A Short Historical Account of Christian Conversions in India

Palayur Church is the oldest Christian church in India and 
one of the seven founded by St Thomas the Apostle in 52 AD. 
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The first Indian convert to Christianity can be traced to the time when the Apostle Thomas, disciple of Jesus, came to India in around 48 AD. The Apostle Thomas sailed from Alexandra with Habban, the merchant king of Gundnaphor, to the Indus and reached Taxila (now in Punjab) about 48-49 AD. From there he went to Muziri on the Malabar Coast via Socotra about 50 AD. He reached Muziri in 51-52 AD. [1]

A study of the book of the Acts in the New Testament will reveal that the apostles often chose the synagogues established in various Jewish settlements of the world as an opening ground for the preaching of the Gospel. It has been reasoned that Apostle Thomas’ choice of the Tamil coast was because of the flourishing Jewish settlements along the coast, in Madras and Cochin dating back to the Jewish Diaspora or even back to King Solomon’s trading centres in the Tamil coast. There were also many Roman trade settlements flourishing in this coastal areas, as known by the abundant coin evidences in Arikkamedu, Calicut, Coimbatore and other places.

Tradition holds that many Brahmin families were converted through the ministry of St. Thomas and seven churches were established in Palur, Muziri, Parur, Gokkamangalam, Chayal, Niranam, and Quilon. After forming several more congregations out of Jews as well as of Dravidi people, Apostle Thomas went to Meliapur where even the Raja was converted with many of his subjects. This infuriated the Brahmins (of Aryan origin).

According to tradition, St. Thomas was speared to death by Brahmins near Mylapore. According to many early Church fathers, the mortal remains of Thomas were shifted from his tomb in India to Edessa.[2]

After Thomas, came the Apostle Bartholomew who ministered in the Kalyan area of the West Coast. He came around 55 AD. From this time onwards the area around Kalyan and the coasts had a large Christian population. This has been authenticated by historians such as Cosmos Indicopleustus (522 AD).

After Bartholomew came Pantaenus, the teacher of Clement, around 189AD on the West Coast. Bishop David of Barsa came around 295 AD. Thereafter, we can witness a number of immigrations from Syria. Kna Thomas came with Metropolitan Mar Joseph and a company of religious teachers as well as 400 Syrian Christians, who fled persecutions in Syria for their faith under Sapor II (339-379 AD). And thus, Christians grew in number in India and spread to different parts of the land. Many Dravidians got converted. There was slow and steady mixing of the community of followers from Jewish, Syrian, and Dravidi origin in the Southern peninsula.

Nestorian Christians as well as monks from Beth Abhe and other monasteries came into India during the 4^th century. Worshipping communities were found in large numbers in the Ganges Valley of North India in 525 AD, according to Assemani. Christians were found in Punjab and Bihar.

When Vasco DaGama visited Calicut in 1498 AD, he found over 2 lak Christians in the Kerala area.[3] The estimated population of Christians before Vasco DaGama’s arrival was about one million in India. The percentage is about the same as of today.

The ancient Christians of India were reputed for their industry, diction, respect for parents, elders, and clergy, and for their great contributions to Dravidian literature. Converts to Christianity such as Valluvar contributed to Tamil literature. Christian themes can be found in a bulk of non-Brahminic Tamil pietistic literature.

The era of Hindu revivals throughout the land of ancient India beginning at the 6^th and 7^th century AD led to active persecution of non-brahminical religious systems such as Buddhism, Jainism, and Christianity. There was mass extermination of Buddhist monks; many fled persecution. Non-brahminical literatures and signs were also wiped away. Thus, history shows an abrupt disappearance of even traces of these great religions. If it were not for the historical accounts of foreign travellers and some antiquities, we would not even have known about all those great conversions in India.

However strong the persecutions, they were not able to completely wipe out the Christian population, which flourished in, majorly, the coastal regions, even as Vasco DaGama testified.

Influx of European merchants such as the Portuguese, Dutch, and British did not result in Christian conversions, as history shows. All the colonial power consistently refused to allow the white missionaries till 1813 to sail by their ships. Most of the colonies refused entry to the missionaries into their colonies. The Britishers felt that the missionaries would dishevel their interests by preaching and teaching the pagans. It was for such reasons that William Carey had to seek asylum in a Danish territory in Serampore.

In 1837, the British Colonial Government, very reluctantly, permitted entry of white missionaries in its territory because of the pressure from the evangelical lobby in the British parliament. The missionaries received no spiritual support from the British government and had to look after themselves. It was their sacrificial lifestyle and social action that turned many Indians to Christianity. Missionaries like Fraser and Carey unleashed a relentless fight against social evils such as slavery and sati. The activity of missionaries against social evils, against liquor, and their preaching about the equality of men was irritant to the British Colonialists.

Many who were benefiting from the missionary ministries began to convert to Christianity. The untouchables who once were ashamed of themselves, now began to radiate joys of knowing Christ as their emancipator. The Christian missionaries went to their humble homes and awakened them to a sense of better earthly existence. Through the efforts of the Church Missionary Society in 1891, the “Padial Protection Law” was enacted. Other Acts such as the Bengal Tenants Protection Act, Indigo Planters Act, and the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1843, were initiated by Christian efforts.

Christian missionary activities amongst tribals have been more effective in turning them to Christ than among the rest of India. The once suppressed tribals were literated and educated. The tribal languages were given script and grammar. Mission work aimed at liberating and uplifting the tribals. As a result many of them flocked to Christianity. Many more turned to Christianity because of its doctrine of one God, the Savior, and deliverance from evil spirits. There were mass conversions.

In the 19^th century, the Great Awakening triggered an evangelistic and missionary zeal in the churches. Many missions began to look at India as a field of mission work. The American Baptist Mission brought the Gospel to many parts of North East. The Welsh Presbyterian Mission and the Baptist Missionary Society brought Christianity to Khasi and Jaintia Hills and to Mizoram. Hindu missionaries, at this time began to flood the left over Tripura areas and also portions of Manipur. The once head-hunters of Nagaland became Christians. Thus, Christianity spread in the North East. Assam was already taken over by Aryanism, though it blended with its Mongoloid background.

After the Independence, India began to unchain itself gradually from foreign supports, though missions in India were not able to completely shake off the need of the help of Christians outside of India. Though many more were converted to the various lines of Christianity, Christian population has suffered from both biological and conversion growths. Census reports reveal that the Christian population has declined in percentage levels. Conversions still take place in different parts of India. But there are as much as “going backs”.

In modern times, the growth of Charismatic and Spirit-filled ministries has triggered a great focus on spiritual transformations. The preaching concentrates on repentance from sin and turning to God through Jesus Christ. Deliverance from various maladies and demonic oppression is a regular experience. Consequentially, a large number of nominal (name-sake) Christians have been revived and have abandoned their past unchristian-like lifestyles. Also, a number of people from other faiths have embraced the Gospel message.

There are also a number of cases in which some false missionaries falsely report mass conversions in paper. This has engendered much consternation. However, their works are soon also exposed. The Bible tells us that even in the days of the apostles, there were people who got into the mission work just for the sake of money and looked at religion as a kind of commercial industry. They weren’t genuine, but were wolves in sheep clothing. The Bible called the church to beware of them and stay away from them. And, true worshippers do identify and expose the false ones.

The true people of God, however, cannot avoid testifying of what they have experienced in Jesus Christ; as the Apostle Paul said, “We can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth”. It is an inbuilt nature of a human to share his/her joy, to not keep a good news secret, but celebrate it; and, witnessing about an inner spiritual transformation to others through words and action is just that.

---

1. J.N. Farquhar, The Crown of Hinduism (London, 1913), p.20. As cited by Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion called Conversion (New Delhi: TRACI, 1998), p.4
2. “St. Gregory, Naceanceu, St. Ambrose, and St. Eranimus, all of the 4^th century and Bishop Canthencius, and St. Paulinus both of the 5^th century, bear evidence that the Apostle Thomas worked and was killed in India for his faith by those who opposed his message…” Sunder Raj, The Confusion called Conversion, pp.4,5
3. Kaa. Naa. Subramanyam, The Catholic Community in India, as cited by Sunder Raj, Op. Cit, p.7

Concepts and Dimensions of Conversion and Religious Experience

© Domenic Marbaniang, 2003

The word conversion has different meanings for different people in different contexts. The various contexts are the occasion and object of conversion. That is, conversion takes place somewhere/sometime (occasion) of something (object).

The Latin word convertere, from which our English term is derived, means “to turn or to change”. The whole of phenomena is a panorama of change. As Heraclitus rightly observed, “Nothing is permanent except ‘change’”. Conversion in the physical context is a reality. Every physical change has a physical cause. For instance, the United States Energy Research and Development Administration displays in show cases the “underground conversion” of coal “to synthetic natural gas”. Here, as per Aristotelian classification of causes, coal is the material cause, whereas the other factors that cause the conversion are the efficient causes.

It is also proved that in the human being, mental causes can be efficient causes of psychosomatic sicknesses, as has been proved by psychoanalysts. Whether the term ‘mental causes’ refers to material causes or immaterial causes is a problem of metaphysics. Some neuro-signals and resulting chemical changes are observable in the process of the conversion of repressed feelings in physical maladies. It has also been proved that use of drugs like LSD, cocaine, charas, etc are instrumental in the producing of mental changes and subjective alteration of reality. Arguments from both protagonists of religious sects and protagonists of secular schools of opinion prove the variety of views held regarding these metaphysical issues. For example, what one would consider to be a subjective alteration of reality would be considered as an intuitive apprehension of reality by another. What would be considered as the result of physical changes by one would be considered as mental result of physical and mental changes by another.

Though change is understood as characteristic of the phenomenal world, it is not at all assumed to be the characteristic of pure knowledge, or Truth. Though the philosophy of dialectics and relativity arose in past centuries, the inner assumption of One Truth is an unlost reality. Even relativists assume that their statement that absolute truth doesn’t exist is the truth. Truth by definition is unchangeable. The ideal ‘Truth’, however, is not what mankind has totally apprehended. There are ‘truths’ that he knows but not the whole truth. And so we find a variety of belief-systems that govern lives of myriads of human beings all over the world. Beliefs may either be true or false.

Since religious experiences are dependent on religious ‘truths’, and religious ‘truths’ are usually beyond scientific investigation, religious beliefs vary a lot and each claims credence of itself. Religious experiences leading to religious conversions or religious conversions due to conviction of certain religious beliefs are often observable. Whether a particular religious belief is true or false is dependent on the kind of criteria used for the measurement. Not all religions accept Logic as criteria, though.

What religious conversion really means is debatable, since some speak of being a ‘Christian’ in heart though not in name, or of being a Christian in name and a ‘devil’ in heart. These groups of people unanimously tie conversion to religious experience.

Legally, religious conversion refers to a person’s abandoning of a particular religion and adoption of another through ceremonial means. While it has been seen that certain religions are experientially adhered along other religions (e.g. Confucianism and Taoism), legally a person is understood as belonging to only one religious group. The boundariless Hinduism, however, gives opportunity to follow/absorb all beliefs of other religions together. But, legally, a Hindu is a Hindu. A Hindu who believes in Christ along with the Hindu deities and who has not given his life to Christ in a publicly evidenced way is not accepted as a Christian by the Christian community. And yet, it is not necessary that a legally accepted conversion is indicative of a genuine religious experience.

And so, while conversions of physical nature are easily definable, ‘religious conversion’ is not very easily definable. Not because definitions don’t exist but because definitions vary. Observable religious conversions have a varied dimension. Evangelical Christians emphasize on the need of conversions in the lives of nominal Christians and call real conversion a ‘born-again’ experience. Most evangelicals stress on ‘change of heart’ (man parivartan) rather than ‘change of religion’ (dharm parivartan). In other words, it is emphatically said that the real thing is the change of the internal and not of the external.

This change of the internal is to comply with the values, beliefs, and position of the particular religion converted to. The above rule is not a requisite of every religion or sect, however, in totality; only a few beliefs suffice.

When considering physical changes or natural changes, either accidental (that is, non-supervised) or planned (that is, backed by intelligence), it is evident that, scientifically speaking, all physical changes can be traced to some efficient and sufficient causes. And so, where an effect is known the cause may be known and where a cause is observed, its effect may be predicted. Now, regarding religious conversions, can a criterion be grounded on the basis of causality? For example, if an SC (of the lower caste) has converted from Christianity to Hinduism or an SC has converted from Hinduism to Christianity, can the cause of the conversion (e.g. economic or social emancipation or privileges) be counted as evidence of conversion or non-conversion? Evangelicals will say “Yes”. I would say that the cause-effect criterion only shows that the person in question s not really religiously converted if he does so for mere economic or social reasons. He internally remains the same – materialist, hedonist, or utilitarian – in his belief and manipulates the externals to comply with his internal beliefs. To be religiously converted requires religious material, formal, and efficient causes (causes that are religious in nature). If, for example, a person switches to another religion, because it is that religion’s beliefs, rituals, and festivities that appeal to him, he is religiously converted. But if he switches to that religion because of some social or economic advantages, he is not religiously converted; because the core of any religion is its way of belief, way of worship, and way of behavior. If liquid water turns into vapour, we know what a liquid is and what a gas is and what it is that distinguishes them from each other. In the same manner, if a liquid substance changes into a gaseous substance, we know that here has been conversion from one ‘form’ to another, since we know what a liquid is and what a gas is. In the same manner, once we know what it means to be a Christian, according to Christianity, and what means to be a Moslem according to Islam, we can recognize whether a conversion has taken place and what it means to be converted. Nevertheless, genuineness depends upon conformity to the standard – that is the fundamentals. However, since Hinduism has no fundamentals it is as Ebe Sunder Raj illustrates the tray into which anything not falling into fundamentally distinguishable cups falls [The Confusion Called Conversion, 1998. 119-123].

Concepts of religious conversion as related to religious experience differ from religion to religion. Pluralism proponents may, for example, assert that religious conversions – changing of one’s religion – are unnecessary since all religions are infrastructurally oriented to a similar goal.

Beliefs, affection, contemplation, discernment, etc are involved in the process of conflicts leading to conversion. While the belief system of the average human being is constantly exposed to change, loyalty to a particular religion – regardless of its certain teachings and practices – is often prompted by affection or judgment of the immediate good which does not lead to conversions. This is true of secularists and humanists. The Biblical concept of conversion stresses both a change in thinking as well as a change in living. Conversion means forsaking the old way of living for a new. It is a change of alliance, attitude, and lifestyle; of will, mind, and emotion from falsehood to God.

The Biblical concept of conversion is bound to the concept of sin and a just God. Conversion is turning one’s back on sin and turning to God. The New Testament concept involves turning from false gods, sin, and deception to the Living God and the righteousness of the Christ of the cross. A Christian who lives in sin is a backslider, while one who renounces Christ is an apostate.

But simply defining conversion as turning from sin to God is insufficient, since each religion has its own definition, concept of sin and God. Christian conversion is the change of a person to the New Testament pattern. In other words, it means changing by abandoning non-biblical beliefs and practices and accepting biblical beliefs and practices through volitional surrender to and trust in Christ. Normally, it is seen that people are seen converted to Roman Catholic Christianity or Evangelical Christianity or Pentecostal Christianity. There are also a number of cults that claim to be Christian, but which the main groups reject as heretical. And so, though the outsider may judge a religious conversion to one of the groups as Christian conversion, whether the event was a real conversion to Christianity is judged differently by the different groups. I have personally been to some places where Protestant groups regard Roman Catholics as not Christians. There was once a time when the Pope himself was considered to be anti-Christ by many and his religion non-biblical. Such are the problems and complexities involving names of religions and the concepts of religious conversions and religious experiences.

According to William James, religious conversion as religious experiences may be a sudden event in one case and a gradual process in another. Evangelist Billy Graham views conversion as occurring in various forms of which no two are exactly alike. Those who relate conversion to baptism do not have the above complexities. But when conversion is considered to be something other than a ceremonial rite alone, the dimensions of the psychological, the spiritual, and the physical come into focus.

The Evangelical position maintains that religious experience is truly speaking spiritual. And religious conversion is the conversion of the whole man – in his thought, action, and relationship. In other words, a man is to change wholly in order to be a true Christian.

Robert Raines delineates the many dimensions of life directly touched by conversion. He states that conversion begins in awakening (i.e., speaking of Christian conversion). While Buddhism and Hinduism place awakening at the end of the road, Christianity places awakening at the beginning of the road. Buddhism and Hinduism say follow this road and you will reach the state of awakening. Christianity begins with awakening. Raines further states that conversion continues by the decision. The will of man is free to choose and is responsible for its choice. Raines goes on to say that conversion matures by growth. The whole Christian life is a process of conversions. But the conversion by allegiance to Christ, repentance, and experiencing through faith forgiveness is the ‘new birth’, ‘reconciliation’. The changes following this are the result of growth. It is analogous to the birth and growth of a child to maturity. My understanding of conversion maturing by growth is that the growth into maturity is the process of the realizing of the goal of conversion. The change must go on till the end is reached, and this will go on as long as the Christian is alive on this earth. Phenomenon means the changing. Raines further states that conversion endures in discipline and takes place in koinonia. Fellowship is important for change in that direction. He points out that in all of these areas, God in His love, mercy, and grace is the Converter of persons in so far as they respond with their will to the divine will. The individual’s choice is important, but God is the real Converter. Theologically speaking, the sinful man is dead and cannot respond to God. Ultimately, conversion is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit.

In the New Testament accounts, we find mainly two ways of experiencing conversion:

1. Individual responses and experience
2. Group response and experience

While the Ethiopian eunuch is a case of individual conversion experience, the Samaritans and the Jailor are cases of group conversions. In strong social and family units as those in ancient times, group conversions are normality. The group as a whole changes to the new set of values, allegiance and trust in the one God, change of lifestyle etc. Depending on the culture and social structure in which a man lives, the conversion experience may be that of a people movement by caste, clan, tribe, or family; or it may be that of individual persons independently turning from sin to forgiveness. There is no reason to undermine the validity of group conversions. Group consciousness is a strong feature of many tribes.

In almost every case of conversion in the New Testament, baptism is mentioned as the ceremony of conversion.

At last we may differentiate between nominal conversions and real conversions. Real conversions are preceded by real causes (beliefs, motives, means; material causes, formal causes, efficient causes, and final causes – formal, the religious form to which one is converting; material, beliefs, rites, worship etc; efficient, God and individual; final, motives, purpose). Nominal converts look at religion as a means to realize non-religious goals (or goals not prescribed by the concerned religion). Real converts look at religion as the way to realizing its goals.

True conversion has a multi-dimensional impact on the person. This is because the major dimensions of the intellectual, attitudinal, and affectional lives undergo change. The conversion may be a point or gradual and is often accompanied or followed by a ceremonial rite. Continuance, adherence, endurance, and conviction are present in true conversion. Conversion experience expresses itself in overt behavior.

The various dimensions and causes of conversion are important for an understanding of conversion. A person intellectually, attitudinally, and affectionally related to one religion may later find that particular religion unsatisfying to his intellect and affection and might later change to another religion, if he finds it satisfying. At this stage, the previous community to which he belonged would consider him an apostate, not a backslider.

An apostate doesn’t necessarily renounce the ethical life, which is almost commonly acceptable to all religions.

Why Gandhi Didn’t Become a Christian - In His Own Words

Why Gandhi Didn’t Become a Christian

Quotes from Mahatma Gandhi’s

An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth

Translated from Gujarati by Mahadev Desai, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1927

Online Book: http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/autobio/autobio.htm

Chapter 20: Acquaintance with Religions

About the same time I met a good Christian from Manchester in a vegetarian boarding house. He talked to me about Christianity. I narrated to him my Rajkot recollections. He was pained to hear them. He said, 'I am a vegetarian. I do not drink. Many Christians are meat-eaters and drink, no doubt; but neither meat-eating nor drinking is enjoined by Scripture. Do please read the Bible.' I accepted his advice, and he got me a copy. I have a faint recollection that he himself used to sell copies of the Bible, and I purchased from him an edition containing maps, concordance, and other aids. I began reading it, but I could not possibly read through the Old Testament. I read the book of Genesis, and the chapters that followed invariably sent me to sleep. But just for the sake of being able to say that I had read it, I plodded through the other books with much difficulty and without the least interest or understanding. I disliked reading the book of Numbers.

But the New Testament produced a different impression, especially the Sermon on the Mount which went straight to my heart. I compared it with the Gita. The verses, 'But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man take away thy coat let him have thy cloke too,' delighted me beyond measure and put me in mind of Shamal Bhatt's 'For a bowl of water, give a goodly meal' etc. My young mind tried to unify the teaching of the Gita, the Light of Asia and the Sermon on the Mount. That renunciation was the highest form of religion appealed to me greatly.

Chapter 36: Christian Contacts

The next day at one o'clock I went to Mr. Baker's prayer-meeting. There I was introduced to Miss Harris, Miss Gabb, Mr. Coates and others. Everyone kneeled down to pray, and I followed suit. The prayers were supplications to God for various things, according to each person's desire. Thus the usual forms were for the day to be passed peacefully, or for God to open the doors of the heart.

A prayer was now added for my welfare: 'Lord, show the path to the new brother who has come amongst us. Give him, Lord, the peace that Thou hast given us. May the Lord Jesus who has saved us save him too. We ask all this in the name of Jesus.' There was no singing of hymns or other music at these meetings. After the supplication for something special every day, we dispersed, each going to his lunch, that being the hour for it. The prayer did not take more than five minutes…..

I read a number of such books in 1893. I do not remember the names of them all, but they included the Commentary of Dr. Parker of the City Temple, Pearson's Many Infallible Proofs and Butler's Analogy. Parts of these were unintelligible to me. I liked some things in them, while I did not like others. Many Infallible Proofs were proofs in support of the religion of the Bible, as the author understood it. The book had no effect on me. Parker'sCommentary was morally stimulating, but it could not be of any help to one who had no faith in the prevalent Christian beliefs. Butler's Analogystruck me to be a very profound and difficult book, which should be read four or five times to be understood properly. It seemed to me to be written with a view to converting atheists to theism. The arguments advanced in it regarding the existence of God were unnecessary for me, as I had then passed the stage of unbelief; but the arguments in proof of Jesus being the only incarnation of God and the Mediator between God and man left me unmoved.

But Mr. Coates was not the man easily to accept defeat. He had great affection for me. He saw, round my neck, the Vaishnava necklace of Tulasi-beads. He thought it to be superstition and was pained by it. 'This superstition does not become you. Come, let me break the necklace.'

'No, you will not. It is a sacred gift from my mother.'

'But do you believe in it?'

'I do not know its mysterious significance. I do not think I should come to harm if I did not wear it. But I cannot, without sufficient reason, give up a necklace that she put round my neck out of love and in the conviction that it would be conducive to my welfare. When, with the passage of time, it wears away and breaks of its own accord, I shall have no desire to get a new one. But this necklace cannot be broken.'

Mr. Coates could not appreciate my argument, as he had no regard for my religion. He was looking forward to delivering me from the abyss of ignorance. He wanted to convince me that, no matter whether there was some truth in other religions, salvation was impossible for me unless I accepted Christianity which represented the truth, and that my sins would not be washed away except by the intercession of Jesus, and that all good works were useless.

Just as he introduced me to several books, he introduced me to several friends whom he regarded as staunch Christians. One of these introductions was to a family which belonged to the Plymouth Brethren, a Christian sect.

Many of the contacts for which Mr. Coates was responsible were good. Most struck me as being God- fearing. But during my contact with this family, one of the Plymouth Brethren confronted me with an argument for which I was not prepared:

'You cannot understand the beauty of our religion. From what you say it appears that you must be brooding over your transgressions every moment of your life, always mending them and atoning for them. How can this ceaseless cycle of action bring you redemption? You can never have peace. You admit that we are all sinners. Now look at the perfection of our belief. Our attempts at improvement and atonement are futile. And yet redemption we must have. How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. He is the only sinless Son of God. It is His word that those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life. Therein lies God's infinite mercy. And as we believe in the atonement of Jesus, our own sins do not bind us. Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless. And therefore Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace. Think what a life of restlessness is yours, and what a promise of peace we have.'

The argument utterly failed to convince me. I humbly replied:

'If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.'

To which the Plymouth Brother rejoined: I assure you, your attempt is fruitless. Think again over what I have said.'

And the Brother proved as good as his word. He knowingly committed transgressions, and showed me that he was undisturbed by the thought of them.

But I already knew before meeting with these friends that all Christians did not believe in such a theory of atonement. Mr. Coates himself walked in the fear of God. His heart was pure, and he believed in the possibility of self-purification. The two ladies also shared this belief. Some of the books that came into my hands were full of devotion. So, although Mr. Coates was very much disturbed by this latest experience of mine, I was able to reassure him and tell him that the distorted belief of a Plymouth Brother could not prejudice me against Christianity.

My difficulties lay elsewhere. They were with regard to the Bible and its accepted interpretation.

Chapter 40: Religious Ferment

This Convention was an assemblage of devout Christians. I was delighted at their faith. I met the Rev. Murray. I saw that many were praying for me. I liked some of their hymns, they were very sweet.

The Convention lasted for three days. I could understand and appreciate the devoutness of those who attended it. But I saw no reason for changing my belief – my religion. It was impossible for me to believe that I could go to heaven or attain salvation only by becoming a Christian. When I frankly said so to some good Christian friends, they were shocked. But there was no help for it.

My difficulties lay deeper. It was more than I could believe that Jesus was the only incarnate son of God, and that only he who believed in Him, would have everlasting life. If God could have sons, all of us were His sons. If Jesus was like God, or God Himself, then all men were like God and could be God Himself. My reason was not ready to believe literally that Jesus by his death and by his blood redeemed the sins of the world. Metaphorically there might be some truth in it. Again, according to Christianity only human beings had souls, and not other living beings, for whom death meant complete extinction; while I held a contrary belief. I could accept Jesus as a martyr, an embodiment of sacrifice, and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born. His death on the Cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue in it my heart could not accept. The pious lives of Christians did not give me anything that the lives of men of other faiths had failed to give. I had seen in other lives just the same reformation that I had heard of among Christians. Philosophically there was nothing extraordinary in Christian principles. From the point of view of sacrifice, it seemed to me that the Hindus greatly surpassed the Christians. It was impossible for me to regard Christianity as a perfect religion or the greatest of all religions.

I shared this mental churning with my Christian friends whenever there was an opportunity, but their answers could not satisfy me.

Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison d'être of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran?