a gross error, as implying that the authority of government extends to religion, which in truth is a concern entirely without its province. We invariably entertain this sentiment; and cannot deem it to be within the competence of any government even to deliberate whether Christianity, or any other religion, or any possible modification of any of them, so long as they stop short of such actions as would in themselves, ■if they had no connection itith religion, be deemed proper objects of law, shall, or shall not, be permitted or promoted in its dominions. Therefore missions, bibles, religious tracts, and disputations against pagans and Mahometans, are matters of which governments have no right to take cognizance. Let them simply look to the protection of all their subjects, while those subjects, as their own concern, maintain, or dispute, or promote, or surrender, their respective religions ; when governments do more than this, and interpose authority to sanction one system by silencing the propagators of another, they adopt in their conduct, even if the one which they sanction were the true one, the ignorance and presumption of those barbarous ages which were unwilling to leave any province of power undivided, with the Almighty. The whimsical and wretched caprice, however, of the human mind, is strikingly visible in the difference between the manner in which that presumption operated im former times, and that in which it is stimulated to act in the present. The presumption of governments, in former times, was displayed in officiously imposing and almost forcing agents and means on the Almighty, and forbidding him to do any thing respecting religion- without them; now, governments are urged to refuse him all means . .and agents, unless he will have the complaisance to send them where these governments have no interest, and tell him that if he chooses to have recourse to his miracles, he may, but as far us ordinary agents, as far as all the agents within their power are concerned, nothing shall be suffered to be done for him on half this globe.
But dismissing this more abstracted idea* of the question of toleration, and adopting the ordinary language which ascribes to governments so much authority respecting religion, that the tree exercise of it is to be considered as a privilege conferred by them, and to be denominated toleration, we may ask what is the least that can be allowed to constitute toleration to Christianity in India. That Christians are merely permitted to reside there, is no toleration, unless they are free - to exercise that kind of agency which is of the essence of their Christian character. And it is of the essence of their Christian character, to wish and endeavour that some more persons beside themselves may be Christians. This wish and effort will extend to their domestic relatives; and by what law is . it to stop short of the Hindoo or Mahometan servant that dwells under the same roof, and joins in the offices of life, or of the heathen brother, or sister, or father, that occasionally comes to visit that servant? But walls form no proper boundaries-to the wishes and efforts of pious benevolence; they will extend to the net-rest Hindoo neighbour, they will reach
to the second and the third in the vicinity, and in short just as far as the means and influence of the Christian individual can reach. Unless he can thus practically realize the spirit of his religion he is not tolerated as a Christian. Now the principle and action of a Christian mission, are no more than such an exercise of the Christian character,, on a somewhat "larger scale. — Whether Mr. Fuller's confidence that this will he tolerated, is well founded, will very soon be known.
The ap6logist next gives a short sketch of the religious notions and customs of the Hindoos, and asserts the incontrovertible facts of the detestable moral tendency of their superstition, and the wretched state of their actual morals. Of this latter fact it may be of use to make a few of the testimonies more familiarly known, in the words in which they are cited by our author; because it is not till rather lately, that the public has begun to come to a right understanding on the subject. After stating the consenting'averment, on this point, of all the friends of the morality of the New Testament who have been in India, he says,
'1 have read enough, Sir, of the communications of men of this description to make me disregard the praises bestowed on the virtues of these people by others. 1 find these praises proceed either from deistical writers, whose manifest design is to depreciate the value of Christianity, or from persons residing in the country, who v" despairing," as Dr. Buchanan says, '* of the intellectual or moral improvement of the natives, are content with an obsequious spirit and manual service. These they call the virtues of the Hindoo; and after twenty years service, praise their domestic for his virtues.''
"I know not," says Bernier, an intelligent French traveller, "whether there be in the world a more covetous and sordid nation.—The Brahmans keep these people in their errors and superstitions, and scruple not to commit tricks and villanies so infamous that I could never have believed them if I had not made an ample inquiry into them."
— "A race of people," says Governor Holwell, "who from their infancy are utter strangers to the idea of common faith and honesty. This is the situation of thebulk of the people of Hindostan, as well as of the. modern Brahmans: amongst the latter, if we except one in a thousand, Ave give them over measure. The Gentoos in general are as degenerate, superstitious, litigious, and wicked a people, as any race of people in the known world; it"not eminently more so, especially the common run of Brahmans; and we can truly aver, that during almost five years that we presided in the judicial Cutchery Court of Calcutta, never any murder, or atrocious crime, came before us, but it was proved in the end a Brahman was at the bottom of it."
"A man must be long acquainted with them," says Sir John Shore, Governor General of Bengal, " before he can believe them capable of that bare-faced falshood, servile adulation, and deliberate deception, which they daily practise. It is the business of all, from the Ryott to the Dewan, to conceal and deceive: the simplest matters of fact are design..