On the first of these points the bishop observes, with great justice, that points of precedence have constantly been granted in Christian churches to people of noble birth and of great fortune, and that in the United States of America these distinctions were always maintained between the whites and the negroes. He also points out that a Christian gentleman conforms to those rules because, if he neglected them, he would lose influence with his own degree in society, and that a native of the better classes acts exactly on the same principle. And on this point he concludes that distinctions of caste in church may still be allowed, provided that due care is taken to teach the natives that in the sight of God they are all equal.
With reference to the second point the good bishop says nothing, because, I surmise, he concluded the going up at different times to receive the Sacrament was included in his remarks on precedence in church.
As regards the schools, and amongst the children, he observes that caste must, as to taking places, etc., not be taken into account, "but," he adds, "even here caution should be observed to disgust no man needlessly."
As to the fourth point, he was decidedly of opinion that, as regards private meals and social intercourse, we had no right to interfere whatever.
After alluding to the objections raised by some zealous missionaries to the processions in marriages and other matters, he intimates pretty plainly that he has some fears that recent missionaries have been more scrupulous in these matters than need requires. He then concludes by saying that "God forbid we should wink at sin; but God forbid, also, that we should make the narrow gate of life narrower than Christ has made it, or deal less favourably with the prejudices of this people than St. Paul and the primitive church dealt with the almost similar prejudices of the Jewish converts."
The bishop then framed a set of questions as regards caste observances, to which he required particular answers; but, in consequence of his untimely death, and of the short tenure of office held by his successors, Bishops James and Turner, no further official action was taken till the middle of 1833, when Bishop Wilson's "Circular"[[38]] dealt the most fatal blow to Christianity that it has ever received in India. For this "Circular" imperatively declared that the distinction of castes, as regards all the relations of life, must be abandoned, "decidedly, immediately, and finally." And in order that this mandate might be intensely galling to the upper class vegetarian Christian, it was especially ordered that "differences of food and dress" were to be included in those overt acts which were to mark out for condemnation the Christian who still clung to the habits of his fathers in these innocent and, as regards food, healthful restrictions. To cling to these differences of food and dress, and to abstain from alcohol, was to cling to caste; and it was especially ordered that the children of native Christians should not be admitted to the Holy Communion without a full renunciation of all those social differences which might distinguish them from other members of the society in which they lived. This was quite sufficient. "The 'Circular' was read in the churches of Tanjore. It was received by the native Christians with great displeasure, and they showed their views by seceding in a body."
Turning now to the Report of the Madras Commissioners, which was written in 1845, we shall at once see the cause and root of this violent attack on social usages. For the Commissioners commence their Report by stating that the institution of caste and the divisions of society were things of priestly invention, and that, in fact, the whole of Hindoo society, as we at present see it, originated in, and is maintained by, Hindoo idolatry. And they further allege that the tyranny of this institution is such as to be perfectly unaccountable on any other supposition. How any body of priests had the power to issue and enforce mandates regarding the extraordinary diversities as to food and dress that we see prevailing throughout India, where the council sat that issued these decrees, and where the members of this council came from, they give no account. They do not seem to have even thought of such questions, and, for evidence of these astounding assertions, they refer us to what they call "the laws of Manu,"[[39]] and to Halhed's "Gentoo Hindoo Code." Caste and idolatry, then, according to them, are not only inextricably wound up together, but caste itself was caused by, and is a part of, idolatry; and we are, therefore, plainly told that it is impossible that a man should abandon the one without abandoning the other, and that, in other words, the two institutions must stand or fall together. Leaving this part of these assertions to be commented on further on, I now pass on to the statement and arguments of the Tanjore German missionaries.
Shortly after Bishop Heber's "Letter," which I have referred to at the commencement of these remarks, he drew up a number of questions regarding caste practices amongst native Christians, to which he required special answers. These "Articles of Inquiry," as they are termed, were sent to the Tanjore missionaries, and by them a statement in reply was furnished. They were asked for their opinion in 1828, and though no date is affixed to these statements, I conclude that they probably replied towards the close of that year.
They commence by observing that the distinctions of caste had been observed since the establishment of the mission by the Rev. Mr. Schwartz, soon after the year 1762, and that he himself had been guided, partly by his own discretion, and partly by the example of the clergy of the Tranquebar Mission, which was started in the year 1705, by those good and amiable men of whom I have given some account in another part of this work. These successors of Schwartz, then, observed that they had persistently imitated the conduct of that able and good man; but that, while they took care to imitate his caution, and forbearance, they seized every opportunity of softening the mutual prejudices arising from distinctions of caste; and they also observe that, in consequence, those distinctions of caste have gradually lost a great deal of their importance.
Alluding, in the next place, to the assertion that castes had been invented and entirely originated by the Brahmins, the authors of the statement observe that, in the opinion of the most intelligent natives who were not of the Brahminical order, the social distinctions which constitute caste existed long before the Brahmins came into the country at all; and they assert, further, that though the Brahmin priests blended those social distinctions with their idolatry, and framed a convenient legend to account for their divine institution, the whole thing was a mere fiction, which had been invented with the view of adding to the power of an ambitious priesthood. But the missionaries of Tanjore asserted, further, that even if the legend of caste was a true one, and that caste had been a part of idolatry, still those who abandoned the worshipping of idols and superstitious rites were not therefore to be required to abandon such practices as had nothing of idolatry about them at all, and they distinctly declared that no rites of an idolatrous or even mixed nature were tolerated amongst their converts.