Some missionaries who laid themselves out for this department made it a point to go every year, with their native assistants, considerable distances to the great melas, and spend days, sometimes weeks, in setting before the assembled crowd the great truths of God's Word. Others, again, made it a point to travel during the cold weather, so far as home duty allowed, to preach the Gospel through the country; some within a limited area, confining themselves to certain towns and villages, and visiting them again and again, while others made very extended tours. It was my privilege for years to take part in these itineracies, and I remember with peculiar pleasure the opportunities they afforded for intercourse with the people.
DIFFERENT MODES OF PREACHING.
What in India is called Bazar preaching is very different from the ordinary preaching of ministers in this country, both in its mode and in the circumstances in which it is conducted. When accompanied by a few native Christians, we begin by singing a hymn and offering a short prayer. Then those present are addressed. Often one of our Lord's parables, or some striking fact or passage from the Scriptures is taken as a text. Sometimes a remark by one of our hearers, or something of general interest which has just occurred, gives the keynote to the address. The great doctrines and facts of Scripture are mainly dwelt on, and the more simply and directly they are set forth, the more are we satisfied our duty is efficiently discharged. In our preaching the first place is assigned to the life and character, the words and deeds, the death, resurrection, and reign of our blessed Saviour. Suitableness is a valuable characteristic of preaching everywhere, and among no people is it more important than in speaking to the Hindus. They are very fond of figures, of illustrative instances, and when these are happily applied they produce a marked effect. In the character of the gods and goddesses, and in Hindu notions and practices, there is much which is open to attack, and some avail themselves largely of this opening to assail the cherished belief of the people; but as a rule it is far better to assert and enforce truth than to confute error, though truth does at times require error to be directly exposed. The native brethren are much more inclined to aggressive speech than the missionaries. They know their own countrymen well; they are familiar with their modes of thinking and of acting, they are well acquainted with the doings attributed to their gods, and they are ready to attack them with unsparing severity. On one occasion a catechist, more zealous than wise, began his address with the words, "Your religion is altogether false," which so provoked his hearers that they did not hear another word, and went away in indignation. Afterwards I sharply reproved him for his indiscretion, as I had at times to do to him and others.
Occasionally a missionary is quietly heard, and if heard attentively as well as quietly he is gratified with the reception he gets, and hopes that good is being done. It is seldom, however, in a city like Benares that a preacher is allowed to go on long without interruption. If a considerable number assemble we are almost sure to find, before we conclude, some among them ready to speak, and the object of those who thus come forward becomes speedily apparent. Some are eager to interrupt the preacher. He has scarcely announced his subject, and has had no opportunity of explaining and illustrating it, when he is interrupted by the words, "You have spoken a long time" (the long time has perhaps not been five minutes); "let me speak a little while." As a rule, in this case the missionary appeals to the fairness of his audience to give him a patient hearing, that they may really know his views, and may be in a position for coming to a right judgment regarding them. Often the appeal is successful, and our eager disputant is compelled to remain silent. When the address is over discussion is welcomed; and, as I have observed about preaching at the religious gatherings of the people, if conducted with reasonableness and good humour it is fitted to do good. We are thankful when there is the appearance of candour, even though there be not earnestness, when those who speak seemingly desire to know exactly what we do hold, as thereby an opportunity is given for the clearer and fuller statement of the Gospel. I have a pleasing recollection of many instances when persons were evidently impressed with what had been told them of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the claims He has on man's love and trust.
It must be acknowledged that this has not been the mood of most of our hearers where we are well known. Many are eager to defend their own position as Hindus, and to attack Christianity because it wages war with their religion. Heathenism in ancient times, heathenism now as we see it in India, was and is very liberal. It is ready to let Christianity alone, if Christianity will let it alone. It is the exclusiveness of Christianity which is so offensive. We are continually told that Christianity is excellent for us; we are most welcome to maintain our adherence to it; and it is surely fair to let them alone in the enjoyment of their religion. Because they are not let alone, because we contend that their religion is dishonouring to the living God and hurtful to themselves, because we affirm that Christ is the one Saviour and the rightful Lord, they are eager to find something in our books and views which they can assail, and by which they can show our position to be untenable.
There is nothing we hear more frequently than that all religions lead to the same goal, as all the roads of a country lead to its capital. To this we reply that those who wish to go to Calcutta in the east are not likely to reach it soon if they set out on the road to Lahore in the west. The east and west are opposite, and yet they are not opposed; but good and evil, righteousness and unrighteousness, are essentially opposed, their fruits are opposed, and those who practise them are sure to find themselves at last in places as distinct from each other as light is from darkness, as happiness is from misery.
THE STRENGTH OF TRADITIONAL RELIGION.
Traditional religion is strong, except in peculiar seasons when the tide of public opinion runs in the channel of religious revolt. From the lips of Hindus we hear continually, "We must walk in the ways of our fathers. What our fathers believed we believe. What our fathers practised we practise. No good son leaves his father and mother. No good wife leaves her husband for another." To this objection we have various replies. We tell them they do not walk in the ways of their ancient fathers, for they did many things, such as eating the flesh of cows, which they abhor, knew nothing of the gods they worship, and were not fettered by caste as they are. What we say about these Hindu ancestors gets little credit, as the people generally know nothing about them. We remind them that among themselves there have been tribes that have from generation to generation lived by thuggery and dacoity (murder and robbery). Ought the children of these murderers and robbers to walk in the ways of their fathers?
I have often referred to the Khonds in the hills of Orissa, who, till the horrid practice was stopped by British interference, enticed children from the plains, fed them well, treated them kindly, and then on a fixed day murdered them, tore limb from limb, and scattered the bleeding fragments over the fields as an offering to the Land Goddess to secure an abundant harvest. I have asked, "Ought these people to walk in the ways of their fathers?" To this question I have never received an affirmative reply.
We have reminded the people their fathers were as prone to err as we are; that we ought to weigh in the scales of truth and justice what they did, in order to the imitation of them when right and the forsaking of them when wrong. If they were with us, provided they were really wise, they would wish us to embrace the good of which they knew nothing, but which was now presented for their acceptance. With all their regard for their fathers, there were things unknown to them—as, for instance, the potato for food, and the railway carriage for travelling. If the potato was good for the body, as many of them showed they thought by partaking of it, might not our religion be good for the soul? If they resorted in crowds to the railway carriages even when going on pilgrimage to their sacred places, if in their earthly travels they found these carriages so serviceable, might they not find the religion of Christ, if candidly considered, the best vehicle for carrying them to heaven? We have much sympathy with the feeling of reverence for ancestors, but they are not entitled to tyrannize over their descendants. We tell them we do not wish them to leave their father's house, but to return to it; not to leave the husband, but to return to the true husband.