the “ enjoyinent of local confort” by the people * under the peaceful sway of the British nation.” A broad line of distinction has ever been main tained between the persons composing the government of this country, and those represeuted by the naine of nuissionaries. The foriner have invariably been gulded in their movements by sound and general principles of toleration, while the latte, have as perunaciously been desirous of infusing a spirit of intolerance and narrow-intinuedness in the departinents of legislation and government. It is pre-eminent folly to confound the one with the other. Whatever influence our missionary friends are alle to exert with out rulers, people of this country have gradually acquired too much confidence in the good sense and acknowledged character of the British nation for equity, to fear of any arbitrary and untoward encroachment on their rights and previleges, and we annot, therefore, easily perceive, wherein the Editor of the Brahmunical Magazine is liable to a charge of insingerity or audacious blasphemy, when he states, that the “possessions' of the English “in, Hindoostan and their political “strength have through the grace of god “ gradually increased.” . The question of “ interference. interference” to next discussed, at Sonne length. by the Reviewer, with which he has needlessly occupied more than two pages. We regret to find, that in discussing this topic, the Reviewer has directly charged as with having resorted to the “ unhallowed weapon" of brute force” in rescuing out of the recent couverts ti om the custody of the suis sionaries, We thauk the Reviewer for affording us an opport, inity of publicly disavowing toe reinotest paiticipation on the alleged dia'clical reastu es. We repudiate the idea ot having ever "untenaiced tilret tiv indurectiv ayy s:ich coeieive ad ignouisfons proct e,!ings, cal, nlated to restrain fi eedom of wis, lene ; and we have only to reg, t, that the iearlied Hċeviewer should have bt es, sa lansertably deceived by his in so me • on this affał On the main point of intceton, e, the Reviewer is ..vidently idistaken We do not recollect to have ever objet led to a moral and i attona inte i fet - ence We lr, ve always shawn partialitv tor, and shall ever feel partia! to universal tolera tion and free discussion The very pretace, and the presace is the only portion of the works that has passed under the Reviewer's notice vont uns the following passage. “ I { by “ the force of argument they tothe mission“ilaries) can prove the truth of their own • · eligion oud the talsity of that of Hindows, “ muany would, of course, embrace the doc“ trines, and in case they fail to prove this. “ they should not undergo such useless tromble, nor teaze Hindoos any longer by “ their attempt at conversion. In consideration of the small huts in which Brah. inuns of learning generally reside, and the simple food such as vegetables &c. which o it and the novertv «) f * * İ\ÖN) - 4η & t “missionary gentlemen may not, I hope, abstain -- from contempt of them.” Is this not fairly and publicly courting enquiry ls it not an invitation for a free and candid discussion of religious subjects and religious truths Is it not a virtual recognition of the principle of moral interference in the broad and catholic sense of that term It onay then reasonably be enquired what sort of interference with the religion of a country "** meant and protested against, by the Editor of the Brahmunical Magazine " 'The answer is plain. The attempt to convert unsophisticated and unexperienced youths, hardly capable of thinking or acting for themselves, by systematically instilling into their minds from infancy, the excellency of one's own religion and the debasedness of others’, to inake pposelytes of those whose circunstances in life, scarcely permit them to resist the temptations of worldly gain and honour to apostalize others by taking an unfair advantage of the influence which one possesses from his relative position and rank in society, are interferences that were evidently within the meaning of the Editor. We have not the least doubt, our readers will cordially join us in deprecating such unnatural and unjustifiable proceedings —such unworthy modes of conversion. Whis or this point, we will merely beg to remind the learnec Reviewer, that ever im Fongland, which cnjovs the highest state of civilzation, the publicatiott and propagation of any sentinents against the prevailing religion of the land, would render their author liable to iegal prosecution. Will the Revd. “from ပ္ရုပ္အဖ္ရစ္တစ္ခု go titlemen allow a Vaidautist of a Mehouetta, to preach his respective docti ines in England with unpunity We need not parise to a reply. ()' th' several tracts on Hindow 'Theism, under reviev, these are the only points mot, ced by 1 ite iea med JReviewer, and oii which we have thought it necessary to offer some eiuridation. We caloot take leave of the article we hawe been discussing, without pointing out the bad taste which has been displayed in the admis ‘sion it to it of heterogenous eie minents connected with the discussion ou v anlatıtism. Soine remarks have been introduced on a recontly published translation of the Bhagavudgeeta by some native gentleman. We had not jooked over the Book unti) we perused the article from the learned Reviewer's pen. We have only to add that the disingenuousness of introducing such a production in connection, with the tracts published by the Tuttuhoadhinee Society, with a view to throw discredit on the latter, and exuose thern before the world in the must Vi: light, will
- عية سه
uot fail to he properly appreciated by the eniightewed publiö. TheT artifice is very unworthy of a respectable writer.
- * *r “ro ** * * *
এই তত্ত্ববোধিনী পত্রিক কলিকাতা মহানগরে যোড়াসাকোস্থিত ব্ৰাহ্মসমাজের মন্দিরের নিম্ন গুছে তত্ত্ববোধিনী সভার কার্য্যালয় হইত্তে প্রক্তি মাসের
