It finds itself in relations to other sympathizing bodies. It is not as isolated as formerly. Perhaps the two churches are entering on a new career of activity and usefulness. Let them cease from all contention with each other; let each go its own way; let them try to do all the good they can; and it may be that this unfortunate strife may finally have the happiest results for them both. In our next "Journal," we will say something of our visit to Antioch, Pittsburg, and Meadville. J. F. C. "HE HEALETH THE BROKEN IN HEART.” THE burdens and blows come heavy, come fast: To bear till we break is our human art; But the breaking proves merciful blessing at last, All cross and no crown is given to-day, Hearts laden with agony cry unto God, The great human sorrow leaves gladness no place, JUNE 22, 1860. E. C. T. ATTACKS ON GANGOOLY. NEW YORK, July 10, 1860. To the Secretary of the A. U. A. DEAR SIR,I was very much surprised to read in the "Chicago Tribune" the following remarks concerning Mr. Gangooly, from its " Boston correspondent:" "The ship 'R. B. Forbes' has recently sailed for Calcutta, taking out Rev. M. Bronson and wife, Rev. William Ward and wife, missionaries to the Heathen. These are Baptist missionaries, I think. In connection with this mention of Calcutta, let me say that there is not a particle of truth in the oft-repeated tale of Moon-of-the-world Gangooly, that he gave up rank and every thing to become a Christian. This Hindoo, who prefers the profane name of a Heathen deity to his baptismal name, inherited the caste of a Brahmin, and that only. He was a poor boy, living in a hovel, sitting in the dirt, and eating his rice with the meanest, when the missionary got hold of him. He has the keen intellect of his race; but this did not elevate him from the poorest condition of a poor Hindoo. He owes every thing to the change of faith which he secretly professed; for he has never consented to have his baptism made public in India. As for his story about the prejudice of Brahmins against foreigners, and the demand for a Brahmin establishment, apart from the American missionary who sent him to this country, this is quite as untrue. There are in Calcutta many learned and distinguished Brahmins, who visit the rooms of the missionary to converse and to read his books. One of these was a correspondent of the late Theodore Parker. The fact is, that Gangooly is so extremely ignorant of his own country, that he is led away by his own fancies, not knowing whither he goes. It would not be more foolish to pick up a news-boy in Chicago, and send him to India to lecture on America, than it is to let Gangooly attempt to tell what is, or ought to be, or be done, in India. "DOCTOR." This is the second attack of a similar kind which this same correspondent has made upon the character of Mr. Gangooly. As I have always felt a special interest in this young man, and have been profoundly moved by the apparent childlikeness of his mind and heart and the simple directness of his thoughts, I am curious to know somewhat concerning this correspondence. If it comes from an Orthodox writer, who is jealous of the credit which the Unitarians have received through Mr. Gangooly, it explains itself. If it comes from some one within our own ranks, who feels that he does not receive attention enough, while Mr. Gongooly has received too much, then it needs no explanation; and I am led to look for some such motive in the writer, by the extremely severe and malicious spirit which his words betray. No Christian man would use such language toward a human being, even though he were fallen as low as he thinks this young man has fallen. In his second letter, from which the above is taken, he goes entirely out of his way to bring in the subject where it has no connection, as if on purpose to gratify his revenge. But, if there is any foundation for the charges which he makes, the fact should be made public; for let me say, that everybody who heard Mr. Gangooly speak during his Western tour was deeply impressed by his sincere and earnest zeal for the truth of Christ. Such was the universal testimony, even from the Orthodox people who crowded to hear him. They were never shocked nor offended by his fearless attacks upon their most cherished dogmas; because they said, "He is so sincere and innocent in his intentions." And those families in which he staid for several weeks were even more deeply impressed by his childlike sincerity. Indeed, it was a perpetual surprise to me that he should pass through all the flattery and attentions which were sometimes injudiciously heaped upon him, and yet remain so entirely untainted, so far as I could detect. Those with whom he has resided longest, and who have therefore had the best means of knowing about him, bear testimony to the perfect truthfulness of this impression which he has left on others. When he first came into our neighborhood, I was much prejudiced against him, as I am apt to be against one who seems to me to be so excessively praised; but, before he left us, I felt like joining heartily in all that had been said in his favor. Have we all been mistaken or not? If so, whom shall we trust? Yours kindly, CHARITY. REPLY TO THE ABOVE. In reply to our correspondent, the editor of the "Monthly" will say a few words. We were grieved by the articles in the Chicago paper, to which our correspondent has referred. They seemed to us to be the result of some extraordinary prejudice. It seemed wrong to attack a man behind his back, to wait till he had left the country, and then to assail his character. The gravest charges were launched at him, unsupported by any evidence. Gangooly was declared to be " wholly untrained and unregenerate;" to have had "no strength of character;" to be "conceited;" to be "impertinent and godless;" to show "gross ingratitude;" &c., &c. Those who have had the care of him are attacked in the same reckless and unkind spirit. We are informed that we have not given him any training; that we have allowed him to be spoiled; that we have indulged him in the most dangerous of pleasures; &c., &c. We naturally ask, Who is this writer, who knows so much better than we do ourselves what we have done and what we ought to have done? What is his motive for sending this attack on a young convert from Heathenism, to be read by the people of Chicago and the West? What harm can Gangooly do there? If a sense of duty required these charges to be brought, it seems to us that they should have been made here, where Gangooly spent most of his time, and where he was known; and they should also have been brought while he was here to answer them, and not delayed till after his departure. And why a second attack, apropos of nothing, which seems like the extra twist given by an assassin to his dagger, after he has thrust it into his victim's body? And by what specifications are these charges supported? How is it that Gangooly is shown to be "a failure"? The reasons given are mainly the following: — 1. Gangooly was baptized by the name PHILIP, but has preferred to call himself by his original Hindoo name of JOGUTH. Will it be believed that this is the chief reason given for asserting that Gangooly is a hypocrite, pretending to be a Christian when he is not so? As if it were not the most natural thing in the world, that the old household word, heard in childhood and youth from his mother's lips, should seem sweeter and dearer, especially in a foreign land, than the new and strange one. Such a charge, based on such a reason, if it proves nothing else, proves at least the animus of the writer. Or would not a charitable construction have been, that he might be acting according to his judgment of what was |