of abuse of the Church. The last-mentioned Prelate, after his appointment to the See of Canterbury, required a fresh subscription to the three articles which had been framed by Whitgift. Mr. Price admits that it is difficult to ascertain the number of deprivations at this time: he ridicules the assertion of Heylin, that they amounted to forty-nine only, and states that his testimony is worthless: but, on the other hand, he is quite ready to receive the statement of Calderwood, who estimates the number at three hundred. Now it so happens that Heylin's testimony is supported by the very best evidence that in such a case could be procured, namely, by the rolls delivered in by Bancroft not long before his death, from which it appears that forty-nine only were deprived throughout the whole kingdom.-(See Biographia Britannica, art. Bancroft.) Of what value then, we ask, is the testimony of Mr. Price?

But we must forbear. We have indeed gone over this bulky volume, which, while it professes to give a history of nonconformity, is little better than a tirade of abuse of the Church of England, and of the practices of those distinguished men who guided her destinies through the long reign of Elizabeth. The work is fraught with misrepresentations on all points which involve the rites and discipline of the Church of England. It was the custom in Neal's days to speak at least respectfully of the Church: but it is now the practice to use the language of reproach and scorn. Mr. Price has completely sunk the character of the respectable and impartial historian in the political partisan. He promises to favour the public with another volume: nor are we a little curious to read his account of the Episcopal sufferers between 1640 and 1660. one occasion he tells his readers, that

On

"The sufferings of the puritans during the primacy of Whitgift, are not to be paralleled in the history of Protestant intolerance, unless perhaps an exception may be made of the times of the second Charles".-P. 445.

Mr. Price cunningly passes over the days of the first Charles, and those of the Protector Cromwell, or he might have found more than a parallel to the sufferings of the nonconformists in the primacy of Whitgift. We shall watch the appearance of his second volume, being anxious to see how he will defend the Presbyterians, and especially his favourites, the Independents, in their treatment of the Episcopal Clergy and we shall be prepared to accompany him through the agitated period of which the work must necessarily treat.

ART. V. The Connexion of the East India Company's Government with the Superstitious and Idolatrous Customs and Rites of the Natives of India, stated and explained; with a large Appendix of Documents. By a late Resident in India. London: Hatchard. 1838.

THE subject of England's connexion with the Superstitious and Idolatrous Customs of India has long received the disapprobation of very many of her Majesty's subjects. Until now, however, few exertions have been made to throw off the stigma, not only inconsistent, but disgraceful to a Protestant nation, and those few have died away amid the clash and the din of discussions relative to what were deemed more important and vital questions. The determination, on the part of the Christian community, to throw off this idolatrous connexion, has just revived. Petitions, almost innumerable, from all quarters of the empire, have been presented to Parliament, praying for a discontinuance of the support of the Superstitious Rites and Customs of the Natives of India, and of the Pilgrim-tax of Juggernaut. Members in both Houses, and especially in the Higher, have arisen to express their determination to oppose the iniquitous and disgraceful connexion; and Lord Melbourne has stated that it is the intention of Government to issue such orders to the authorities in India on this subject as would, he hoped, satisfy the most scrupulous minds; so that we entertain a hope that England will ere long discontinue her idolatrous connexions, and propagate that faith which she derives from the indisputable oracles of the Lord.

That the step is a difficult one, we have no hesitation in declaring; but that it is not to be taken, on that account, we positively deny. The important question under our consideration affects no less than 70,000,000 or 80,000,000 of our fellow subjects-a fact which renders the difficulty of discontinuing the connexion stupendous, and perhaps, at first sight, impossible to be surmounted. But, with the Divine aid, we believe the impossibility can be removed. It requires caution, doubtless, to approach the subject, because what is done can only be effected by easy stages-precipitancy in the matter would be dangerous, if not altogether ruinous.

pre

We must here introduce some remarks made by Lord Ellenborough upon the subject, upon his presenting four petitions to the House, against allowing individuals in the civil and military service of the East India Company to give encouragement, by their sence, to Hindoo and Mahomedan religious rites and ceremonies. "It has hitherto," said his Lordship, "been the invariable practice of the Government in India to bestow outward marks of respect on all religions professed by the natives of that country; and I must say, that, if it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to discontinue those outward marks of respect, they must proceed

with the greatest caution and circumspection. Because, if they did not, they would afford an opportunity to ill-disposed and designing persons-they would afford the means to such persons of encouraging a feeling and apprehension in the minds of the natives, that Government, in consequence of the withdrawal of those outward marks of respect, entertained an intention to interfere with that perfect toleration and protection which had hitherto been extended to all religions; and I do assure her Majesty's Government, that my firm conviction-a conviction not lightly taken up— was, that the moment such an apprehension was entertained by the people of India, there would be no safety for the life of any Christian in India. Such an impression would infallibly lead to the massacre of all the European Christians in that country. It would, in fact, form the commencement of a series of evils and misfortunes which it was dreadful to contemplate. The welfare, peace, and prosperity of India depended on the continuance of our imperial Government there. Let that once be shaken, and India would for years exhibit scenes of massacre and bloodshed; therefore I would say, that no consideration on earth, if I were connected with that Government, should induce me to proceed hastily in departing from that custom which had hitherto prevailed, of showing outward marks of respect to those religions, and of affording to them full protection and toleration." Lord Brougham followed the Noble Lord by stating, that "by the outward respect shown to those religions no man's opinion was compromised. They manifested no reference to the opinions of those people, as if they who attended believed that their religious ceremonies were praiseworthy." Mr. Poynder has eminently shown the fallacy of this opinion in a letter to the Editor of The Times.* "The Christians in India, however," remarks that indefatigable gentleman, "feel very differently, and so have the Christians of all ages. What was the outward respect commanded by the ancient monarch to be paid to the idol he had set up in the Plain of Babylon but such as Daniel could not render? What was the simple offering of salt to the idolatrous censers of heathenism, but the outward respect' which in the early persecution of the Church many thousands of Christians refused to present, and perished for refusing? What was the refusal to be present at the adoration of the host, but a refusal to pay outward respect to what they regarded as idolatry, yet for which refusal such multitudes of our Protestant ancestors were burned, when a compliance, which may seem so small in the eyes of Lord Brougham, would have saved their lives? None of these Christianscounted their lives dear to them' when obedience to man was opposed to the command of God; and why, I ask, when equal toleration is promised to all, and claimed by all, has any one a

*See Times, August 6, 1838.

right to refuse it to his fellow-Christians, when it is accorded to Hindoos and Mahomedans? Lord Brougham's fears of massacre and mischief, because he will not compliment idolatry at the expense of Christianity, are quite as groundless as Lord Ellenborough's. 'Be good, and let heaven answer for the rest. Let us only do our duty to God and our own faith, and we need have no idle and groundless fears of the result. But, says Lord Brougham, we are not Roman Catholics, and yet our troops turn out, when certain ceremonies are performed. Then I venture humbly to add, more shame for them; because (as the appendix observes), since the War-office-regulations peremptorily forbid a Roman Catholic soldier being obliged to attend a Protestant place of worship, how much more should this rule apply in the other case, when the Protestant is taught that the services of the Romish Church are idolatrous, and the doctrine of the mass 'a blasphemer's fable and dangerous deceit ? "

We introduce these opinions of Lords Ellenborough and Brougham, to show the difficulty the subject is likely to meet with, in consequence of a difference of opinion in our Legislature. Now, the question under our consideration lies not in our ascertaining who is right or who is wrong-whether Christianity be true and idolatry false, for we are certified of the fact-but it lies in the determination of a Protestant country to continue the support of idolatrous worship, or to renounce all superstitious connexion with India. If the East India Company is still to receive revenue from the Juggernaut or other superstitions?—if respect and encouragement be given to religious ceremonies, which we know to be idolatrous, we must pronounce the determination not only at variance with the character of a nation professedly and practically Christian, but palpably opposed to the dictates of the sound and conscientious policy of a Protestant country.

The pamphlet which we have placed at the head of this article contains much valuable information, and important documents connected with the subject under our consideration. It could not have been published at a more convenient season. It reflects credit upon the author, by displaying information of the most necessary character, relative to a subject that should demand the consideration of every Christian, and especially of those in whose power it is to avert the discredit that is reflected upon Britain for connecting herself with a worship opposed to her faith, and in opposition to the Bible, from which that faith is derived.

The pamphlet informs us, that the Court of Directors of the East India Company, on the 20th of February, 1833, forwarded a despatch to the Governor-General-in-Council at Calcutta, in which the whole system of their administration, in relation to the Hindoo and Mussulman Religious Institutions, was revised. No steps, it appears, were taken for the dissolution of our connexion with the native superstitions, either in this country or in India, to interfere

with the calm pursuit of their prescribed duty, by the Indian authorities during the ensuing three years. At the end of that time nothing definite was resolved upon for giving effect to the instructions of 1833; accordingly Mr. Poynder brought forward a motion at the Court of Proprietors, with a view to accelerate the execution of the desired measures; and this gentleman deserves the thanks of every Christian, for having brought so prominently forward the inconsistency of the East India Company and the Government, in sanctioning and compelling British Christians to assist in the degrading idolatry of the Indian heathens. On the motion of Mr. Poynder, "Almost instantaneously, a body of the Company's servants at Madras, and another at Bombay, in conjunction with most of the Clergy of those Presidencies, and all the Protestant Missionaries presented memorials to their respective Governments, praying that the orders conveyed in the Court's despatch of February, 1833, should be carried into effect, chiefly for the relief of the consciences of their Christian servants, which are wounded by the performance of duties connected with a system, the continuance of which had been condemned by the Court of Directors."

The following is a copy of Mr. Poynder's motion in the Court of Proprietors, as quoted in the pamphlet before us :——

"That, adverting to the despatch of the Court of Directors, dated the 20th of February, 1833, having for its object the withdrawal of the encouragement afforded by Great Britain to the idolatrous worship of India, and also the relinquishment of the revenue hitherto derived from such source, which object does not yet appear to have been accomplished, this Court deems it necessary to recommend to the Court of Directors to adopt such further measures upon the subject as, in their judgment, may appear to be more expedient."

The feeling of the Proprietors was favourable towards the motion, and it was carried unanimously. This appears to have taken place in December 1836, and in February following a despatch was transmitted to India. But, to the astonishment of the friends of the cause, this document, instead of urging the execution of the measures referred to, re-opened the consideration of the whole question, by calling for reports "on the bearing of the discontinuance of our connexion with the superstitious and idolatrous worship and customs of the natives, on the financial interests, the political obligations, and the moral character of our Government !"

Since then, majorities in the Court of Proprietors, on questions connected with the subject, having emboldened the Directors to persist in their retrograde movement, the prayer of the Madras Memorialists, founded on the Directors' own previous opinions, has