This arbitrary assessment of lands without regard to the expense of the
improvements, is one of the greatest drawbacks to the prosperity of
India where there is not a permanent settlement. I have been told by
many zemindars that any improvement of their villages would only be to
their detriment, that the digging of wells and tanks, the planting of
trees and the enrichment of the soil, would only increase their
assessment. I have known of villages where lands were allowed to remain
idle, and become barren several years before the settlement, so that
they might be assessed as waste land. As soon as the settlement was made
these lands were again cultivated. The Government forces the people to
become deceivers. My experience showed me that the zemindars were
correct in their statements. That if one did not wish to be punished for
making improvements he should do nothing. It is a pitiable condition in
which to place the people by a civilized government that is continually
appointing commissions to formulate voluminous reports and getting the
opinion of scientific book farmers on the improvement of the
agricultural condition of India. What is the inducement for any one to
plant a tree, dig a well or tank, or improve the soil, when he knows as
sure as the sun rises, that the Government will fine him for all he
does?
If I had not an income aside of that of my villages, I could not have
done what I did. As it was I was rewarded by an increased assessment. I
could afford to pay the fine owing to the kindness of the friend of my
boyhood, but what about the millions of poor wretches who have no income
but from their daily toil?
It is now all passed with me except the taste of the bitter pill that I
was compelled to swallow, and still this is not satisfactory considering
that the pill never did me any good. Let it go, as there are so many
bitter pills in life, it is best to forget them if we can, yet I trust
and hope that at last there will be a permanent settlement of all of
life, whether for good or ill, so that we may know that everything is
settled, finished for ever.
One incident occurred that I do not like to mention, yet it comes along
with my story. One night the gentleman in camp sent his head servant as
a panderer to the village to get a woman. No sooner was his errand known
than the women rose in a body, flogging him with sticks and pelting him
with dirt. The fellow got away with his life, but not with a whole skin,
nor with scarcely a rag on his body. This greatly pleased me, as I was
aroused from sleep to hear what had occurred. This attitude of the women
was a recompense for all the robberies that had been committed. Here
were these heathen women, who had never heard the name of Jesus, and
knew no more about the creed and the theology of the Christian Church
than they did about the differential calculus, fighting for their virtue
and their sacred rights of womanhood, while there was that English
Christian gentleman who probably had been taught to pray at his mother’s
knee, and often rattled off the services in church, as I had seen him
do, waiting in his tent, with his thoughts bent on lust.
I was once in a dak bungalow when in the room adjoining mine was this
same gentleman with an officer of a regiment, a gentleman also, as all
officers in her majesty’s army are so ranked. As I was about to retire I
heard the chaukedar of the bungalow inquire, “Who goes there?” A woman’s
voice replied. “What do you come here for?” he asked. She answered that
the sahib’s bearer had come to the bazar for her. The watchman
indignantly told her to leave at once, as she had no business there for
any one. Is it a wonder that the heathen do not rush to embrace
Christianity when they see such worthy examples of Jesus people? I well
know that this same gentleman once intrigued with the wife of a
magistrate, and while the two were out riding and driving, billing and
cooing, the broken-hearted husband, left alone, sought the company of
the brandy bottle and killed himself with drink within a month, leaving
his wife a happy widow. Was not my cousin a worthy nephew of his
virtuous uncle, my distinguished paternal parent?
To show another phase of the character of this man. On one of his
morning rides he had gone through the main street of a large village. He
then sent back his sais to summon all the men he had passed. When they
were assembled before him, sitting on his very high English horse, he
said, “When I came through your street not one of you made his salaam.”
Brandishing his long riding whip at them and standing up in his
stirrups, he shouted, “If, when I come again, you do not salaam, I will
flog every one of you.” They all salaamed profoundly to the ground, and
very likely they did not forget his threat. Why should not these people
respect and love their conquerors?
Home again, with its quiet and rest, was a paradise after the unpleasant
scenes in the village. There was a stillness that at times was
oppressive, such as happens in an up country station when there is
little business; the bungalows situated in large compounds away from the
roads, and where for days in the cold season scarcely enough breeze to
rustle a leaf. We were seldom interrupted with callers. We did not seek
them, and by most of the society circle we were on the taboo list. Yet
we had a few special friends with whom we spent delightful hours.
We sometimes went to church as a diversion or as something required by
good society. The Chaplain had never called. He was no doubt an
excellent man in his way, and performed all the duties required of him.
He was an official paid by government to minister to the members of the
service, and the government, knowing how badly these people needed a
religious guide and teacher, did wisely in making this provision for
their wicked souls. Jesus looked after the poor, the outcasts.
Discarding society, he went into the by-ways and hedges, among the
lowly, but his modern followers, keeping step with the age, have
reversed his practice. Perhaps the modern rich society people are the
biggest sinners, so it is well, and why complain? Yet I could not help
thinking at times, that as one of the outsiders I had to pay taxes to
provide these reverend gentry with gowns, bread, butter, carriages and
wines, we might have received a little attention out of courtesy, if
nothing more. An outspoken native once suggested that if the Europeans
wanted a guru or priest and fine churches, why should they not pay for
the support of their religions, and not from public taxation? But he was
only a heathen, and what better could be expected from him? The
simplicity and ignorance of these people at times is astonishing.
One day we had a call from a missionary, a very little, pawky sort of
man, yet in the gelatine stage. He wore a black stuffy coat reaching to
his feet as to make up by it, what nature had stinted him in stature,
and it was buttoned close to his throat, reminding me of the scabs in
London who follow a similar fashion to conceal their lack of shirt. His
face and head were not as good a recommendation as his clothes. He
certainly was not the survival of the fittest, only an exception to it.
My wife, after seeing and hearing him for a few minutes, remarked
afterward, with the instinct of a woman, that he would never die of
brain fever.
After seating himself he said that he had often heard of me. I felt that
this was something in my favor at least, for what can happen to any
mortal man worse than not to have been heard of? He said that he had
never called because he had heard that I seldom attended church, and
that I was, well, to state it plainly, not quite orthodox. Such a
statement from such a popinjay was amusing. I gravely suggested that if
he considered me the lost sheep he should have left the ninety-and-nine
safe in the fold and sought after me. “Well,” said he, “I hope it is not
too late, and I trust you are not as bad as they make you out to be.”
This was encouraging, and I was hopeful. I inquired in what respect I
was said to be bad. I was becoming interested, as if in the presence of
a fortune-teller. He did not seem to know what to say, so I asked, “Do
they say I lie, steal, commit murder, gamble, slander, defraud, get
drunk or run after women?” “No,” he quickly replied, “nothing of the
kind. You have the reputation of being about the most upright man in the
station, and very kind to the poor; that no one comes to you but finds a
friend.”
He would have seen my blushes at these compliments to my virtues if
nature had not enabled me to hide them. I made up my mind at once to
give him a subscription to the paper I felt sure he had in his pocket.
Here let me observe that I am not at all opposed to subscriptions, for I
believe a thousand times more in paying than in praying, and if I were
to make a church catechism I would place as the first question, “How
much do you pay?” and the very last one, “Do you pray?” In most people
the nerves of the pocket are more sensitive than those of the heart, and
should be touched first. I said, “I am greatly obliged to you for so
good a character, though I do not see where the badness comes in.”
He replied, “That is not it. It is not what you are, or what you do, but
what you believe. They say that you do not believe in Jesus.”
“That is a great mistake,” I answered. “I do most profoundly believe in
him, that he was the best man that ever lived, the wisest teacher that
the world has ever seen, and in that respect the light of the world, the
Savior of mankind if they follow his example.”
“That is it, you do not believe that Jesus was the son of God.”
I replied, “That is another error, for I believe that he was the beloved
son of God, for the reason that so far as we know, he was the best man
ever born, and lived the nearest to God, and so was His well beloved
son; that as we are all the offspring of God by creation, and by pure
and upright lives all become the sons of God, but as Jesus was the best
of all, he was the son of God, our elder brother in the great human
family.”
He asked, “Do you not believe that Jesus is God?”
“Most certainly not. I would feel that I was an idolator, and committing
sin in accepting such a belief. There can be only one infinite God,
without body or parts, one and indivisible.”
“Do you not then believe that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost?”
“Positively not. It is absolutely impossible for me to believe that the
Infinite God could be born of a woman, or have a son by a woman. Such an
idea was born of paganism, and is a degradation of the Almighty to the
notion that the pagans had of their gods.”
“Mr. Japhet!” he exclaimed, “I am really shocked that you should say
such things. It is too serious and sacred a subject for such remarks.”
I answered: “There is nothing too sacred for examination by honest
reason, and a devout common sense. I was afraid, when this conversation
commenced, that something might be said to displease, if not to offend
you, but you asked me straightforward questions, and I have told you in
reply what I believe and do not believe. I know that such expressions,
as I have used, might shock many, and they might wonder that I was not
killed instantly by fire from heaven, or be stricken with paralysis, for
uttering them. Yet, I have no fear of either. I have weighed these
subjects, and thought of them for years with the utmost reverence and
fear of God, and with devout prayer to Him for light and help, so I do
not speak lightly or in haste. I am just as jealous of my faith in the
God I worship, and try to obey, as you can be of yours. As to one of the
expressions I used, do you not make as strong and plain statements
against the heathen notion of gods, when you are preaching in the
bazars?”
“Yes,” he answered, “we do use strong expressions when we are speaking
against idolatry, for ours is the only and true God.”
I replied, “Your own conception of God, you believe to be the true one,
but what about those of other men? Can they not also have their ideas
about God, and be as honest as you are? The trouble is that Christians
‘reduce their God to a diagram, and their emotions to a system,’ and
then demand that everybody else shall believe and feel as they do, or be
considered not orthodox, heretics and infidels.”
He did not reply to this, but said, “I am sorry that you do not know
Jesus as your Saviour, and feel that his blood washes away your sins.”
I answered, “I do know Jesus, but I prefer to trust the Infinite God, my
Heavenly Father, as my Redeemer and Saviour. I want no one, not even an
angel from heaven to come between me and God. If my father, God over
all, cannot, or will not save me, who else can? As to the blood. Blood
of any kind is offensive to me. I shudder at the sight of it. And the
idea of washing or cleansing anything with it is so contrary to my
reason, and repugnant to my feelings, that I cannot think of it without
repulsion.”
“But, it was shed as an atonement for us,” he suggested.
“Take it in that light,” I replied, “It is assumed that God, the Creator
and Preserver of men, is a pitiless tyrant; that his wrath must be
appeased, or bought off by sacrifice. At first the fruits of the field
were given to Him, then the blood of animals. Then the notion grew until
the blood of something higher than that of a common animal was deemed
necessary, the blood of men, and then the blood of a god. How was it to
be got? It must come from heaven, of course, and finally resulted in the
notion of an incarnation of God in a woman, a horrible thought to me.
The whole idea is heathenish, brutal and debasing. Everything of this
kind, whether in the Bible, or elsewhere, is of man’s own invention,
degrading the Infinite God to a creature like to their own depraved
natures. Take the better thoughts of the Bible, and God is a spiritual
being, delighting in spiritual worship, and caring only for the intents
and purity of the heart, but this was not satisfactory to mankind. It
was too pure and simple to suit their coarse, corrupt natures, but they
must put in a lot of mysterious rubbish of their own, to suit a god of
their own devising, and with tastes like theirs. It was more pleasant
for the ancient Hebrews to atone with hecatombs of burnt offerings for
their transgressions, than to practice purity and justice. It is far
easier for people, at the present time, to accept the creeds, perform
the sensuous, pleasant ceremonies of the church, and believe their
salvation, however sinful they continue to be, will be obtained in some
vicarious way, than to save themselves by living pure and upright lives.
“Men are never satisfied, unless they reach the extreme, always
delighting in the mysterious.
“What do these notions of men teach? That God created men, with power to
violate His laws, and then became vengeful and full of wrath, that they
did just what He gave them power to do, and was ready to damn them all,
for doing just what they could not help doing? Man’s explanation of the
matter does not correspond with the character of God, as given by these
same men. They describe Him as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, a
God of infinite wisdom, love and tender mercy. It is stated that God
made man, and pronounced him good, but the creeds teach that God
afterward found out that He had made a mistake, that His work was evil.
He discovered, when too late, that man, whom He had made good and
upright, would violate His laws, which was a surprise to Him, and He
must find out some excuse, so as to avoid the execution of His own laws.
“The whole story is a muddle, evolved from superstition and ignorance,
in fact, the whole scheme is of man’s invention, not from the highest
ideals of mankind, but from the lowest instincts of the human race. It
degrades the character of the Almighty, and places Him on a level with
the most ignorant human brute of a tyrant. They make their god, not
mine, in the likeness of sinful men, fashion him, giving him their hates
and revenges, and in their arrogance, assuming that they know all about
him, demand that all the world should bow down and worship this image of
their own manufacture.
“I had rather be an infidel, and take my chances, than accept the
blasphemous nonsense that many people believe about God. I cannot
believe that an infinitely all-wise God could be guilty of the mistakes
attributed to Him, or that a God of love and tender compassion could be
propitiated, and delighted with blood from the slaughter of innocent
animals, or the blood of men, or as they call it, ‘the blood of the Son
of God.’” The little man was greatly excited, and would have interrupted
me, but I kept on.
After a pause, he said, “Our belief is founded on the Bible as the
inspired word of God; don’t you believe that?”
“Yes,” I replied, “as the production of men, some of it the grandest
truth ever given to mankind, and other not fit to be put in the same
book.
“First, as to the authenticity of the Bible. The authors were men, not
differing from other men, with limited faculties, fallible as all men
are, and liable to mistakes. They may have been honest, with the best of
intentions, yet this is no warrant that they could not be mistaken. It
is evident that they were affected by the times in which they lived,
were influenced by their surroundings, and directed by their education,
though very meager. It is well authenticated that the writers never
wrote all that is attributed to them; that many things were interpolated
by others, several centuries later, to make up a creed for the church to
suit themselves. It is not known just when the Bible was written, nor
the authors of the different parts, or whether any one part was written
wholly by the one to whom it is ascribed, or afterward compiled from
various sources. It is well known that there were many writings, and
that those now composing the Bible are selections from them all. If any
were inspired, why not all? If all were from God, why should some be
chosen and others rejected? It was a daring, sacrilegious thing to do,
men becoming the judges of the revelations of God, that is, if they
believed they were from God. There must have been doubts about the
authenticity of them. If there were doubts about some, why not about
others, about all? If men in ancient times, no better or worse than we
are, could have their doubts and make their choice of what they supposed
to be the word of God, why should we not have the same right to use our
judgments? In fact, the knowledge of every kind that the world has
acquired, the distance from the events recorded, uninfluenced by the
prejudices and associations affecting the writers of the books of the
Bible and those making the selections, make men of modern times more
capable of considering what is truth and what might be considered the
word of God. Scientists of all kinds do not accept all the ancient
theories, not because they are indisposed to do so, but for the
indisputable reason that these theories or dogmas do not harmonize with
the truth or demonstrated facts.
“If any beings higher than men had composed the writings and made the
selections then all questions of mankind would be idle. Or if the
writers and selectors were proved to have been of a superior class,
above the weakness and limitation of ordinary men, then there might be
great hesitation about expressing any doubt, and no desire to
investigate or criticise. But as they all were only men, sinful, weak
men, all of them, why should any one hesitate to think or act for
himself as to what they wrote? They have given no authority or proof of
any superiority, or power delegated to them to dominate the beliefs and
actions of mankind. God is our God, just as much as he was the God of
the Jews, and He is just as near to us as He was to them, and we cannot
admit that He is not as willing to reveal Himself unto us as He would do
to them, nor can we allow that He selected a certain number of men,
several thousand years ago, from an obscure and inferior race, and made
them the depositories of all His truth and laws to suffice for all the
rest of the world, for all ages, and that He then retired from the
spiritual vision of mankind. This is so inconsistent with His constant
watchful care over every other interest of the world that such a thought
cannot be entertained for a moment.
“If one supernatural revelation, why not another, and many? Or why
restrict it to one people, or to one period of the world’s history?
“The conclusion is, mine at least, that the writers of the Bible, and
those who selected it and interpolated the different parts, were men,
and did the best they could, according to their ability and the light
they had, and being only men, they and their works are to be estimated
and judged by men, as all other things are judged. We read the works of
ancient or modern authors, we criticise the style, admire the knowledge
and truth, expose the errors, and value the books for what they are
worth according to our best honest judgments. Why then should we not
pursue the same course with the books of the Bible, written also by men?
“I know that it is claimed that the writers of the Bible were inspired.
How do we know this? There is not a particle of proof of this except
their own say so; that God favored them any more than other men, or that
they had any more knowledge of the secret councils or purposes of God
than other seekers after truth and lovers of righteousness. All truth is
hidden for our search, as are the precious things of earth, of science,
art, philosophy, and those who seek most diligently attain their rewards
in finding the best things that God has provided for those who strive
and search.
“You asked me questions and I have given you my best answers. They are
my sincere convictions and honest beliefs.”
“Well, I must go,” he said very sadly. “I think you are an honest man,
but badly deceived, and hope you will pray for light on these great
subjects.”
In return, I suggested that I would gladly help in his work if he needed
money, so his subscription paper came out, and he left, probably happier
in his pocket than in his mind.
After he left I had some such thoughts as these with my books: All
religions start with remarkable personages, gradually elevated into gods
and semi-gods. A distinguished English writer says of Buddha, “It has
almost invariably happened that the later followers of such a teacher
have undone his work of moral reform. They have fallen back upon
evidence of miraculous birth, upon signs and miracles and a superhuman
translation from the world, so that gradually the founders in history
become prodigies and extra natural, until the real doctrines shrink into
mystical secrets, known only to the initiated disciples, while the
vulgar turn the iconoclast into a mere idol.” Would not this apply to
Christians as well?
Another says, “All popular theology, especially the scholastic, has a
kind of appetite for absurdity and contradiction. If that theology went
not beyond reason and common sense, her doctrines would appear too easy
and familiar. Amazement must of necessity be raised, mystery affected;
darkness and obscurity sought after and a foundation of merit afforded
to the devout votaries, who desire an opportunity of subduing their
rebellious reason by the belief in the most unintelligible sophisms.”
Ignorance begets superstition. Then easily comes a belief in the
miraculous, and from this, creeds are formulated and faith placed in
them. People have but little sense where their hearts are concerned, in
religion as in love. There has never been a proposition so absurd or
outrageous but has had believers in it. The more impossible and
mysterious a thing can be made, the more readily it will be accepted.
Mystery not only fascinates many people but makes them its devotees.
One of the strange things is, that people who demand a reason for
everything about them, become dupes of that which is afar off, which
they cannot know and which no mortal can explain. Objecting to that
which is reasonable, they rush to accept that which is absurd and
incredible. Human nature is fascinated by the mysterious. The clergy
have to perform and preach something, and that something would lose all
its awe and force if there were no mysticism in it. What would jugglery
be if every one understood the tricks of the juggler?
If human testimony could establish anything, there has never been an
error but could be made an apparent fact by any number of witnesses.
Probably hundreds of thousands could be found to testify to miracles at
Lourdes, and to any number of so-called miracles elsewhere, and here in
India millions of people could be got to affirm the reality of events as
improbable. Before science was known every mystery was a miracle.
Miracles are not required to prove a truth. Facts need no authority. Yet
a belief in a personal devil and a literal hell seems to be a necessity
to restrain and influence those who could be reached in no other way. As
ghost stories are used to frighten children to be quiet, so a belief in
hell seems to be required for a certain class of people of infantile
mental capacity, or of vicious propensities and habits, that no refined,
moral instruction could reach. They are below philosophy, art or
science, and must be cudgeled or frightened into decent behavior.
To the poor, who have never had a shilling ahead in their lives, a
heaven paved with gold is the greatest thing to be desired. To those who
have spent their lives in a one-roomed hut, a heavenly mansion of many
rooms is their notion of comfort. To those whose lives have been filled
with weeping and sorrow, a hereafter, where there shall be no more
trouble or tears, is a hope of greatest bliss. To a Greenlander, a hell
of fire would be heaven. One who has no intellect or capacity of
thought, and hence no conscience, could not appreciate a spiritual
condition of the soul as heaven or hell, and must be reached through his
body, his material nature, which makes up ninety-nine hundredths of his
being. He can realize no other than a hell of fire, a gehenna of
physical torture. For such people a real, live demon of a devil, and a
real hell fire, is an ecclesiastical necessity. Uneducated people, like
children, must be kept in order by bugbears.
Said Dr. Johnson, “Sir, I would be a Catholic if I could, but an
obstinate rationality prevents me.”
Strip Christianity of its mythology and its doctrines are simplicity
itself. The moral law is as plain and simple as the multiplication
table. Tell a child that two and two make four, and it needs no argument
to make him believe it. The laws of God, either in the religious, moral
or scientific world, are self-evident. Thou shalt not commit sin.
Everybody, even the most illiterate savage, knows what it is to sin. The
soul that sinneth, it shall die. This every one can readily comprehend.
These two facts are enough, without any of the mumble of mysticism or
any ecclesiastical trickery.
Says Savonarola, the martyr for freedom and truth, “God is essentially
free, and the just man is the free man after the likeness of God. * * *
The only true liberty consists in the desire for righteousness. * * *
Dost thou desire liberty, O Florence? Citizens! would you be free? Love
God, love one another, seek the general welfare. We despise no good
works, nor rational laws, albeit they proceed from the most distant
places, from philosophers or pagan empires, but we glean everywhere that
which is good and true from all creeds, knowing that all goodness
proceeds from God.”
To be good and to do good is the highest aim of man. It is to know the
physical, moral and social laws and to obey them. A good man, from the
necessity of his nature, will do good. To be good and do good, is good
or Godlike, and to be Godlike is to be saved. This is the sum total of
life. O God! help me to be good and do good, that I may be saved.