be great, and not easily removed. Far the greater part of the native Christians formerly connected with Schwartz, and his predecessors and fellow-laborers, are now under the superintendence and care of English missionaries, and they are all agreed in regarding caste in all its principles, its spirit and its observances, as inconsistent with Christianity and not to be tolerated in Christian churches. In a few small communities of native Christians on the Coromandel Coast which have always been under German missionaries, some distinctions of caste are still tolerated. These communities contain in all about 3,000 souls, and they are chiefly the descendants of those who embraced Christianity 2 or 3 generations ago. They are connected with the Leipsic Missionary Society.

American missionaries in India have always required a renunciation of caste from their converts before admitting them to a profession of Christianity. And if at any time afterwards the spirit of caste became apparent in any of them, as it sometimes did, the missionaries have treated such members in the way of instruction, admonition, suspension, and excommunication, according to the nature and aggravation of their offences. The American missionaries in India can no more be justly charged with admitting and tolerating caste in their churches, than the ministers of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia can be justly charged with admitting and tolerating drunkenness.

POLYGAMY.

Polygamy is practised in India among the Hindus, the Mohammedans, the Zoroastrians, and the Jews. It is allowed and recognized by the Institutes of Menu, by the Koran, by the Zendavesta, and the Jews believe by their Scriptures- the Old Testament. It is recognized by all the courts in India-Native and English. The laws of the British Parliament recognize polygamy among all these classes, when the marriage connection has been formed according to the principles of their religion and to their established laws and usages. The marriage of a Hindu or a Mohammedan with his second or his third wife, is just as valid and as legally binding on all parties, as his marriage with his first wife, just as valid as the marriage of any Christian in the Church of England.

Polygamy then is one of the obstacles in India to the introduction of Christianity, and as it is not only part of the religion of the inhabitants, but is also recognized and protected by the legislative acts and legal decisions of the government, it becomes an important question in what way this obstacle can be met and the evil be removed.

Supposing now that any Hindu or Mohammedan or Jew, who has several wives to whom he has been legally married, should give evidence of piety and wish to make a public profession of Christianity, what shall be done in respect to his polygamy? In contracting these marriages he violated no laws of the country and no laws of God as he understood them, any more than Jacob or Elkanah did in marrying two wives, or than David did in marrying a yet larger number.* This man cannot divorce any of his wives, if he would; and it would be great injustice and cruelty to them and to their children, if he should. He cannot annul his legal obligations to provide for them. He is bound morally and legally to support them and to protect them while professing the Hindu or Mohammedan or Jewish religion, and his having become a Christian and embraced a purer faith, will not release him from these obligations in view of the English government and courts, or of the native population. Should he put them away or all but one, they will still be legally his wives and cannot be married to any other man. And further, they have done nothing to deserve such unkindness, cruelty, and disgrace at his hands.

There are other difficulties connected with native marriages. It has been already mentioned that such marriages are generally contracted by the parents and celebrated in accordance with the laws and usages of the country when the parties are young, often when they are mere children. But such marriages, though wholly the work of the parents, are yet valid and of legal obligation. Suppose a boy or a man who has been thus married, should become a Christian before the marriage is consummated, and the girl to whom he has been married remains a heathen,

* See Gen. 29 and 30 chap. 1 Sam. 1: 2. 2 Sam. 2: 2. 3:2-5. 5:12, 13. 12: 8, 24, 25. 2 Chron. 24: 3.

must he acknowledge the marriage to be morally binding and take his wife? Suppose the woman becomes a Christian and the man continues to be a heathen, and on her arriving at a state of puberty he claims her to live with him. What shall she do? What shall her parents do, if they also have become Christians? Suppose again a man or a woman becomes a Christian and the other party refuses to fulfil the marriage contract, is the Christian party freed from the marriage obligation and at liberty to marry again? And supposing a man or a woman while living in the married state should become a Christian, and the other party for this reason abandons them or expels them and positively refuses to live any more with them, what is the innocent and suffering party to do? Must they continue single? Or are they at liberty to marry again? How far is 1 Cor. 7: 15, applicable to such cases?

Some people in this country appear to be of the opinion that polygamy being contrary to the Christian dispensation, and con: trary, as they think, to the well-being of families, as well as of general society and of nations, must be classed, wherever found, with theft, adultery, murder, etc., and that people in any country who have entered into this state, must have as clearly seen and known that they were doing wrong, as if they had been violating any of the Ten Commandments. But such were not the views of pious Jews in ancient times, as the cases of Jacob, Elkanah, and David clearly show, nor are such the views of Jews in modern times when they live in countries where they can follow their own usages and laws. Indeed, so far from viewing polygamy as morally wrong, they not unfrequently take a second or a third wife with much reluctance, and from a painful sense of duty to perpetuate their name, their family, and their inheritance.

Now what shall be done in respect to such persons when they give credible evidence of personal piety and seek admission into the Christian church? No case of this kind occurred in my own missionary experience. But some cases have occurred in India, and this difficulty will occur in numerous instances in the progress of the Gospel. The subject will also have the consideration and decision of the highest authority, ecclesiastical and judiciary, in India and in England. My opinion is that the general practice in missions in respect to such cases will be as

follows: When any man who has more than one wife to whom he has been legally married, wishes to be admitted into the Christian church, he will be required to make a free and full statement of his domestic relations. He will be permitted to retain his marital connection with all his wives and his parental relation to all his children, subject to the discipline of the church for the proper government of his household. Whether he may or may not, cohabit with his different wives, will be left I believe entirely to him and to them to act according to their views of duty. At the same time the nature of the married relation according to the Christian dispensation and the usage of the church, and the reason why such cases are for a while tolerated, will be fully explained. No man thus admitted while a polygamist can be ordained a Christian teacher.* In this way polygamy will have the testimony of the church against it, and as no Christian man can ever become a polygamist, all such cases will cease with the lives of those thus admitted.†

PREACHING.

There has seldom been much difference of opinion among missionaries and other Christians who reside in India in respect to the first and most important kind of agency to be employed in the propagation of the gospel in that country. This agency is acknowledged to be the preaching of the Gospel,-communicating a knowledge of the way of salvation, and of the doctrines and duties of Christianity by the voice of the living preacher. This is believed to be the divinely appointed means for convincing and converting sinners, whether they are Hindus and Mohammedans in India, or infidels and unconverted men in Christian countries. It must not, however, be understood that preaching the Gospel to a heathen population consists in delivering formal discourses on particular doctrines and duties to wellordered and listening assemblies as in Christian lands. Preaching to the heathen of India has much more resemblance to the labors of John the Baptist and of Christ and his Apostles, as these are described in the New Testament. And no one will

* 1 Tim. 3: 2.

† Appendix C.

deny that their manner of preaching was good, was the very best for the circumstances and character of the people, and that the manner as well as the matter of their teaching was properly called "preaching the gospel." The preaching of our Saviour was, in conversations, discussions, exhortations, parables, and sometimes in extended discourses in the synagogues. It was suited to the state, circumstances, capacity, and character of the people. Sometimes he spoke to only a few individuals and even to only one person as to Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria, and at other times he addressed great multitudes.* He pursued his ministry in private houses, in the open fields, by the sea-side, in the synagogues and in the temples on the great festivals. His disciples proceeded in a similar manner while he was with them and also after his ascension to heaven.

So the missionary in India strives to communicate a knowledge of the gospel in conversations and discussions, in his own house, in school-houses, in the houses of the natives when he can gain admittance into them, in the highways and the byways, at their temples and to the multitudes who assemble at places of pilgrimage. He endeavors to adapt his language, his manner of illustration, and the truth he inculcates, to the capacities, the prejudices, and the errors of his hearers. Sometimes when addressing a crowd or an assembly he will see it best to propose some inquiry to awaken their attention, and then perhaps some discussion will ensue. And sometimes he will be interrupted by cavils and objections to which he must at once reply, or the hearers, believing he cannot reply, or is opposed to free discussion, will disperse. Of such trials and troubles, such hopes and disappointments, and such encouragements and discouragements, missionaries in India have abundant experience.

The opinion has sometimes been expressed that preaching the gospel can be of little use to the people of India till they are educated and more capable of understanding moral and religious truth. But to suppose that education must precede the preaching of the gospel in order to communicate to them a capacity to understand it, such an opinion is contrary to the general tenor and spirit of the Scriptures, to the practice of the Apostles, and to the experience of Christians in every age of

* John 3-7 chapters.