demoralized—than they really are. Mr. Gangooly expresses his views concerning some things in these festivals thus:

"After the usual sacrifices have been offered, they wet the yard, and men of every age fall upon each other, singing and dancing in abominable ways. Some songs are purposely composed in vulgar words and sentiments to be sung before the goddess." "Christians who have no faith in foreign mis

sions think the Hindus are well off. Come, O come, and see this single, abominable and adulterous amusement of these men, the sad, the mistaken specimens of humanity, and you will find a great gulf lies between you and them. Thank your God and be grateful to his mercy." (p. 146).

The English government, as is well known, has interfered with some of the barbarous superstitions and the demoralizing rites and customs of the Hindus, and forbidden them. Mr. Gangooly approves of such interference, and expresses his views thus:

"To enumerate the evils that arise from the Hindu worship and holidays, would occupy a book. Coming out disfigured and bruised from the dark caves of Brahmanism, I hoped the British Government would stretch forth its hand, at least against the most immoral and ruinous institutions of the Hindus, because their own eyes are not bright enough yet to notice the defects thereof." (p. 178). It is undoubtedly true of some of the accounts which have been published concerning the religious principles, and practices, and customs of the Hindus, that they have been painted in somewhat too dark colors, for if the people were as bad as they have been sometimes represented, the country could never have become so populous, so powerful, and so civilized, as it was for many centuries while under its own rulers. The truth is, that the people of India have generally been better in their conduct and character than the deities they have worshiped. It was so with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and so it has probably been with every heathen and idolatrous nation that has arisen above a state of barbarism. Still Mr. Gangooly's work will not change the opinions of any who have lived in India long enough to see Hinduism in its true character. Take the following remarks and opinions on the character and influence of Hinduism, made by a very competent judge, Bishop Heber, who lived many years in India, and who had uncommon opportunities for seeing the country, and for becoming

acquainted with all castes and classes of the inhabitants. They are a fair specimen of the accounts which come from missionaries in India, and they are undoubtedly true. Indeed, Mr. Gangooly's statements amount to the same thing.

"It is necessary to see idolatry to be fully sensible of its mischievous effects on the human mind. But of all idolatries which I have ever read or heard of, the religion of the Hindus, in which I have taken some pains to inform myself, really appears to me the worst, both in the degrading notions which it gives of the Deity; in the endless round of its burdensome ceremonies, which occupy the time and distract the thoughts, without either instructing or interesting its votaries; in the filthy acts of uncleanness and cruelty, not only permitted but enjoined and inseparably interwoven with those ceremonies; in the system of castes, a system which tends, more than anything else the Devil has yet invented, to destroy the feelings of general benevolence and to make nine-tenths of mankind the hopeless slaves of the remainder; and in the total absence of any popular system of morals, or any single lesson which the people at large ever hear to live virtuously, and do good to each other. I do not say, indeed, that there are not some scattered lessons of this kind to be found in this ancient book; but those books are neither accessible to the people at large, nor are these last permitted to read them; and, in general, all the sins that a sudra is taught to fear are, killing a cow, offending a brahman, or neglecting one of the many frivolous rites by which their deities are supposed to be conciliated. Accordingly, though the general sobriety of the Hindus (a virtue which they possess in common with most inhabitants of warm climates) affords a very great facility to the maintenance of public order and decorum, I really have never met with a race of men, whose standard of morality is so low, who feel so little apparent shame on being detected in a falsehood; or so little interest in the sufferings of a neighbor, not being of their own caste or family; whose ordinary and familiar conversation is go licentious; or in the wilder and more lawless districts who shed blood with so little repugnance." *

Mr. T. B. Macaulay the historian, subsequently Lord Macaulay, who lived some years in Calcutta and its vicinity, (the home of Mr. Gangooly), has also very correctly described the Hindu religion thus:

"Through the whole Hindu Pantheon you will look in vain for anything resembling those beautiful and majestic forms, which stood in the shrines of ancient Greece. All is hideous, grotesque, and ignoble. As this superstition is of all superstitions the most irrational, and of all superstitions the most inelegant, so is it of all superstitions the most immoral. Emblems of vice are objects of public worship. Acts of vice are acts of public worship. The courtesans are as much a part of the establishment of the temples, as much ministers of the god, as the priests. Crimes against life and crimes against property are not only per

Bishop Heber's Journal in India, Vol. II, pp. 291, 2.

mitted, but are enjoined by this odious theology. But for our interference human victims would still be offered to the Ganges, and the widow would still be laid on the pile by the corpse of her husband, and be burned alive by her own children."

The second part of this work contains the Life and Experience of the Author. Here he gives us his religious opinions and practices when he was a Brahman. He describes the circumstances under which he acquired some knowledge of Christianity, and the reasons for his becoming a Unitarian. Many will wish to know the religious views and opinions of a converted Brahman, and what doctrines he is prepared to propagate in India. And here it appears better to let the author's view of his own understanding, and his flippant way of speaking of the great truths of the Gospel, appear in his own language, in extracts, than to make any extended remarks upon them. The following are his views of some of the usually received doctrines of the Scriptures:

"The following are the points I did not dream of while studying the New Testament-which, when stated to me, I could not look at without surprise and could not believe. They are the doctrines of the Trinity,-the total depravity of the human race or human nature,—and endless punishment in hell. Now as I hear of these and their kindred doctrines, I do not believe them, nor think they have anything to do with true religion, because they seem to me irrational and unscriptural.

The Trinity.—In giving my reasons for not believing this doctrine of the church, I shall be as brief as possible. It is a self-contradictory and unintelligible riddle-a production of the fancy wrapped up with a sense of piety. They say the Trinity is a sublime union of the Three in One-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Common sense teaches us that one is always one, and three always three. We distinguish persons by their respective individualities. So the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost must each have a distinct individuality, otherwise they could not be persons; and if so, then they have their wills and affections separate from each other Under such circumstances it is as absurd to receive the Father, Son, and the, Holy Ghost as one, as it is to say, James, Mary, and Ellen are one. The religion of my country has a Trinity which I find far more rational, more logically and philosophically consistent than the Christian Trinity. And I do not think it a prudent choice to reject the former and accept the latter." (pp. 257, 258).

"The Total Depravity of Human Nature.-As my time would not permit me to consider this subject in the way I would like and thereby show my reasons for not believing it, I would simply resort to common sense and the Scriptures to expose this awkwardness of the doctrine. I fully believe that such enormous doctrine as that of calling a child of the Most High a totally depraved creature-having

nothing good in him, is not, and ought not to be a part of any man's creed." (p. 263).

The Doctrine of an Everlasting Hell.-I cannot conceive of anything as everlasting but God. Everything has its end at some time and in some way; but God is without end. All but God is subject to change. He, our good Father, is unchangeable and everlasting. The Great King is the Sovereign over all,— heaven and earth and all the hosts thereof. If there is a place called hell, it must be before his omnipresence; for there is nothing that is not known and seen and made by God. He could not create an everlasting hell to torture his weak, frail children. Whatever he has created is for their good." (p. 266.)

"In a Sunday School Book there is a question like the following:- Where do the wicked go? To hell,' is the answer.' All right. What kind of a place is hell?' 'It is dark, and there the worm dieth not, and there fire is unquenchable.' Now our common sense springs up to protest against this unfortunate statement; declaring that where there is fire unquenchable, there cannot be dark at all. Such a fire would light hell so splendidly as to enable its inmates to pick up the very sand off its floor, of course, if there be any."

"Heaven and hell are within our own breasts. We experience the joys of one, and the pangs of the other. Whenever we perform our duties faithfully and ‘love our neighbor as ourselves,' we then commune with God and his angels; and that is what constitutes the joy of heaven. On the other hand, when we neglect our duty,—seek after carnal lust,—defy God and man by our thoughts and actions, and thereby bring sorrows, the hatred of the world, and remorse of consciencewe make hell within us. A pure and contrite heart is heaven, and a heart that loves self exclusively, is hell." (p. 268.)

Surely no comment is needed on these statements of his views. The following extract shows his opinions concerning the character and work of Christ:

"In regard to Christ, my impression became that he is the Sent of God, his beloved Son, indeed. He was raised especially by our Father to regenerate the world, to proclaim peace and good will unto man—to bring the wanderers back, to uplift degraded humanity, and break the sting of death and bring immortality to light. He was a true model of humanity,-a perfect man. He was what man ought to be. Whatever attributes of the Most High could be grasped by a finite nature, were fully given to him." (p. 230).

The author has not told us whether he believes in the preëxistence of Christ, but it appears to be implied in what he says in several places that such belief does not make any part of his creed. He does not believe that Christ made any atonement for sin, or that any atonement is necessary in order to its forgiveness. He says, "the idea of one man's suffering or making atonement for the guilt of others, is a strange one."

We have not been able to learn his views of the inspiration of the Bible. He says that "the orthodox missionaries teach the Hindus that all the Old Testament was written by God," and that such teaching is one great obstacle to his countrymen's embracing Christianity, and he is confident that they will never change their religion for such "orthodoxy." We have found nothing in his work concerning the Apostles, or their labors, or their writings, but he expresses great respect for the Gospels, and great admiration for the character of Christ. He believes that all doctrine and duty are to be found in the teaching and example of our Saviour. He says, "My Christianity begins where Christ opens his life, and ends where he closes it."

In his profession of Christianity, Mr. Gangooly renounced his caste and all its rules. He expresses his views of it thus:

"The caste system, notwithstanding all its policy and the good it pretends to do, is obviously detrimental to the masses in India. It lies like the heavy Hymaloy over the heads of the low castes; they cannot rise upward intellectually, socially, or spiritually. Hence the first religious philanthropic act of those who see the defects of the caste system, ought to be to help its removal and to inaugurate a state of equality among the people."

We proceed now to notice some things in this work, concerning which the author ought to have been better informed, before he denied the truth of them, and imputed their origin to the ignorance, the prejudice, and the misrepresentations of missionaries and others. Thus in the preface, page 27, he says:

"Wherever I go, my friends ask me, 'do the Hindu mothers throw their babies into the Ganges now? and other questions of similar purport. I am quite amused to see the little school-boys and girls in America, who seem to know more of India than I do. I never heard such stories, even from the lips of my grandmother."

Again, in the Appendix, page 185, he says:

"Ever since my arrival in America, I have heard, with great surprise, the statement received on the authority of missionaries, that the Hindu mothers throw their infants into the River Ganges. Almost every man, woman, boy or girl in these United States knows it, and has seen the illustration of it in various books. During my tour over some sixteen States and the Canadas, I noticed that the