far too much space.  Having thus stated the difference of opinions, as regards caste, between the Germans and the Protestant missionaries, I shall then proceed to inquire whether caste can or can not be traced to an idolatrous source; whether it was in any way necessarily wound up with religion; and whether, further, it is at all necessary that, supposing it to have been at any time wound up with religion, there should therefore be at the present day any necessary connection between the religions of the peoples and their caste customs.

In Bishop Heber’s “Letter” of March 21st, 1826, he says that, “with regard to the distinctions of caste as yet maintained by professing Christians, it appears that they are manifested—­(a) in desiring separate seats at church; (b) in going up at different times to receive the Holy Communion; (c) in insisting on their children having different sides of the school; (d) in refusing to eat, drink, or associate with those of a different caste.”

On the first of these points the bishop observes, with great justice, that points of precedence have constantly been granted in Christian churches to people of noble birth and of great fortune, and that in the United States of America these distinctions were always maintained between the whites and the negroes.  He also points out that a Christian gentleman conforms to those rules because, if he neglected them, he would lose influence with his own degree in society, and that a native of the better classes acts exactly on the same principle.  And on this point he concludes that distinctions of caste in church may still be allowed, provided that due care is taken to teach the natives that in the sight of God they are all equal.

With reference to the second point the good bishop says nothing, because, I surmise, he concluded the going up at different times to receive the Sacrament was included in his remarks on precedence in church.

As regards the schools, and amongst the children, he observes that caste must, as to taking places, etc., not be taken into account, “but,” he adds, “even here caution should be observed to disgust no man needlessly.”

As to the fourth point, he was decidedly of opinion that, as regards private meals and social intercourse, we had no right to interfere whatever.

After alluding to the objections raised by some zealous missionaries to the processions in marriages and other matters, he intimates pretty plainly that he has some fears that recent missionaries have been more scrupulous in these matters than need requires.  He then concludes by saying that “God forbid we should wink at sin; but God forbid, also, that we should make the narrow gate of life narrower than Christ has made it, or deal less favourably with the prejudices of this people than St. Paul and the primitive church dealt with the almost similar prejudices of the Jewish converts.”