of the victories of the English. This first part is then concluded with a review of the state of India, and with an account of the advantages which in the opinion of the author result to the natives from the British government.

After instruction thus multifarious, we come to inquiries of a different description. The second part opens with an account of the religions of all the principal nations of the East; the religion of the Hindoos, that of the Chinese, that of the ancient Persians, and lastly the Koran. This particular branch of the inquiry is then terminated by the illustration of two theorems; - the first, "That the nature of the Eastern creeds is unfavourable to all religious improvement;"-the second, "That the despotism of the eastern governments is the great cause of the degradation of the people."-Christianity, after this, becomes the principal object of consideration. "Its introduction, rise, and progress," (to use the author's words) in the East, during the first century, are delineated, and its progress is traced to the era of the birth of Mahomet. The extension of his faith from its first promulgation, till the final establishment of the Mogul empire, with its fatal effects on the reign of Christianity in the East, are next pourtrayed. The policy pursued by the Mogul princes in Hindostan; the attempts for converting the natives made by the Dutch and the Portuguese, and the missionary establishments of the Catholics, then meet with due notice and after all this previous and widely-gathered information, the author at last enters upon the question, to the solution of which the book was originally devoted.

It is of prime importance, in discussing this question, to state it in its true and precise terms. It is not whether Christianity should be taught to the Indians, but whether Christianity should not be hindered from being taught to them. That is, in plain English, Whether or not ought Christianity to be persecuted in India? That such is the real import of the question we cannot think any man will scruple to admit, as soon as the coincidence is suggested to his mind. It is one species of persecution,

no doubt, to be called upon actually to renounce and disavow any set of opinions; and it is a different species, to be commanded under penalties not to propagate these opinions. This latter however is still persecution, though a kind somewhat less atrocious than the former. Suppose, how absurd soever the supposition,-suppose a decree to pass the British legislature, that no presbyterian doctrines shall any longer be taught in this kingdom, as not being favourable to royalty, and that penalties shall be inflicted on all those by whom the statute shall be broken; would not the presbyterians call this persecution? and would not every unprejudiced man allow that they called it right? In fact, the persecution which the emperors of Rome exercised against Christianity was neither more nor less than what we find recommended to the British government in India; it was barely commanding the Christians not to preach in the name of Jesus, and punishing them when they did So. But it was a point of conscience with those Christians so to preach. If any Christians in India are actuated by a similar principle, it is a similar persecution to forbid, and to punish them.

It will, we doubt not, be said, for many of the advocates for the persecution system are inconsiderate enough to say any thing,-we are not for persecuting the missionaries, we only propose to forbid them. But what if the missionaries, judging that God bids them do what you forbid, should not obey? Do you propose to punish, or let them go on? or do you know any alternative ?66 Oh yes; we will send them out of the country." That is to say, you wish for a law to banish them. And is banishing, then, in your opinion, no punishment?—It will very possibly be said, that banishing Englishmen from India is no great punishment. That evidently depends, however, upon the force of desire that may exist in any man's breast to remain in India; and the missionaries evince that their desire to remain in India is very strong. But, at any rate, thus much is certain, -that to send Christians out of India for preaching Christianity, is persecuting Christianity to the extent

VOL. I.

B B

(whatever it may be) of the penal infliction which banishment from India implies. It is to be observed, besides, that banishment from India has annexed to it several adjuncts, which are liable to operate in many cases as the most atrocious punishment. It implies the being seized upon, and being imprisoned for such a length of time, greater or smaller, as may be necessary to intervene before it may be convenient to send the imprisoned missionary to Europe. It is well known that this would often be a very considerable period. Now imprisonment is in any country ranked among the severest punishments. Under the climate of India there is scarcely one more dreadful. No European constitution can endure it for many months; to most it is fatal in a few weeks or days. After this, the unfortunate victim is to be placed in a ship, which to a man not used to a ship, and placed in it against his will, must be one of the most inconvenient and most odious of prisons; and in this, without any preparation made for him, he must accommodate himself among the common sailors, for a period of about six months. If, making a fair estimate of all this misery, we should figure to ourselves an equivalent portion inflicted on the banks of the Ganges in the shape of direct torture, and conceive any man coming forward in parliament with a bill conferring power to torture Englishmen to this extent, for the persecution of Christianity in India, can we doubt for a moment what would be the feelings in the breasts of the most hardened and profligate amongst us? Why should the calling of the same thing by a different name make such a prodigious difference in our sentiments?

The question thus stated, whether Christianity ought to be, or ought not to be, persecuted, by any detachment of the British Government in any quarter of the empire, one would hardly have expected, among a people and under a government professedly religious, to have seen so flippantly and confidently answered in the affirmative. For us, who are the impartial, irreconcilable enemies of persecution, wherever operating, against whomsoever, by whatever penalties, whether open or disguised; as we

would protect Brahmins teaching their opinions in a Christian country*, if any body cared to listen to them besides the half dozen wretched pamphleteers who have lately been the furious advocates of their superstition, so would we protect Christians propagating their doctrines among Hindoos, even independently of the consideration of those doctrines being true.-"Oh! but you are bigots and fanatics," cry our antagonists; "and in your blind zeal for things of the other world, you lose sight of all the consequence of your actions in this."-Let us remind these temperate disputants, that it is not impossible to be bigots and fanatics for other things besides Christianity. For example, the Emperor Julian, who has been perhaps improperly called an apostate, but who, in his early days had been certainly instructed in Christianity, was a bigot for the twelve gods of Olympus. The value which ought to be set upon Christianity is not the point here in question. Were Hindooism a better religion than Christianity, as some of those who contend against the preaching of Christianity pretty plainly give us to understand is their belief, still we should claim entire freedom for those who thought otherwise, to go and present their doctrines, with all the efficacy they could derive from their powers of persuasion. Whether this opinion or that opinion be right or wrong, whether the difference be material or trifling, it can hardly ever happenin regard to all permanent arrangement it can probably never happen-that the freedom or restraint of enunciating opinions is not a concernment of transcendent importance. When we are contending, as at present, for freedom of opinion, and our antagonists are contending for persecution, we are willing to leave it to the consideration of our readers on which side the bigotry lies.

But, say the opponents, you do not consider the

Of course, the protection cannot be extended to those overt actions which a civilized state must necessarily prohibit and punish as civil crimes. There is no helping it, if such persons as the aforesaid pamphleteers should spurn at this proviso as a piece of bigoted intolerance, and insist on a legal sanction for the Brahmins and their proselytes to expose children, to burn women alive, exhibit the Lingam, sit in dhurna, &c., &c.

mischief you are about to produce.-This plea of theirs, concerning the mischief which Christianity will produce, appears to have made a deep impression on the mind of Mr. Chatfield. Indeed we have reason to believe that it has made a very general impression. It has so moulded all that Mr. Chatfield has advanced upon the main topic of his book, that it demands a peculiar portion of our regard. We trust that what we shall here adduce, taken in conjunction with the proofs applicable to the same point which we have offered on collateral subjects on various antecedent occasions, will afford a satisfactory solution of the question.

The Hindoos, they inform us, will take fright at the preaching of Christianity; they will revolt, and we shall lose Hindostan. We meet them with a direct negative; and assure them of our conviction that the Hindoos will do no such thing.

Oh! but Vellore, they cry; think of that. Did not the Sepoys mutiny? The business of Vellore, we answer, is a strong and convincing proof to all who choose to understand it, that our position is just, and that yours is erroneous. The mutiny of Vellore was produced, not by preaching Christianity, but by altering head-dresses, which form an essential part of the religion of the Hindoos: not by fear, in the breasts of this people, of being persuaded to become Christians; but by fear of being compelled. The wearing of the Anti-Hindoo caps, it is to be carefully remembered, was a matter of compulsion. Now observe the strength of the evidence which this case affords. Christianity has been preached in various places of India: no mutiny or revolt was ever the consequence. Compulsion was applied to the head-dresses at one place, where no missionary it appears had ever been; and mutiny was immediately produced. Here is experience itself, to prove that the preaching of Christianity is harmless, and that compulsory measures alone are productive of evil.

Of all people that reason, or write, or talk, the enthusiasts for Hindooism seem the least capable of consistency, and are the most prone to advance positions contradictory to themselves. They are exceedingly