England's Stewardship / The Substance of a Sermon Preached on the Fast-Day, in Trinity Church, Tunbridge Wells

by Edward Hoare

But our treatment of the Sepoys has been worse still. In them we have had a body of men entirely under our orders, separated very much from the rest of society, living in lines completely under our own control. Now, what has been the case with them? I believe it is an admitted fact that no missionary work has been permitted amongst them. The gentleman who was here a short time ago for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel stated that he had laboured for more than twenty years in the neighbourhood of military cantonments, but had never been allowed to labour among the Sepoys. Who can wonder, in such a case, that those Sepoys are utterly ignorant of the true character of Christianity, and are therefore ready to believe that the use of a greased cartridge could make them Christians?

But more than this. There has been in our treatment of these Sepoys the most complete departure from even our boasted principles of neutrality; for, although it seems a strong statement, I believe it to be a true one, that in many eases idolatry has been encouraged in these regiments, while Christianity was dishonoured, if not put down. If a Brahmin raised objections on the ground of his idols or his caste, he was humoured in his folly, and regimental discipline was set aside in his favour. But if a Christian spoke of conscience, and if he objected on Christian grounds to fire a salute to some horrid idol, in former days he was cashiered. The Brahmin’s folly was respected, the Christian’s conscience outraged. But in one case it went further, for in 1819 there was a devoted chaplain labouring at Meerut of the name of Fisher, when a Sepoy who had been for years inquiring, applied to him for baptism, and was baptized. The man was highly respected in his regiment, a fine soldier, bearing the best of characters. But the fact of his baptism was reported to the Governor-General: and, to the shame of our Indian Government be it spoken; to the lasting shame of all that had a hand in that guilty act,—without any fault being laid to his charge, on the contrary, with the highest testimony being borne to his character, for the one act of becoming a Christian, that Sepoy was dismissed the Service. Verily it seems as though that guilty act had been hid in the soil of Meerut as the seed of the present mutiny. There it was that a professedly Christian Government cast its Christianity out of a Sepoy regiment, and there, on that very spot, did the Sepoys shed the first Christian blood, in their efforts to cast us out of India.

And now, it may be asked, why has all this been done? and what can have been the motive for this unchristian policy? It has not been the love of Hindooism, for no one supposes for a moment that any of India’s rulers cared for it. But it seems to have been the result of a false expediency and a timid policy. The one defence that has been constantly put forth has been that we must not endanger British power by offending heathen prejudices. It has been thought that the open and honest avowal of our Christianity might alarm the advocates of idolatry, and so endanger English rule.

Now, I believe that nothing can be more fallacious than such an opinion. No man ever yet gained anything in the long run by holding back his principles. He may patch up a difficulty for a time, but it will tell upon him with increased power afterwards, and then he will have to meet it, distrusted by his fellow men, and forsaken by God himself. Oh! brethren, if you ever wish man to trust you, be honest to your own principles, and remember the words of Scripture, “Them that honour me I will honour.”

The truth of this has been abundantly proved in India, and there are many facts to show that, as elsewhere, so in India, the open avowal of our Christian principles has been the surest means of obtaining the confidence of the natives. For example, our Mission schools have been established on Christian principles. In them there has been the Bible, but no Shastres, and the Gospel, but no Koran; and it is a most remarkable fact, and one that surely teaches a lesson of deep import, that, although the Government schools have had all the advantages of the support and patronage of the State, the people, the heathen people, mark! have preferred the schools where Christ was honoured, and have sent so many more children to them than to the others, that the Government have at length been induced by the demonstrated fact of their superior popularity, to admit them to the advantages of a grant in aid.

Again, at this present time the gentleman acting in the Commissariat department for the little force at Benares, is a missionary of the Church Missionary Society. He has been requested to leave the missionary compound, and go into the cantonments, in order to make the necessary purchases for the force. And why? Because the people of the country trust him as they do no one else, and he can make purchases when others fail. Here is a man that has been never seen but with the Bible in his hand and the Gospel on his lips; a man who has attacked Hindooism openly, in the streets and in the bazaars, and he is the man best trusted by the native population. Can there be a more conclusive proof of the utter absurdity of the foolish clamour that missions have stirred up the mutiny?

But there is another fact of the same kind. The Church Missionary Society has a small mission at Bhagulpur, on the borders of the Santal tribes, and when, in the late Santal rebellion, those tribes came sweeping over the plains, that little spot was preserved, like Gideon’s fleece, moist, when all around was dry, and dry when all around was moist with blood. The influence of the Mission over these people was so strong, and the tranquillizing power so clearly proved, that the East Indian Government, to their great credit be it spoken, have admitted the fact, and in order to keep the district quiet have actually requested the missionary of Bhagulpur to organize similar missions at Government expense throughout the Santal tribes.

Who can doubt, then, the fallacy of the idea, that a plain, honest, and affectionate avowal of Christian principle would ever have weakened British power? But even if it were otherwise—if there were risk in introducing the Gospel and in fulfilling our Stewardship—suppose there were the deliberate choice between British sovereignty and the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ—suppose it to have been a fact that there was danger to our rule in India if we openly avowed our faith in Jesus—suppose that there were real risk in a plain, open, honest, Christian government, what, brethren, should have been the decision? Dearly as we love the prosperity of our land, thankfully as we recognise the many beneficial changes that have been effected by British power, fervently as we hope for still greater results when the present crisis has passed away, yet if there were antagonism between all this and the Lord’s Kingdom, there must not be one moment’s hesitation as to the verdict of the Christian man. Christ must be honoured at all costs; and God forbid that England ever hold a sovereignty either purchased or maintained at the awful price of the suppression of our principles or the keeping back of God’s truth!

Here lies, I believe, the root of this sad calamity. The contrary has been in many cases our decision. England’s power has been preferred to the Lord’s kingdom. We have forgotten our Stewardship. We have not held India by Him or for Him. We have relied on our own arm, and have governed for our own purposes. And now that arm has failed us, and those purposes have been completely frustrated. The reed has broken and pierced through the hand that leaned on it. God has let us feel what we are in our own strength; and who could be surprised if He were now to say, “Thou mayest be no longer steward?”

But there is danger in fixing our thoughts too much on governments, for by so doing we are apt to lose sight of our personal responsibility; whereas we ought to remember that the Church of God has had its trust likewise, and that every individual amongst us has been more or less connected with the question. Consider, then, the stewardship of the Church.