In such a delightful world as the one we inhabit, this, which may be called a part of its moral government, is conformable to our expectations; for the influence which propels men forward in their search after good is bound up in and is inseparable from their constitution. It binds them into societies and enables them to benefit by the advantages of society.

Yet in the range of science one department is inaccessible. The mind of man, so curiously formed, wants one faculty. He is able to collect, to arrange, and to use the information he derives from outward and visible objects, but his anxiety is not satisfied. He wishes to know if he be not connected with other beings and with other times, and he finds no means of progression, no fulcrum for the powers of his mind, no star to direct him how to shape his course. But the finger of Omniscience has pierced the cloud, the hand-writing upon the wall has traced in fair and legible characters the interesting and grand result to which he is to be conducted. What has been revealed? By whom has the discovery been made? And how have mankind received the heavenly communication?

The prophet of Nazareth appeared in the simplest form and rank of society; he grew up from infancy to youth, from youth to manhood; he performed all the common offices of humanity, and enjoyed or suffered all the various relations of human society; his intellectual capacity appeared to be bounded by the sources of his information; his message was delivered in the simplest language; to learning and science he made no pretension; infancy and childhood were admitted to his familiar instruction; he appealed to his countrymen as to rational and intelligent beings; he addressed his teachings to them as to men who could attain to knowledge only by the exercise of the understanding, and by argument and reason he sought to make them his disciples. We, on the contrary, have invested him with a mysterious character and rank; we have declared that he was pleased and pained in appearance only; that his knowledge was only bounded by the objects of knowledge; that types and figures and prophecies must all be familiar to the mind that

would understand him; we have ransacked the stores of metaphysical subtilty, and coined a set of phrases when we would communicate our gleanings from the heavenly storehouse; we have set apart a distinct order of men, endowed them with a separate office and character, invested them with a mysterious official rank, exempted them from many of the honours and all the burthens of society, and declared that they and they alone shall be the authorized expounders of the heavenly doctrine; that no man ought to enter or quit the world but under their direction or superintendance; we have denounced eternal misery upon all who shall venture to judge and examine, unless by such judgment and examination they come up to the orthodox standard, and as if everlasting damnation was not enough, we have endeavoured to abridge them of the delights of social life, and of as many of its honours and emoluments as we can command.

And what has been the result? Just such a result as such a course must lead to. Knowledge has not been power, nay knowledge has abridged its possessors of power. It has not been increased by the use we have made of the heavenly message, but in spite of it. The terms religion, parson, articles of faith, firm anticipation of the promises of the gospel, are considered as by-words of contempt, or marks of hypocrisy, and not by men who are themselves contemptible, but by men who by common consent are admitted to be benefactors of their kind. And if any of these highlygifted men have gained a glimpse of the heavenly messenger their view has been distorted and their ardour deadened by early and fixed prejudice against the world's idol.

In these days of increased and increasing knowledge, what is to be done? Let us take example from other sciences which are largely connected with the well-being of society. Put religious knowledge before mankind in its simplest form, invite them to a free discussion of its precepts, its discoveries, and its merits, take away the monopoly of the clergy, leave its professors to make their way solely by the exercise of their talents and their industry, divest it of the jargon of the schools, permit every man to publish

[Our readers may remember our giving an account in a former volume XIX. 236, 296-301] of a publication by Ram Doss against the Unitarians, intended to unite the Hindoos and Trinitarian Christians as common be. lievers in the incarnation of the Deity, in opposition to all believers in the unity and spirituality of the Divine nature and person. We are now about to lay before them a letter, from the pen of the same singular writer, to Mr. French, the Barrister, who, in the defence of two of Carlile's shopmen, prosecuted for blasphemy at the Old Bailey, made a furious attack upon the Unitarians, which, because it was furious, they have thought below their notice. The letter is forwarded to us by Mr. Arnot, lately Editor of Mr. Buckingham's Calcutta Journal, who, like that gentleman, has been banished from India by an order of the Governor-General. Mr. Arnot says, that "the MS., which appears to be the production of some red-hot idolator," was sent to him when on the point of leaving Calcutta in November last, accompanied by a letter under the same signature, and is now sent to us, as it is evidently a sort of manifesto against the Unitarians in Europe." The letter is accompanied by a printed pamphlet, an appendix to Ram Doss's controversy with the zealous Athanasian, Dr. Tytler. This contains nothing that would interest our readers. The Doctor seems to have left Calcutta, in consequence of having obtained a medical appointment at Bencoolen. The government may think that he is best out of the way. In the course of the newspaper controversy between him and Ram Doss,

VOL. XX.

2 N

he insinuates that this latter personage is a fictitious character, and charges his productions upon some known individual, we suppose Mr. Adam, the Unitarian missionary, who appears (for the pamphlet is obscure on this point) to have published a contradiction of the charge, and a denial of all knowledge of the writings under the name of this Brahmin. Mr Arnot says, "the letter to Mr. French has every mark of being from the same pen as it professes; but who the author may be is not known at Calcutta, where the name is too common to

point out the individual, unless he were characterized by something else." Having given this history of the MS., we now insert it as a curiosity. ED.] FRENCH, Esq., Barrister in England.

SIR,

A

Το

BOUT eighteen months ago I met with a severe disappointment from Dr. R. Tytler, of the Honourable East India Company's service, his noisy professions having led me to hope that he was a sincere defender of the manifestation of God in the flesh, against our common enemies, the Unitarian heretics. A short time, however, discovered the inconsistency of his professions; as he failed to co-operate with me in this good work, notwithstanding the numerous appeals I made to him by the common basis of our respective religions, to unite with me in contending against that "nest of serpents" who have, by their false reasonings, shaken the lofty temple of the holy faith in the plurality of persons under one Godhead, which we in common with Christians piously maintain. These horrid blasphemers of Divine incarnations have consequently been since gaining ground in various parts of the world, and are gradually robbing both Hindoos and Christians of the sacred shield of divine mystery, which is the strong hold of religious truth. The accompanying pamphlet gives a full and correct account of my unsuccessful negociation with that gentleman, and will shew you how I was ultimately reduced to a state of despair, by his imprudently neglecting to form with me a holy alliance in support of

our common cause.

But I have of late fortunately met

with the speech which you, as a true Christian, delivered on the trial of one of the deluded shopmen of the impious Carlile; a speech which, although it bears so much similarity in point of style with the language of Dr. Tytler, yet far surpasses his writing in soundness of reasoning and sublimity of illustration. My despair of seeing a holy alliance formed among all orthodox Hindoos and Christians in defence of our sacred cause of Divine incarnations, has consequently been changed into a sanguine hope of success. And I now look forward with confidence to the prospect of that "nest of serpents," the Unitarians, being exposed to disgrace, (as they have already been by your eloquent address,) and deprived of the situations, either high or low, which they now unworthily hold, and if possible banished from their homes and country, and prevented from enjoying the light of that heaven which they have insulted by denying the manifestation of God in the flesh, which both Hindoos and Christians believe! You who are distinguished as much by your legal knowledge as by your piety, may prove the legality and expediency of the alliance I recommended, to the Lord High Chancellor of England, who, from his known piety and zeal, will doubtless have sufficient influence with the most pious and enlightened part of the Bishops to induce them to co-operate with us. I, in like manner, will exert myself to procure the co-operation of all the worshipers of the blessed Munoo, all the believers in the Divine Ram, and all

the followers of the holy Saviour Dut

tatru, and many other sacred manifestations of God in the flesh, which, together with the worshipers of the incarnation of the blessed Jesus whom you adore, will form a host of believers in divine incarnations, before which the Unitarian heretics must flee like chaff before the wind.

You will not, I hope, neglect this grand opportunity of uniting in defence of the common basis of our faith from any notions similar to those of Dr. Tytler, who, from the very confined theological education he has had the misfortune to receive, felt a difficulty in believing in more than one Divine incarnation; but you who display such superior judgment, must at

once perceive that, as God condescended to assume the form of a man, and even of a dove in Judea, there is every probability that the Deity should also deign to appear in the human shape for similar reasons in India. Besides, both the Hindoo and Christian Scriptures prove that God has never chosen to manifest himself in the flesh in any other quarter of the world but in Asia; doubtless because its inhabitants have been always his most favourite and peculiar people. This is an argument which even the most daring Unitarian heretic cannot refute; how then can any man, who is blessed with a single grain of faith in Divine incarnations, doubt that the Deity has often manifested himself in Indian flesh? In the same manner as no good Hindoo can for a moment doubt, that God in another part of Asia may have assumed the form of an Israelite, under which he has since been worshiped by Christians.

Let not the great distance between us depress our minds; but let us each in his respective sphere zealously maintain the holy cause of Divine incarnations, and co-operate for the extirpation of the heretical notion of unity in the Deity. A reply, expressing your concurrence in this proposal, will be received with extreme gratification, by your

Most obedient and humble Servant, and Friend in Faith, RAM DOSS.

Calcutta, Nov. 17, 1824.

SIR,

PR your readers to a subject, which I consider important to the cause, not only of speculative, but of moral and practical truth. I mean the gradually increasing custom of sending Dissenting youths to an University where they can enjoy no honours till they have subscribed themselves "bonâ fide Members of the Established Church." That such a test is illiberal and arbitrary, will readily be granted; but may it therefore be taken? The illustrious Ralpho has said,

DERMIT me to call the attention

"He 'tis who makes the oath that breaks it,

Not he that for couvenience takes it." But as this was (even in the days of

Butler) a caricature of Presbyterian equivocation, it is to be hoped that none of us are prepared to adopt it. With regard to the test in question, we have been told that it is "a mere matter of form," that "it deceives nobody," and that "those who take it are often professed unbelievers," &c. I doubt whether a man is justified in professing a falsehood where it is "a matter of form," but in this case it most clearly is not. Suppose an estate bequeathed for the sustenance of poor men, and limited by the will of the donor to such as have never been married. The trustees, it may be, grow careless; not being Malthusians they may neglect to make any inquiries; or by the terms of the will they may be bound to receive such as declare they have not been married. Here, then, is a case precisely in point. A man may live openly with his wife, he may boast of his children in the hall where the trustees are assembled, but if he receive the stipend upon his own declaration that he has never been married, he lies. Is this or is it not a mere matter of form? "But," says the quibbler, "I am a member of the Established Church-we are all members of the Church by law just as we are of the State." Here, then, is a test that can never exclude! And a man may be at once a Mahometan and a member of the Church of England! It is needless to argue that this was not the sense in which the test was meant to be taken. Nay," says the sophist again, "if I speak the truth, I have nothing to do with other meanings which may be affixed to my words." "When you take a test," I reply, you are to speak the language of the imposer, (what the words mean in any other is not to the purpose,) and if you have found in English an interpretation, which it is evident he never thought of, it will justify you no more than the modern Greek Nai, when you are denying a truth." "Do you believe so?" "Nay; that is, Yes, because I am talking Romaic." Such reasoners, however, are none of ours; heaven knows they would never dissent. If our Catholic brethren were like them we should have heard no complaints of their incapacity to sit in Parliament, or on the throne. One more evasion I

"A

notice, and then I have done. member" of the Church of England has sometimes been considered as synonymous with a communicant," and it may have been thus defined a century ago, when men were more bigoted (if not more scrupulous) than we find them at present. It was at that time taken for granted, that no man would communicate with a church to which he did not belong, and the participation of the Sacrament was itself a test of agreement. The act of communion did not constitute a man a member of the Church, but it proved or proclaimed that he was so. The case then stands thus: If the Sacrament be a test, a Dissenter cannot take it without committing an act of solemn and deliberate perjury (and that too under the semblance of worshiping his Maker): if it be not a test, he may take it if he please, but it can never constitute him a member of the Church. The lie must rest somewhere, —and a lie thus wilfully told, with the sanction of numbers, and the encouragement of parental authority, is no trivial slip-no occasional deviationit is not an error to be repented of, and (as we trust) forgiven; but it is the first step into the by-path of sophistry-it is a pledge to defend an imperfect system of morals, and a precedent to recur to, whenever falsehood can favour our views. Surely a parent will own that University-triumphs are too dearly bought at this price! Some will, perhaps, say that their sons may not be tempted; that few men gain honours at College, and so forth; but do they not wish for these honours? And do they not intend the test to be taken when it is required? If such is their meaning, they are only shutting their eyes on the crime till it is too late to retract; and if this is not their feeling, if they merely desire to provide their sons with a liberal education, why send them to Oxford or Cambridge? The merits of our sister-universities I am not prepared to discuss (nor could the subject be fairly treated within the bounds of a letter), but I believe if the glittering baits were removed, their venerable and orthodox walls would not long continue thus thronged.

A. E. L