cles formed each of an infinite number of sides.

"I wonder how those who found their opinion respecting the Trinity on terms applied in common to God and creatures, can possibly overlook the plain meaning of the term Son' or Only begotten,' continually applied to the Saviour throughout the whole of the New Testament; for, should we understand the term God, in its strict sense, as denoting the First Cause, (that is, a Being not born nor begotten,) we must necessarily confess that the idea of God is as incompatible with the idea of the Son' or Only-begotten,' as entity is with non-entity; and, therefore, that to apply both terms to the same Being will amount

to the grossest solecism in language.

"As to their assertion, that there are found in the Scriptures two sets of terms and phrases, one declaring the humanity of Jesus, and another his deity; and that he must therefore be acknowledged to have possessed a twofold nature, human and divine, I have fully noticed it in pp. 24, 109, 140, pointing out such pas. sages as contain two sets of terms and phrases applied also to Moses, and even to the chiefs of Israel and to others; and that, if it is insisted upon that each word in the Sacred Writings should be taken in its strict sense, Moses and others, equally with the Saviour, must be considered as gods, and the religion of the Jews and Christians will appear as polytheistical as that of Heathens.

"If Christianity inculcated a doctrine which represents God as consisting of Three Persons, and appearing sometimes in the human form, at other times in a bodily shape like a dove, no Hindoo, in my humble opinion, who searches after truth, can conscientiously profess it in preference to Hindooism; for that which renders the modern Hindoo system of religion absurd and detestable, is, that it represents the Divine nature, though one, as consisting of many persons, capable of assuming different forms for the discharge of different offices. I am, however, most firmly convinced that Christianity is entirely free from every trace of polytheism, whether gross or refined. I therefore enjoy the approbation of my conscience in publishing the precepts of this religion as the source of peace and happiness.'

in a short reply to "the Author of the Occasional Paper, No. 1." The passage from Newton is in the Second Chapter of his "Observations on the Apocalypse," (1733, p. 262,) there given as a comment on Rev. v. 6-10. In the quotation there is an omission of one word, for Newton says, "The beasts and elders therefore represent the primitive Christians of all nations." Also at the close of the paragraph, having quoted the remainder of the chapter, concluding with "the four and twenty elders fell down and worshiped Him that liveth for ever and ever," he adds, "This was the worship of the primitive Christians;" possibly designing to contrast primitive and modern Christianity.

The second Article is in the Journal of August 2, p. 420. The first paragraph will be seen to treat unkindly the introduction of a theological subject to a political Journal which was maintaining its liberal spirit against the threats and denunciations of a too arbitrary magisterial power. orthodox doctrine of a Trinity," apYet the writer, who receives" the pears to be uninfected by the venomous odium theologicum which I have observed too often to sour "the milk of human kindness," even among the otherwise amiable and excellent professors of that faith. His imputation of Arianism to "Dr. Priestley and the late Duke of Grafton, and the English Unitarians of the present age," is an amusing instance of a very Burnet (O. T.) says, most erroneouscommon inaccuracy. Thus I recollect ly, of Firmin, that "he was called a Socinian, but was really an Ariun."

"To the Editor of the Calcutta
Journal.

«SIR,

"I cannot imagine with what view the letter in your paper of this date, on the subject of Ram Mohun Roy, has been written, unless it be intended as a puff collusive to his pamphlet lately printed. This was not necessary. It is not indeed on a subject or of a nature to make a noise, in the present times especially, when so many distinguished persons are taken up with the hope of crushing the Journalist, or with joy at the belief of having accomplished this end, and therefore have no leisure to study Theological questions.

"Ram Mohun Roy is a very remarka

ble person; he has been led by reading and thinking to quit Hindooism in his search after truth, and to embrace Christianity according to the Unitarian scheme. His opinions appear to be, in some respects also, nearly what are called Arian; he regards Christ as a Divine person, existing before the world, invested by the Father with power greater than the angels, but still as inferior to God the Father Almighty. He is such a Christian as Dr. Priestley, and the late Duke of Grafton, and the English Unitarians of the present age.

"Believing myself that he has stopped short of the truth on some important doctrines of our religion, and that in particular he is entirely mistaken in his views regarding the Atonement, I hope that he will persevere with an earnest and humble mind in his inquiries, and that he will be led hereafter to think more entirely with us, than he does at present.

"Many able and excellent passages might have been quoted from his pamphlet, but your correspondent has quoted only two, which contain his arguments against the orthodox doctrine of a Trinity. They are nearly the same as have been urged and replied to again and again, and may be briefly put thus: the Unitarian argues that he cannot under stand the doctrine of a Trinity; but the Churchman replies, Neither do I, but yet the different parts of that doctrine seem to me to be plainly found in Scripture. The whole subject is above human reason, and I know that there are cases even in those sciences which are most susceptible of strict investigation, where conclusions apparently opposite and utterly inconsistent with each other are yet separately demonstrated to be true.'

"This is not a subject, however, to be disposed of in a few paragraphs, or to be discussed with any advantage in the columns of a newspaper.

"I make no doubt the respectable author of the article in the Friend of India, which has drawn forth this pamphlet, will take notice of this Reply to his Strictures. A short and clear article on the subject, with references for fuller information to the best writers on the Divinity of our Saviour, and on the Atonement, might be of service to many inquiring and serious persons.

"I have to request your excuse for the space I have occupied, but I cannot conclude without expressing my approbation at the candour and excellent temper shewn by Ram Mohun Roy.

"A CHRISTIAN. "Calcutta, August 1, 1821.

397

To this letter, which, excepting the insinuation at the beginning, is not unworthy of "A Christian," I find immediately annexed the following

"Note of the Editor.

"We agree entirely with our correspondent in the high praise due to Ram Mohan Roy for his temper and moderation, and we esteem highly his zeal and intelligence; but having now exercised our impartiality by suffering these different views of his labours taken by our correspondents to appear in our columns, more for the information of our distant readers than for entering at all into the merits of the question, we trust that we shall be spared further notice of the subject, not only because we have always considered theological discussion unsuited to the columus of a public journal, but also because the pamphlets spoken of are accessible to all who feel a desire to peruse them for themselves."

The liberal Editor of the Calcutta Journal was, however, soon prompted by a sense of justice to admit "further notice of the subject." It seems that a Letter by A Layman, appeared on the 2nd of August in the Bengal Hurkaru, which may be considered

as the New Times or Courier of Calcutta. This Layman's Letter, occa sioned by the first article in the Journal, declared against the toleration of Ram Mohun's writings, as appears from the following passage in the P. S. of a Letter in the Calcutta Journal of August 6, p. 460:

"The Letter of a Layman, in the paper [Hurkaru] of Thursday evening, if it be meant as a specimen of Christian feeling on the subject of Ram Mohun Roy's pamphlet, is melancholy as an illustration of the Wolf in Sheep's clothing, or of the Whited Sepulchre which without is fair, but within all corruption, as could be found in any age or country. Does that unfortunate maniac forget that we here openly tolerate Popery and all other Christian heresies, Judaism, Mohamedanism, and even Idolatry, in all its horrors of murder, immolation and the destruction of every endearing tie, and that we owe the stability of our footing chiefly to this toleration? And does he yet say that the benign spirit, the pure philosophy, the devout homage to the Deity, which breathe through every line of Ram Mohun Roy's writings, and which differ in nothing from those of Unitarians in England, is not to be tolerated in this Heathen land ?"

the force of the senses to believe many things that we cannot fully understand: but when the evidence of our senses does not compel us, how can we believe what is not only beyond our comprehension, but contrary to it and to the common course of nature, and directly against revelation, which declares positively the unity of God as well as his incomprehensibility, but no where ascribes to him any number of persons or any portion of magnitude?' Let the Layman point out first where and how the force of the senses, or any mathematical administration, depending also upon the senses, compels us to believe Trinity in Unity, and the union of God and man, as it does with regard to the soul and body; and let him shew such revelation as ascribes to God any number of persons and any portion of magnitude, and then put the above questions to Ram Mohun Roy, and require him to believe the mystery of Trinity in Unity, which is not only be yond our understanding, but also contrary to it.

"As the Layman states, that such a person as Christ did exist, and that he did those things which are recorded of him in our gospel, is admitted both by the Jews and Mohammuddans,' I must beg to remind him, that though the Jews admit that such a person as Jesus lived, they utterly deny that the Christ has appeared, as they still expect Christ or Messiah (which is synonymous with Christ) for their final delivery. Mussulmans, also, though they admit the existence of Christ, yet deny his most meritorious work, I mean his death on the cross, and class him as a prophet much below the rank of Mohammud.

"The Layman recites the extracts from Locke and Newton, and thus interprets them as the declared proofs of the Trinity. The Saviour is allowed by Locke to be our Lord and King, and by the term Lord and King, the spiritual Lord and King must be meant, which is the strongest expression for the Deity of the Saviour.' I have no doubt that by the term Lord and King, the spiritual Lord and King is understood; but I cannot see what relation these titles bear to the Deity of Jesus; divines are called spiritual fathers, and the Pope was acknowledged some hundred years ago by almost all Christians, and is at the present age considered by a majority of Christians, as their spiritual King. So also the bishops of the British Parliament were in the time of Locke, and still are termed spiritual Lords; but neither divines in general, nor the Pope himself, nor the Bishops of England, can

399

therefore be considered as bearing titles that imply their being possessed of the divine nature. The Layman might perhaps have been better justified, according to the Trinitarian mode of arguing, in drawing this conclusion from the language of Locke, did we not meet with the phrase promised and sent from God,' added to the term 'our Lord and King;' or had he found the words from the Father,' instead of from God,' as no one will scruple to confess that a Being promised and sent by any other Being, must be considered distinct from and subordinate to the Being by whom he is said to be so promised and sent.

"Again, the Layman infers from the words of Newton, that, as he represents it to be the duty of Christians to worship God and the Lamb, that great man must have believed in the divinity of Christ; for that if the Lamb is not God, such worship is idolatry. He neglects to notice the distinction made by Newton between God and the Lamb; for, while he represents God receiving worship as sitting upon his throne and living for ever and ever, he considers the Lamb as exalted above all by the merits of his death. It is no idolatry to worship the Lamb with that idea of his nature; but it would be of course idolatry, according to Sir Isaac Newton's views, to worship the Lamb as sitting upon the throne and living for ever and ever. The subject of worship offered to Christ is fully discussed in Ram Mohun Roy's Appeal, p. 48.

"As to the offence of publishing the sentiments that appear so very obnoxious to the Layman, I may observe what I believe to be the fact, that Ram Mohun Roy, as a searcher after the truths of Christianity, did keep the result of his inquiries to himself, and contented himself with compiling and publishing the pure Precepts of Jesus alone, as he thought these were likely to be useful to his countrymen in the present prejudiced state of their minds against Christianity. But on the publication of these Precepts, he was unexpectedly, in some periodical publications, attacked on the subject of the Trinity, and he was consequently obliged to assign reasons for not embracing that doctrine.

"I am not at all surprised at the reference of the Layman to the penal statute against those that deny the divinity of Christ: for when reason and revelation refuse their support, force is the only weapon that can be employed. But I hope the English nation will never exhibit the disgraceful spectacle of endeavouring to repress by such means, opinions, for the truth of which the autho

"I am, Sir,

your obedient Servant,

"Calcutta."

"SATYA-SADHUN.

The name of Mr. Buckingham, as Editor of the Calcutta Journal, must be known to many of your readers by the noble stand he has been making against the despotic mandates of a Governor-General in Council, which so ill accord with the liberal sentiments of a Marquis of Hastings congratulating himself upon having delivered the press of Calcutta from the degrading and vexatious inquisition of a censor. The friend to whom I owe the materials of the present communication, has put into my hands several letters which he has lately received from India. These contain very agreeable proofs that Mr. Buckingham is not only encouraged by an increasing circulation of his journal, but that he has attached to the support of his cause no small portion of the European talent in British India. Had Sir W. Jones, for whom one might have desired a Nestor's age, been suffered by an all-wise but inscrutable Providence to see these days, he would have rejoiced to realize in the East, amidst the votaries of avarice and amtion, his own animated description of "men, high-minded men Who know their rights, and, knowing, dare maintain."

Such men, actuated by a spirit pacific, yet determined, who have the courage to repeat to Governors General and Boards of Direction or Controul, the expostulation, strike, but hear me, must, surely, at length be heard.

dily agree with me, that all epistolary correspondences are recommended by the circumstance that the letters were not written, as suspected of Pope's, for the public eye. Now I am not aware that any letter could be less confidential than that in question. The acquaintance of the parties had but just commenced in Dorchester gaol, under the impression which my friend's wrongs and sufferings from the power of "wicked and unreasonable men," could not fail to make on the mind of such a man as Mr. Howe. Nor can I discover in the letter any trace of peculiar confidence, or the least hint at secrecy. Also, respecting the subject which has produced a discussion in your pages, such as I have no desire to prolong, I knew that it could not be private; for, only a few years before the date of Mr. Howe's letter, I had myself written and been written against on that subject, in the public prints; and, in concert with a learned friend, long an eminent barrister, I had brought the question before the most public body of Dissenters to which we had access. It was our opinion, whether well or ill formed I will not now inquire, that the original Regium Donum appeared to be a boon from the minister of the day, as a compromise for the justice which policy or power would not enable him to concede; and, therefore, that it would be creditable to Dissenters to abandon the compromise, while they continued, as I hope they will never cease, to demand the justice.

to be making great efforts to recover, if possible, some part of the influence of which they have been deprived by the events which attended the French Revolution,-the secularization of the ecclesiastical electorates, and the general abolition of monastic orders, and appropriation of monastic property, except in the Austrian provinces. The latitude of scepticism in which some of the Protestants have indulged, has terrified some men of good feelings, but weak minds, into the bosom of that church which, by