WORSHIP OF GOD UNDER MATERIAL FORMS.
At first sight the worship carried on at Benares seems so absurd that one wonders how a reasonable being can say anything in its defence. Many years ago I had a visit from an English gentleman who was travelling through India, and he expressed his surprise we had such limited success in turning the people from worshipping such ugly misshapen stones. He evidently thought that by quoting some of the passages of Scripture in which the wickedness and folly of idol-worship are exposed, he could silence idol-worshippers, and secure their speedy conversion to the living God. If he had come into contact with the people he would not have found their conversion such an easy matter. I have never met a Hindu who would allow he worshipped the material objects before which he bowed down. However illiterate he may be, he is ready to maintain that he worships the god represented by the image, and who is actually dwelling in it in a mysterious manner, after some sacred words have been uttered over it.
We are often told in defence of Hinduism that it is a symbolical representative religion, and that as God is vastly beyond our comprehension, we cannot, except by symbols, attain any conception of Him. We have often to say in reply, that as we cannot see our own spirit, and yet know how real, how dominant it is, so far less do we know the Supreme Being, and yet we have abundant evidence of His existence, character, and government. Of Him no fitting image can be made, and every such attempt is unworthy of Him, and degrading and demoralizing to us. The representations of God in Scripture under sensible forms are of high value to us in our weakness; but when reproduced in material substances, such as wood and stone, they have been ever found to foster low, materialistic views of the Most High. If we must betake ourselves to such symbols, let us have those which inspire lofty thoughts. What is there in these grotesque idols to help us in rising to the living God? Hindus who know English have quoted Cowper's address to his mother on getting her picture, "Oh that those lips had language," and we have been asked, "Was not Cowper helped in realizing his mother when looking at her picture?" To which there is the obvious reply, "Cowper's mother was truly represented. Is God truly and fittingly represented by the idols you worship?"
The gods are continually represented as mediators through whom we approach the Supreme. "When we seek the favour of a king we approach him through his ministers; when we wish to propitiate a judge we try to secure a friend who will plead for us: and thus by the gods we get access to the Most High." To this we reply that as creatures we may each one go directly to God, for He is always near us, and we can never be far from Him; but as sinners we need a mediator. As the necessity for a mediator is acknowledged, we have an excellent opportunity of showing how worthy Christ is of being trusted as the Mediator, related as He is by His essential nature to the Most High, and to man by the nature He has assumed. A favourite figure with the Hindus is that the gods are a ladder by which they ascend to the Supreme; and we could not have a figure more adapted to our purpose, as it leads us to show that Christ is the very ladder we need—He by His Divine nature reaching heaven, and by His human nature being set upon the earth. His infinite excellence and His propitiatory sacrifice assure us that this ladder is so strong that it can bear the weight of the whole of the human family in their ascent to God.
Few things have been a greater stumbling-block to the Hindus than the crucifixion of Christ, and we have to dwell continually on the fact that it was not by the failure of His power, but by the ardour of His love, He endured this death. Some of the gods, Shiva and Kalee in particular, are propitiated by animal sacrifices, as blood is specially pleasing to them. The need of sacrifice to deliver from the consequences of sin is dimly discerned by the people, but they have such distorted views on the subject that it is difficult to convey to them the Christian idea of propitiation.
PUNDIT DEFECT IN HISTORIC INSTINCT.
The learned men of India have been singularly wanting in what may be called the historic instinct, and we need not wonder at finding the people generally destitute of it. The evidence for Christianity drawn from its history makes no impression on them. Historical facts and the wildest legends are received by them with equal readiness. When speaking of the miracles of our Lord, and enlarging on their peculiar features of power and goodness, I have been pleased to witness an attention which led me to hope that a favourable impression was being made; but more than once my hope has been dashed to the ground by one of my most attentive hearers saying, "You have been telling us of your God. He did excellent things, and you do well to worship Him; but listen to me, and I will tell you what my gods have done." And then my hearer has become the speaker, and has dilated on the wonderful feats of his gods, such as Krishna lifting up a mountain and holding it on his hand above his worshippers to shelter them from the angry bolts of Indra; and has triumphantly asked, "Is there anything similar to that in your Bible?" To which we have readily replied, "There is not, but there is what is more worthy of God." The most illiterate of the people are very familiar with mythological stories, and if listened to will go on to relate them with the greatest gusto, and at the greatest length.
Our doctrine of salvation by grace alone, and not in any degree by man's merit, is often declared to be fatal to morality. This is often said in our own country, and we need not say what we advance in its confutation.
The doctrine of previous births has taken full possession of the Hindu mind, as accounting for the character and events of the present birth. This belief in transmigration has a very hurtful effect on the people, as it leads them, when suffering for their conduct, to attribute their sufferings to births of which they do not profess to have any remembrance, instead of blaming themselves for the course they had pursued. We have to show the baselessness, the unreasonableness, and the injurious tendency of this notion. The doctrine of a blind fate determining everything is widely held. The greatest criminals coolly assert it has been their fate to have done what they have done, and, of course, to suffer as they suffer. The moral nature of the people, though benumbed, is happily not destroyed, and to it we appeal against a notion which levels all moral distinctions.
PANTHEISM AND HINDU PHILOSOPHY.