“You do your work by halves,” was the remark of a Brahmin to Schwartz. “After you have instructed us you say, ‘Go and labour.’ But what shall we do? If you could get us situations suited to our abilities, you would see things wear a different aspect. But you take us out of all our connections and are not able to place us in any other.”
“This,” adds Schwartz, “is an appeal which bears with too much force on us unfriended missionaries. Yes; we are constrained to admit that if any one confesses the Christian doctrine he is despised, not only by his own connections but by Europeans also. This is a hard trial.”
CHAPTER XIII.
A NOBLE DEFENCE OF MISSIONS.
When the renewal of the Charter of the East India Company was under discussion in the House of Commons, Wilberforce, the champion of liberty and progress, proposed that the religious and social improvement of the Indian people should be an accepted obligation. This was fiercely opposed, especially by a Mr. Montgomery Campbell, who had for a time held some official position in Madras. He scouted any possibility of the conversion of a Hindu, sneered at the attempt as visionary, and, while appreciating the high character of Schwartz, did not hesitate to depreciate the permanent value of his work. When the report of this attack reached him at Tanjore, Schwartz lost no time in sending to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge a powerful reply, a noble vindication of missions in general and his work in particular. The old veteran was roused with indignation and yet the spirit of his masterly defence of his Hindu converts is in every way becoming a Christian. As Dr. Buchanan rightly describes his letter, “Perhaps no Christian defence has appeared in these latter ages more characteristic of the Apostolic simplicity and primitive energy of truth than this apology of the venerable Schwartz.”
The first intimation which reached him of this violent attack upon missionary effort in India was from a newspaper cutting in which Mr. Montgomery Campbell had sought to justify his vote against the proposition of Mr. Wilberforce. The arguments adduced were not unlike those put forward by objectors to foreign missions to-day, declaring that only the lowest class were proselytized and that they degraded the religion which ignorantly they came to profess.
“Mr. Schwartz, whose character was held so deservedly high,” said he, “could not have any reason to boast of the purity of his followers: they were proverbial for their profligacy. An incident occurred to his recollection perfectly in point. He had been preaching many hours to this caste of proselytes on the heinousness of theft and in the heat of his discourse had taken off his stock, when that and his gold buckle was stolen by one of his virtuous and enlightened congregation. In such a description of native did the doctrine of the missionaries operate. Men of high caste would spurn the idea of changing the religion of their ancestors.”
To this specific charge Schwartz had a clear denial to give. On the occasion referred to, he was visiting some villages whose inhabitants were infamous thieves, and it is true that when he took off his stock some thievish boys did take it away. But neither that nor the buckle was stolen by Christians, they were pure heathen, and even they restored the property and handed over the boys for punishment.
“Neither did I preach,” rejoined Schwartz, “at that time. Mr. Campbell says I preached for two hours. I did not so much as converse with any man. This poor story, totally misrepresented, is alleged by Mr. M. Campbell to prove the profligacy of Christians, whom he called with a sneer, ‘virtuous and enlightened people.’ If he has no better proof, his conclusion is built upon a bad foundation and I shall not admire his logic; truth is against him.
“Neither is it true that the best part of those people are Pariahs. Had Mr. M. Campbell visited, even once, our Church he would have observed that more than two-thirds were of high caste, and so it is at Tranquebar and Vepery.”