not for the glory of the Supreme Author. Any subversion of his authority, any encroachment upon his prerogative, or capricious trifling with his works, would not be for his glory, could not be sanctioned by a revelation sent by him, and must be derogatory to his character as the moral Governor of the Universe. Any offering of life, therefore, by the creature, on the principles of brahminical theology is uncalled for, is opposed by instinctive nature, is contrary to the principles of natural truth, cannot be warranted by any correct view of moral truth, and cannot be upheld by any process of reason:-And the Hindoo widow, who seeks, or who surrenders herself to be consumed on the funeral pyre, is not only destitute of divine authority, but is guilty of presumptuously despoiling Jehovah's claims and works; she falls by her own hand, and may justly be denominated a suicide, guilty of self-destruction; in addition to all her other sins, she has violated her personal obligations to the God of her life, who will also be the final judge of her actions.*

* It is worthy of observation, and may be viewed as a remarkable instance of moral perversity among the children of men, that the upholders of the brahminical system, while they can with deliberation and professed devotional fervour aid in the sacrifice of a fellow-immortal, and commend it as an acceptable offering to that God, who in the beginning of the post-diluvian world said, "at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man," do yet scrupulously enjoin as a tenet of their religion, that animal food cannot be appropriated for the maintenance of man, but by a gross violation of the laws of God:

How different is the Christian religion, by whose precepts and influence men are taught to consider as an outcast the deluded being, who by an act of his own brings his life prematurely to a close; which shows what enormous sin is in blood-guiltiness, and that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him: from the religion of the Hindoos, which consecrates the ashes, sanctifies the memory, and beatifies the soul of her who has perished in the flames of her own kindling! What can be thought of the end of such who conspire against the sovereignty of earth's universal King? Will not their hope be blighted, and perish as the hope of the deceiver?

It is not less certain that in this paramount ap→ plication of the principle, man cannot take what he cannot give, than that he cannot alienate what is not his own. To deprive of life is a punishment which the God of creation has in a very limited manner put within the power of his creatures: it is the severest punishment which comes within the reach of mortals: "they may kill the body, but after that have no more that they can do." Death is never rendered but as a punishment, recognized as a penal consequence, at which nature shudders, saddens, and stands aghast; and certainly should be awarded only to crime with as much restraint as is the permission given. But who is there will say, that because a dispensation of Pro

though the Creator has himself expressly declared " every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb have I given you all things."

vidence, over which the creature has no control, hath made a mother a lonely and mourning widow, and appointed the affluent and happy, it may be, to hapless solitary bereavement, the awful penalty of death is to be inflicted in the most agonizing and heart-rending manner? and that because her companion, he who was the friend of her now widowed bosom, her nearest earthly friend, is removed, therefore she, by the caprice of short-sighted man, is judged a victim to destruction, is doomed a sacrifice to delusion? God said to the second parent of the human race, and the sentiment is found deep-laid in the bosom of the rudest savage, "And surely your blood of yourselves will I require, at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man: whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man." There can be neither difficulty nor hesitation in convicting the men whose actions have been already described as guilty of desiring, compassing, and planning the destruction of their fellow immortals. There was evidence of narcoticks being applied to lull animal sensation, or apprehensions; and of deluding representations (which it is probable not two of the officiating priests believed) being made to maintain the determination of her frenzy, and keep her beyond the influence of sober thought.

What would be said if men in our own country, with as little plea for their conduct as these brahmins, wearing the garb and in the character of God's minis

ters, were to strive by flattering wiles to allure a poor heart-broken widow into personal destruction in the presence of thousands? Should they not be charged with murder? The sanction of a magistrate, his presence and permission, the countenance and direction of the professedly religious books, the wondering gaze, the applauding hum of the assembled crowds, could not alter or affect the nature of the deed. In the sight of God, or reasoning on the principles of eternal truth, the spectators would not only be implicated in the crime, if they did not use all their influence to avert the catastrophe, (for the Scripture speaketh expressly, "deliver the poor and needy, rid them out of the hand of the wicked. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain: if thou sayest, behold we knew it not, doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?") but they would also be partakers of the plagues. To give a permittive acquiescence, is to bid them God speed; but he that biddeth such God speed, is partaker of the evil deeds; and though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished. "And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not, then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him." Now it cannot be said that obedience to the divine injunction, implied in the threatening which has

been quoted from Proverbs, is impracticable in the case of a suttee. This is my own firm conviction, and I have known the opinion supported by facts, one of which I will take the liberty to relate.

A brahmin of some wealth and numerous connexions, died at one of the Presidences about eighteen months ago. It was much desired by many relatives of the deceased, and a readiness was professed by the widow, that the remains of the husband should be joined by the living sacrifice of his bereaved wife. In company, with their religious instructor at their head, they proceeded to the chambers of the magistrate, and earnestly pleaded for his sanction to the ceremony within his jurisdiction. Upon inquiry being made, it was undeniably proved that the infatuated woman had expressed her willingness to burn with her former associate. The magistrate, for his own direction, consulted the religious canons and authorities of the Hindoos, inquired into the full extent of his own power in such a case, and advised with the chief-justice on the steps which could warrantably be taken. He reasoned with the parties, postponed his final answer ;-he reasoned again; yet they returned to the request, and began to urge it with vehemence. He then told them, that according to existing laws he could not prevent the woman, by any legal interference, from consuming herself; but that if one individual, of whatever relation, should be discovered gathering a single stick or material for fuel, aiding or abetting in the construction of the pile, bringing or applying fire, or in any way