ART. V.-REVIVED ARYANISM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MODERN THEISTIC MOVEMENT IN INDIA.

ALREADY two generations of Christians have been watching the progress of reformed Hinduism in India. There has generally been on our part a sympathy with the Brahmos, and at times almost a sense of spiritual kinship. A quarter of a century ago W. H. Fremantle did not stand alone in viewing the Brahmo Somaj as the nucleus of the Church of Christ in India, and in enthusiastically declaring of its leaders: "Few persons, I think, can listen to their words without feeling their own Christian life strengthened by their simple and sincere estimate of Christ and his teachings." *

Students of comparative religion have watched with deepest interest the efforts of these Indian reformers. The Somajes have been in themselves societies of comparative religion; and the effort has been not only to compare, but to combine, all the historic religions, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental. That Brahmoism has been a blessing, in opposing popular idolatry and in promoting a multitude of social reforms, no one can deny. That it has the essential Christ, or that it is even a John the Baptist, going before and preparing the way for the Christ, is a matter for grave doubt on the part of orthodox Christians. It seems fitting that we should take a brief survey of this movement in order to discover its most pronounced features, to ascertain the origin of its most vital principles, and to see how far it can be relied upon as a regenerating force for saving young India from the corrupting and degrading influences of idolatry.

The first Somaj was founded in Calcutta in 1828 by Rajah Ram Mohun Roy, who declared it his purpose "to persuade my countrymen to forsake idolatry and to become monotheists." The appeals of this first great leader met a generous response. A considerable congregation was gathered, and in two years the funds were raised for a new building, which was erected in 1830 "for a place of public meeting of all sorts and descriptions of people as shall behave and conduct themselves in an orderly, sober, religious, and devout manner for the worship

* Contemporary Review of 1870.

and adoration of the eternal, unsearchable, and immutable Being who is the author and preserver of the universe." The founder of this Adi (or original) Somaj in his autobiographical sketch says: "The ground which I took in all my controversies was not that of opposition to Brahmanism, but to a perversion of it; and I endeavored to show that their idolatry was contrary to the practice of their ancestors and the principles of the ancient books and authorities which they professed to revere and obey."* Roy was consistent in his antagonism to idolatry; though the monotheism which he attempted to establish, and which he professed to base upon the Upanishads, was not well defined, and soon came to be, like the early faith of the Veda, at times scarcely distinguishable from pantheism. His great desire was to establish a Church in which the followers of all religions might unite in the worship of the supreme God, in whom it was assumed they all believed. Those who have read Miss Carpenter's loving memoirs need not be told that the characteristic features of the different Somajes to-day are traceable directly to the principles laid down by Mohun Roy. He was a monotheist, and as such abominated idolatry. He aimed at the establishment of a universal religion; and, though calling himself a "follower of Christ" and "a believer in him as the Son of God, in a sense peculiar to him alone," he still constituted the Upanishads, not the New Testament, the canonical Scriptures of the Somaj, and professed to base his system upon the early Aryan faith.

Mr. Nagarkar, in his address at the Parliament of Religions upon "The Spiritual Ideas of the Brahmo Somaj," when speaking of the historic religions of the world, declared, "The essence of all these faiths is one and the same." He summarized his creed under three heads: (1) Belief in the existence of one true God, (2) Unity of truth, and (3) Harmony of prophets. He further said:

We believe that the prophets of the world, Vyas and Buddha, Moses and Mohammed, Jesus and Zoroaster, all form a homogeneous whole. Each has to teach mankind his own message. Every prophet was sent from above with a distinct message, and it is the duty of us who live in these advanced times to put these messages together, and thereby harmonize and unify the distinctive teachings of the prophets of the world.

* Modern Hinduism, by W. J. Wilkins, p. 107.

It would not do to accept one and reject all the others, or to accept one and reject even a single one. The general truths taught by these different prophets are nearly the same in their essence; but, in the midst of all these universal truths that they taught, each has a distinctive truth to teach, and it should be our earnest purpose to find out and understand this particular truth. To me Vyas teaches how to understand and appre hend the attributes of divinity. The Jewish prophets of the Old Testament teach the idea of the sovereignty of God. They speak of God as a king, a monarch, a sovereign who rules over the affairs of mankind as nearly and as closely as a human king. Mohammed, on the other hand, most emphatically teaches the idea of the unity of God. He rebelled against the Trinitarian doctrine, imported into the religion of Christ through Greek and Roman influences. . . . Mohammed's ideal of the unity of God stands supreme and unchallenged in his teachings. Buddha, the great teacher of morals and ethics, teaches in the most sublime strains the doctrine of Nirvana, or self-denial, or self-effacement. This principle of extreme self-abnegation means nothing more than the subjugation and conquest of our carnal self; so, also, Christ Jesus of Nazareth taught a sublime truth when he taught the noble idea of the fatherhood of God. . . . In this way, by means of an honest and earnest study of the lives and teaching of different prophets of the world, we can find out the central truth of each faith. Having done this, it should be our highest aim to harmonize all these and to build up our spiritual nature on them.

Thus, modestly, it is observed, "the Brahmo Somaj seeks to Hinduize Hinduism, to Mohammedanize Mohammedanism, and to Christianize Christianity."

Bose has said of Roy, "His religion was more a theory of the head than a moving principle of the heart."* After his departure from India his system failed to exert much influence upon his countrymen, who came to regard him as "in essentials all things to all men, a Hindu among the Hindus, a Mussulman among the Mussulmen, and a Christian among the Christians." After the rajal's death the affairs of the Somaj languished for several years, until Babu Debendra Nath Tagore in 1839 founded the Tattwabodhini Sabha, or Society for the Knowledge of Truth, and became the successor of Roy. Though unlike him, he professed to get his light exclusively from Hindu Scriptures. The grand aim of this was "to make known the religion of Brahma, to ascertain what the original Shastras were, and to discover the primitive religion," which was to be exhumed from the sacred literature of the Hindus. The moral system inculcated was of a lofty character. The member

*Brahmoism, by Ram Chandra Bose, p. 42. 37-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. XII.

ship of the society, which was combined with the Somaj in 1843, increased rapidly until in 1847 there were, according to W. J. Wilkins, of the London Missionary Society, seven hundred and sixty-seven who signed the covenant to abstain from idolatry and to cultivate the habit of prayer. Mr. Tagore seems to have been the real father of revived Aryanism, though it must be admitted that his success was more pronounced while he restricted himself to his imagination than when he actually through learned pundits explored the Vedas at Benares. Though two years were spent by four pundits under his direction in searching and copying from the Vedas, the result was that while the Somaj in 1850 gave up Vedantism and formally abandoned pantheism, it also abandoned belief in the canonical authority of the Vedas. Wilkins truly says: "The aim of the leaders of these sects has professedly been to lead back the Hindus to the primitive worship of their Aryan forefathers, although it is evident to all unprejudiced students of their doctrines that it is in many respects the teaching of the Vedas, very largely modified by the Christian Scriptures, that is prevailing among them."

The writer for the Contemporary Review † was not altogether wrong when he said: "The Brahmo Somaj is a product of Western civilization. No one can doubt this who reads the publications of the society. They are saturated through and through with modern thought. They could not by any possi bility have been written one hundred years ago. Apart from the fact that they are addressed in English to the people of India, the whole tone of thought is European." Yet the leading apostles of Brahmoism to-day tell us that," so far as religious progress and spiritual culture are concerned, they have little or nothing to learn from the West." "In the first place," says Mr. Nagarkar, "we have to revive many of our ancient religious and social institutions. Through ages of ignorance they have been lost to us, and what we need to do with regard to these institutions is to bring them to life again. We have been in darkness and had well-nigh forgotten our bright and glorious past." Regarding social reform among the Hindus he testifies: "The glory of their ancient religion, the purity of their social institutions, and the strength of their political constitution had all been

*Modern Hinduism, p. 106.

+ Vol. xv, p. 73.

eclipsed for the time being by a thick and heavy cloud of decay and of decrepitude. Yet the Lord of love and mercy was moved with compassion for them. He yearned to help them, to restore them to their former glory and greatness.

So, Mr. Protap Chundra Mozoomdar thus introduced the Somaj at the late Chicago Parliament: "Our society is a new society; our religion is a new religion; but it comes from far, far antiquity, from the very roots of our national life hundreds of centuries ago. . . . The principles were those," he asserts, "of the old Hindu Scriptures. The Brahmo Somaj founded this monotheism upon the inspiration of the Vedas and Upanishads." And again he declared: "In prehistoric times our forefathers worshiped the great living Spirit, God, and after many strange vicissitudes we Indian theists, led by the light of ages, worship the same living Spirit, God, and none other." The quiet observation of one of our veteran missionaries in India, after hearing Mozoomdar, was not without point: "He draws largely upon his imagination for his alleged facts." But just here is the strength of the system. So long as these modern apostles draw their Aryanism, like Tagore, from their imagination, their theories are safe; but when, like him, they attempt to base their theories upon the ancient literature, they are doomed to more or less of disappointment.

In 1858 Babu Keshub Chunder Sen joined the Brahmo ranks. His boundless enthusiasm, his philanthropic activity and missionary spirit, coupled with the graces and accomplishments of a natural orator, at once imparted new life to the moribund society. Four years later he was made minister, and for a time the work went on harmoniously, but in 1865 the Somaj was too conservative to follow Sen's radical leadership, and so with a few friends he formed the Progressive Somaj. Since that time the original Somaj, instead of making progress in theistic faith, has rather gone back toward Hinduism.* "It is," we are told, "somewhat like an endowed but dead Church. It has a name to live, but is dead!"

The Progressive Somaj under Mr. Sen's enthusiastic leadership soon began to attract much attention, not only in India, but among all English-speaking peoples. His one idea seemed to be that of religious unification. "There are some truths

* Comp. Modern Hinduism, p. 111.