the great class I allude to. Had he then confined himself to the broad difference between the two great classes, those who believe in a spiritual and those who believe in a personal reign of Christ it would have been well. But by introducing individual sects, he has found himself reduced to particularize examples of individual follies, as in the instance he relates of "a person who insisted that our Lord's words to preach the Gospel to every creature ought to be taken literally; and acting on his own principle he went out into the fields preaching to the birds and beasts:" the only conclusion we can come to is that the man was insane; however, thus Mr. M. is led on to carp at whole classes.

Mr. Mundy attributes to the Millenarians very many and peculiar sentiments, not half of which did I ever hear of or meet with before; this tends to prove that he has sought for and noted individual characteristics, instead of describing the general distinctions of the two great classes. How Mr. M. can make good the following charge against any body of Millenarians I know not: he says, "The deficiency of Millenarians in this lovely Christian grace (of charity) frequently leads them to attack public characters, ministers, missionaries, and others who hold office in the Church; but Missionaries seem particularly to be the objects of their censure." Certainly none of the Millenarians whom I have met have ever shown such an unchristian spirit. Here as in other places it appears to me Mr. M. argues from individual to general principles. Again he observes in another part, "Millenarians in general seem to be particularly hostile to the cause of Christian Missions :" can this be?—is it true that any body of Christians should be hostile to any thing that will advance their beloved master's kingdom on earth? no, no, surely not-this cannot be so! else they are not Christians. Such charges are indeed too wholesale.

At page 435 of the Observer there are some remarks which you have extracted and which I am sorry to see you approve of and call sensible observations, but which I think extremely unfair in their nature. Mr. Mundy observes, "It is to be feared that some good people are occasionally shaken in mind on the Millenarian question, by what appears to them the devoted piety of its advocates. I admit that there is, in some Millenarians much of the appearance of sanctity and devotion, and that they spend much time in reading the Bible and in prayer; but still I think it may, in many instances, be doubted whether their lives are so much in the right." Now I put this to any unprejudiced person and ask him is it fair, is it just to judge thus of any class of our fellow Christians because they may differ from us in some immaterial points? Is it charitable (with the want of which grace Mr. M. has frequently taxed the Millenarians in his pamphlet) on the part of that gentleman thus to pass a grave censure upon a large class of persons whom he in other places repeatedly styles good men," and "our Christian friends?"

Mr. M.'s words are "I admit that there is in some Millenarians

much of the appearance of sanctity and devotion." I ask what right has any man to judge thus of any of his fellow-creatures? No man has a right to impute wrong motives to others, much less a Christian

minister to judge thus of his fellow Christians. Shall poor sinful man presume to judge the hearts of his fellow-men as though he alone were immaculate? and pronounce their humble conduct as only an appearance, their "spending much time in reading the Bible and in prayer" as merely a show, a cheat! Surely these words are unjust, and exceedingly unfair. The Almighty can alone know whether there is truth or falsehood in the hearts of men, and therefore he alone knows whether their holy conduct is only an appearance." I declare, although not one professing the "peculiar sentiments" attributed by Mr. Mundy to Millenarians, that I know of no one of that class (of those who believe in Christ's personal reign) who would have spoken or written in the strain in which he has indulged. The words above quoted by me appear to contain a bitterness which is quite uncalled for, and seem written in a sneering spirit, highly offensive, and any thing but decorous in a Christian Missionary. Mr. M. clearly charges a whole class with showing false colors; he does not specify any particular sect of Millenarians. Indeed when he says some Millenarians he makes the matter worse, for then he only allows a few out of a whole class the merit of even making an appearance of religion. The reading of his whole sentence will prove this impression to be correct. "I admit, says he, that there is in some Millenarians, much of the appearance of sanctity and devotion, and that they spend much time in reading the Bible and in prayer; but still I think it may in many instances be doubted whether their lives are so much in the right.' This with its context is conclusive of what meaning ought to be attached to those words.

At page 439 there again appears a most objectionable sentence. Mr. M. observes: " In bringing these discourses to a conclusion, I would request our friends not to calumniate us, as they are in the habit of doing, by asserting that we either despise or treat with indifference the agency of the Holy Spirit"—" not to calumniate us, as they are in the habit of doing." What can be more objectionable in tone than this such wholesale charges made without provocation and more than all objectionable-made in the pulpit!

Such broad charges are offensive to every body whether levelled at the guilty or the innocent, and such sentences abound in the tract published by Mr. Mundy which I have read over attentively apart from this review. I refrain from noticing other, as they appear to me and to others, improper observations, as they have not been extracted by you into your critique, and I refrain from saying more on other points that strike me as objectionable in the parts which you have inserted here lest they should excite strong feelings. To the tone of the discourses I object altogether as giving needless pain to a large class of Christians, and by its harsh manner, being more likely to excite ill feelings than to dispel errors, or confirm the wavering in the right path. I also object to the strain of the sermons because of the lightness or flippancy of some of the remarks (especially in the notes) which is to be condemned where the subject is such a grave one, treating of the solemn truths of the gospel; and I likewise think that their tone is not at all applicable to the sacred nature of a

sermon.

I am of opinion that the subject of these discourses might have been treated far otherwise and with much more urbanity towards those of an opposite belief. As a proof, I refer to the quotations you have made from the works of James Douglas, who, although a severe writer, does not appear to treat those who differ from himself so ungenerously (I can use no lighter word) as does Mr. Mundy.

On the whole it is the opinion of many besides myself that it is deeply to be regretted that Mr. Mundy should have published these sermons at all, since they are not of a nature to allay differences, but on the contrary are of a tendency to offend, and indeed they have already had this bad effect. Their tone alone is enough to create ill feelings. As a proof of their inutility in confirming a person in the opinions advocated by Mr. M. I may mention that instead of so confirming me in my preconceived notions (which accorded with Mr. M's) they have had the effect of creating doubts in my mind as to whether the opinion of the personal reign of our blessed Lord upon earth is not the more correct interpretation of scripture; and whereas Mr. M. presses his arguments upon the rational of his principle, a small voice whispers that human reason is often at fault in divine things.

Q.

III. Similarity between the Ancient and Modern Custom of passing children through the fire to Molech.

To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

GENTLEMEN,

If worthy of being noticed in the Observer pray receive the enclosed account of one of the superstitions of the Natives of this Province. Yours obediently,

A SUBSCRIBER.

The practice of passing their sons and daughters through the fire to Molech, as practised at Balasore in Orissa by Hindus, is similar to the customs of the heathen spoken of in Ezek. xx. 26, Lev. xviii. 21. "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech."

Having heard, that a scene similar to that mentioned in Ezek. and Lev. of passing heathen children through the fire to Molech (which is here called Pát-ghar) was to be performed by a gwálá (cowherd) caste near my house, I went to witness the ceremony which appeared to correspond with that spoken of in different parts of the Bible. It is sometimes customary for people of nearly all castes to make a vow on the day of their marriage, saying that should they have a child they will pass it through the fire in honor of their gods.

In this case the vow was to the goddess Raghu Chuṛámaní, a stone painted with sindur, and called by other names; viz. Nemo Kálí, Buṛí Kálí. The parents having hired a

man who understood the incantations and mysteries of this ceremony, he ordered a fire to be made of charcoal mixed with dammer (rosin), 7 feet in length by 2 in breadth, which was kept bright by the native winnower (kulá), " and a pit to be dug at each end to be filled with water into which a little milk was poured; the offerings had been prepared the previous evening and placed inside the house, they consisted of seven eggs, seven plantain blossoms, seven pots of water (marked with sindur), bread, fish, &c. &c. All being ready, the parents, and mantarwálá, with their fantastic caps made for this occasion (like Tom-fool caps), placed on the necks of waterpots (kalsis) and carried on their heads, preceded by tomtoms and music, went to bathe; and having bathed and filled their pots with water returned in the same manner (the mother having the infant in her arms), preceded by the mantarwálá, &c., and walked around the charcoal fire outside the pits seven times, when, amidst the shouts and yells of the multitude and the increased noise of the tom-toms, the parents passed through the fire, dipping their feet into the pits of water at each end, and returning to and fro' three or four times, the mother still bearing the child in her arms. This part of the ceremony being finished, the mantarwálá rolled about his head from shoulder to shoulder, making the people believe he was possessed with the goddess Raghu Churámaní, and in the meantime the parents (without the child) seated themselves inside a Pátghar, (a small hut purposely made with a hemp roof,) covering their heads and bodies with their wet chádars (sheets), and when properly covered, the hut was ignited. Immediately the whole was in a blaze, the people around, however suddenly. extinguished it; the parents then arose and the multitude separated, there only a few remaining to devour the offerings: the mantarwálá continued rolling his head about for some time after the ceremony had concluded. There is a story told of a gentleman at this station who passing by when Raghu Churámaní had taken possession of a mantarwálá inquired why the man was rolling about his head as if insensible to the presence of any one, when he was told that Raghu Churámaní had possession of him and he could not help it. "Is it so, said the gentleman, then bring my stick, and I will see whether it be true or false;" after the second stroke with his cane, the man ran away as fast as he could, calling out, "Doháí khudá wand Sáhib" (have mercy my lord and master) and the people acknowledged it was all jhuth (false).

Within the last 12 months in one part of this town no less than six people having made vows similar to the one I have referred to, and have performed the ceremonies in the usual

manner, some of them, however hired substitutes to carry their children through the fire, &c. Dhobis, Gwálás, Sunris and Káyats, and in fact all the castes of Hindus perform these ceremonies.

Balasore, 8th Augusi, 1838.

A SUBSCRIBER,

IV. The lawfulness of Lotteries.

We shall be happy to receive communications on this subject, a subject on which we have looked for a long time with more than a jealous eye. We regard the scruples of tender and newly awakened consciences, and would do our best to guide them into all truth on these ensnaring topics; but we can only view the conduct of adult Christians in engaging in lotteries and other chances with sincere regret. They are evidently in the estimation of those who engage in them a questionable means of acquiring wealth, and may be the means of inducing great poverty, and hence should be avoided as "the appearances of evil.' But how do they comport with the doctrine inculcated by the Lord "to be careful for nothing, &c." And do they not fall under the heaviest rebukes of God to his Church for her covetous disposition, a sin to which she has ever been prone; for surely if covetousness in its ordinary form be a sin so grievous as to be classed with idolatry and the like, it becomes doubly sinful when combined with a daring chance to be rich. We entreat our correspondents in their communications on this subject to keep the scriptural principle alone in view. The evil is not the worse, because it may sometimes be turned to a good purpose. The serpent was not the less mischievous because he was beautiful in his appearance; nor is Satan less to be dreaded when he appears as an angel of light. We repeat-therefore discuss the principle, keeping in view this truth," Whether ye eat or drink or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-ED. Whether a Christian may buy a Lottery Ticket.

A. I am just going to purchase a ticket in the Lottery. Will you take a share with me?

B. Do I understand you rightly? Do you really think of purchasing a Lottery ticket?

A. Yes! why what surprizes you in that?

B. Why I am rather surprized, that you, as a professing Christian, should by the purchase of a ticket encourage what tends to sin and wickedness.

A. Encourage what tends to sin and wickedness! In what way, I pray you? By buying a lottery ticket?

B. Yes! For if lotteries be evil in themselves, the encouragement of them is evil also.

A. I grant your conclusion, but am not so well satisfied with your premises. You must first shew me in what respect lotteries are an evil.

B. And is it possible, my dear A, that this should admit of a question with you. Surely you are not serious in your intentions, you are only trifling with me. Have you not heard and learned so from VII.

4 c