now."

advanced on this subject, bearing in mind the lesson particularly taught by the Saviour himself, of adapting his instructions to the susceptibility and capacity of his hearers; John xvi. 12, 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them (P. 122.) "What benefit or peace of mind can we bestow upon a Mussulman, who is an entire stranger to the Christian world, by communicating to him, without preparatory instruction, all the peculiar dogmas of Christianity?" (Page 123.) "The Compiler obviously having in view at least one object in common with the Reviewer and Editor, that of procuring respect for the precepts of Christ, might have reasonably expected more charity from professed teachers of his doctrine.” (P. 105.) In reviewing the First Appeal, the Reverend Editor fully introduced the doctrines of the godhead of Jesus and the Holy Ghost, and of the Atonement, as the only foundation of Christianity; whereby he compelled me, as a professed believer of one God, to deny, for the first time publicly, those doctrines; and now he takes occasion to accuse me of presumption in teaching doctrines which he has himself compelled

me to avow.

The Editor assigns, as a reason for entering on this controversy, that after a review of "The Precepts of Jesus, and the First Appeal," he "felt some doubt whether their author fully believed the deity of Christ," and, consequently, he "adduced a few passages from the Scriptures to confirm this doctrine."

He then adds, that this Second Appeal to the Christian Public confirms all that he before only feared. (Page 1.) I could have scarcely credited this assertion of the Reviewer's unacquaintance with my religious opinions, if the allegation had come from any other quarter; for both in my conversation and correspondence with as many missionary gentlemen, old and young, as I have had the honour to know, I have never hesitated, when required, to offer my sentiments candidly, as to the unscripturality and unreasonableness of the doctrine of the Trinity. On one occasion particularly, when on a visit to one of the reverend colleagues of the Editor, at Serampore, long before the time of these publications, I discussed the subject, with that gentleman, at his invitation; and then fully manifested my disbelief of this doctrine, taking the liberty of examining successively all the arguments he, from friendly motives, urged upon me in support of it. Notwithstanding these circumstances, I am inclined to believe, from my confidence in the character of the Editor, that either those missionary gentlemen that were acquainted with my religious sentiments have happened to omit the mention of them to him, or he has forgotten what they had communicated on this subject, when he entered on the review of my publications on Christianity.

In page 503 the Editor insinuates, that vanity has led me to presume that "freedom from the powerful effects of early religious impressions" has enabled me to discover the truths of scripture, in its

most important doctrines, more fully in three or four years, than others have done by most unremitting study in thirty or forty." The doctrine of the Trinity appears to me so obviously unscriptural, that I am pretty sure, from my own experience and that of others, that no one possessed of merely common sense will fail to find its unscripturality after a methodical study of the Old and New Testaments, unless previously impressed in the early part of his life with creeds and forms of speech preparing the way to that doctrine. No pride, therefore, can be supposed for a moment to have arisen from commonly attainable success. The Editor might be fully convinced of this fact, were he to engage a few independent and diligent natives to study attentively both the Old and New Testaments in their original languages, and then to offer their sentiments as to the doctrine of the Trinity being scriptural, or a mere human in

vention.

To hold up to ridicule my suggestions in the Second Appeal, to study first the books of the Old Testament, unbiassed by ecclesiastic opinions imbibed in early life, and then to study the New Testament, the Reverend Editor states, that "could it be relied on indeed," my compendious method "would deserve notice with a view to Christian education, as," on my plan, "the most certain way of enabling any one to discover, in a superior manner, the truths and doctrines of Christianity, is to leave him till the age of thirty or forty without any religious impres

sion." (Page 503.) I do not in the least wonder at his disapprobation of my suggestion, as the Editor, in common with other professors of traditional opinions, is sure of supporters of his favourite doctrine so long as it is inculcated on the minds of youths and even infants, who, being once thoroughly impressed with the name of the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, long before they can think for themselves, must be always inclined, even after their reason has become matured, to interpret the sacred books, even those texts which are evidently inconsistent with this doctrine, in a manner favourable to their prepossessed opinion, whether their study be continued for three, or thirty, or twice thirty years. Could Hindooism continue after the present generation, or bear the studious examination of a single year, if the belief of their idols being endued with animation were not carefully impressed on the young before they come to years of understanding?

Let me here suggest, that, in my humble opinion, no truly liberal and wise parent can ever take advantage of the unsuspecting and confiding credulity of his children, to impress them with an implicit belief in any set of abstruse doctrines, and intolerance of all other opinions, the truth or reasonableness of which they are incapable of estimating. Still less would he urge by threats the danger of present and eternal punishment for withholding a blind assent to opinions they are unable to comprehend. Parents are bound by every moral tie to give their children such an

education as may be sufficient to render them capable of exercising their reason as rational and social beings, and of forming their opinion on religious points, without ill-will towards others, from a thorough investigation of the Scriptures, and of the evidence and arguments adduced by teachers of different persuasions. Judgments thus formed have a real claim to respect from those who have not the means of judging for themselves. But of what consequence is it, in a question of truth or error, to know how the matter at issue has been considered, even for a hundred generations, by those who have blindly adopted the creed of their fathers? Surely the unbiassed judgment of a person who has proceeded to the study of the Sacred Scriptures with an anxious desire to discover the truth they contain, even if his researches were to be continued but for a single twelvemonth, ought, as far as authority goes in such matters, to outweigh the opinions of any number who have either not thought at all for themselves, or have studied after prejudice had laid hold of their minds. What fair inquiry respecting the doctrine of the Trinity can be expected from one who has been on the bosom of his mother constantly taught to ask the blessing of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and to hear the very name of Unitarian with horror? Have the doctrines of the Vedant ever succeeded in suppressing polytheism amongst the generality of Hindoos brought up with the notion of the godhead of the sun, of fire,