LECTURE BY THE REV. G. BARCLAY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1335, 2 May 1885, Page 2

LECTURE BY THE REV. G. BARCLAY.

I. — CHRISTIANITY-VERSUS HINDUISM. On Sunday evening last the Rev. Geo. Barclay delivered the first of a series of lectures under the above heading in the Presbyterian schoolroom, Geraldine. The lecturer observed that though, in soma respects, his subject was a somewhat learned and abstruse one—requiring the use of unfamiliar words, and a reference to strange conceptions—ho would deal with it in the clearest and simplest manner possible ; and certainly the explanations he made, as he went along, made every* thing plain and intelligible. Mr Barclay’s ability as a lecturer is so well known that it is almost superfluous to say that in addition to the clearness with which the subject was laid before the audience, an interest was kept up throughout which had its full weight with the listeners. From the expressions we have heard from those who attended this first lecture we are sure tiie future ones of the aeries will be looked forward to with pleasure. Taking for his text Ephesians iv., 17— 21, and noting that here the apostle in* tended to draw a sharp contrast between Christianity and Paganism, Mr Barclay went on to say that, unfortunately. Paganism was still extant, and that out of some 1300 millions of the world’s population only comparatively a few millions are Christiana in the nominal sense. In. his opinion not sufficient attention is paid to the great outstanding features distinguishing the religion of the Bible from all other religions ; and, recognising the value of comparison and contrast where a clear conception of merit or demerit is desirable, he would deliver the first of a brief course of lectures, whose object would be to bring out io their truth, grandeur, reasonableness and purity, some of the great characteristics of Christianity as opposed to any non-Biblical system. Announcing Hinduism to be his theme for contrast that evening the lecturer went on to state 140 millions of persons were professing the Hindu faith. As to what primitive Hinduism was, information is obtainable from certain Sanscrit works, of great number and variety : Vedas, Darsanes, Shastras, etc. As to the antiquity of these books, any date from the time of Moses might be assigned to the older of them, viz., the Vedas. But where did Hinduism or the religion of the Vedas first spring from 1 Whence did the Aryans—the persons conceived as first holding it—derive it ? Did they invent and elaborate it themselves ] Or did they derive it from tradition 1 Or was there any mixture of real revelation in itf This was a great question. He knew the opinions of Milller and others in their books on the “ Science of Religion” ;but, however much he wished to take his audience into the secret of what bad been said and written on the subject he could not pursue the discussion there. As te what modern Hinduism meant that was easily ascertainable, but to describe it with any fulness, for many reasons, would be oat of the question. The multiplicity of sects, Valshnayaa (worshippers of Vishnu), Sivas (worshippers of Siva), Sauras, Saktf, Sikhs, etc., together with the endless conflict of opinions, practices, ceremonies, etc., would necessarily render entering into particulars impossible. There were only four points of contrast in which, for brevity’s sake, he would notice on the present occasion, postponing others to a future opportunity of renewed reference. Under the bead of Contrast in Respect to the Doctrine of God, the lecturer described the apparent want of harmony bn this subject in the Vedic writings.— One set of passages appearing to teach a noble Monotheism ; another to inculcate Pantheism ; another Fetich ism ; another Polytheism, and another still, sheer Atheism. As to the conception of modern Hinduism, there was no doubt about it. It was Polytheism. He referred to the fact that there were 300,000,000 gods in modern Hinduism, giving two gods and a fraction on an average to every individual Hindu. Gods of all kinds ; some greater and some less ; some male, and some female ; some possessing good qualities, some bad ; some following pursuits of virtue and benevolence ; others having for their object ends of the most cruel, impure, and malign nature. What a contrast all this was to the theology of the Scriptures ! God was one j God was supreme ; God was just ; God was pure, merciful, good ; and our duty therefore is to reverence His institutions, to honor His name ; to live to His gloiy ; to obey His laws. Under the head of Contrast of Bible Doctrine in respect to Acceptable Worship, Mr Barclay at some length described the nature and ends of the Hindu homage. It had three characteristics : it was the ceremony itself that was supposed to bo grateful to the gods. Sacrifices offered for the most part had no reference to the expiation of guilt, and supplication, such as it was, a mu ttered word or two, more by incantations than anything else, was almost exclusive!? for some temporal favore. The contrast of the doctrine of the Bible to all this was vividly shown ; God requiring over and above all ceremonies the homage of the heart and prayer—while not ignoring the existence of earthly wants expressing its chief solicitude for higher and nobler things. Under the bead of contrast in respect to the Hindu doctrine of Sin, Mr Barclay explained that as to the nature of sin, the Hindu conception was that it consisted for the most part in breaches of ritual; disregard of proper fusts ; violation of caste, etc., and that as to the means of removing sin, the effective thing was pilgrimages, penances, ablutions, and austerities of various kinds. There was one particular fast called “ pavaka,” and which, enduring twelve days, sufficed for the obliteration of all sin of whatever kind or degree. In commenting on this, Mr Barclay reminded his audience that sin was something much deeper than the violation of any ecclesiastical ceremony or Church law ; that it required more than a mere fast or a pilgrimage either to eradicate it from the heart or to provide against its guilt, and that while the waters of (he Ganges, or the billows of the Indian Sea were insufficient for the purposes required, Christianity, in the Gospel of the Redeemer, had provided effectual means for the purification of the sinner, and the obliteration of his guilt. Under the head of Contrast in respect to the Liberty accordedjto Mankind to raise himself Socially and Intellectually, to improve his condition whenever he could, the lecturer explained at some length .and with clearness the Hindu institution of “ caste.” The whole population was divided into four great groups (including.

however, a number of subdivisions) ; one the Brahmins, or priestly class, sprung from the head of Brahma; a second the Kshatiyas, or military class, sprung from the arm of Brahma ; a third the Vaisyas, or agricultural and commercial, cl ass sprung from the thigh of Brahma ; and the fourth the poor Sudras, the servile class, sprung from the feet of Brahma. This was a part of their religion : an essential element of it; the ordination of Heaven itself. The castes were mutually exclusive of one another, and each higher one, in the ascending series, considered it pollu-tion-degradation of the gravest—kind to have any intercourse with, to touch, or eat with, or interfere with the occupations of the caste below. How could a system of this sort not be fatal to all civilisation ; fatal to all intellectual and social advancement; fatal to all development of industry, genius, mental individuality, laudable personal energy and ambition t We know, of course, what “ society ’’ in all ages had tried to do. There is a caste of wealth, and a caste of culture, and a caste of birth and pedigree; and all these castes have sought to set up conventional barriers of their own but Christianity knows nothing of these. Qod is no respecter of persons; there is no barrier let up in the Gospel against, and no ban pronounced on, any who by virtue of their intellect or their character have claimed to rise. What could an AngloSaxon race think of a religion which perpetually bpund each poor man, or each ignorant man, or each unfortunate man, to thejposition into which he had happened to fall ? Mr Barclay closed his lecture by reminding bis audience that the only caste Christianity knew of was Ihe' various graces of being good and doing good; that the highest rewards of Heaven wore promised to those who were purest in love, most ardent in zeal, and most faithful in service; and that the more we brought the religion of the Bible into close comparison and contrast with all other religions, the more we had xoason to be thankful for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, our Lord. , „ The foregoing is a mere outline of all that Mr Barclay managed to put into his interesting and comprehensive lecture. The subject of the next, we understand, will be the Religion of the Bible versus Buddhism.