ed the falsehood and absurdity of idola try and superstition, satisfied him that Jesus was the Messiah, that he was employed by GoD to reveal his will to men, and to make known to them the only true religion. He observed the internal and historical evidence of Christianity to be such as demonstrated its truth. Blessed with the light of Christianity, he dedicates his time and his money not only to release his countrymen from the state of degradation in which they exist, but also to diffuse among the European masters of his country, the sole true religion-as it was promulgated by Christ, his apos-tles and his disciples. "A FIRM BELIEVER IN CHRIST. *Calcutta, July 12, 1821. "Extracts referred to. "I have now noticed all the argu-ments founded on Scripture that I have heard of as advanced in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, except such as -appeared to me so futile as to be unworthy of remark; and in the course of my examination have plainly stated the grounds on which I conceive them to be inadmissible. Perhaps my opinions may subject me to the severe censure of those who dissent from me, and some will be -ready to discover particular motives for my presuming to differ from the great majority of Christian teachers of the present day, in my view of Christianity, with the doctrines of which I have become but recently acquainted. Personal interest can hardly be alleged as likely to have actuated me, and therefore the love of distinction or notoriety may perhaps be resorted to, to account for conduct which they wish it to be believed honest conviction could never direct., In reply to such an accusation, I can only protest in the most solemu manner, that even in the belief that I have been successful in combating the doctrine of Trinitarians, I cannot assume to myself the smallest merit: for what credit can be gained in proving that one is not three, and that the same being cannot be at once man and God; or in opposing those who maintain, that all who do not admit doctrines so incomprehensible must be therefore subjected by the All-merciful to eternal punishment? It is too true to be denied, that we are led by the force of the senses to believe many things that we cannot fully understand. But where the evidence of sense does not compel us, how can we believe what is not only be yond 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? Job xxxvi. 26: "Behold God is great, and we know him not." xxxvii. 23: "Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out." Psalm cxlv. 3: "His greatness is unsearchable." Neither are my attempts owing to a strong hope of removing early impressions from the breasts of those whose education instilled certain ideas into their minds from the moment they became capable of receiving them; for, notwithstanding great and long-continued exertions on my part to do away Hindoo polytheism, though palpably gross and absurd, my success has been very partial. This experience, therefore, it may be suggested, ought to have been sufficient to discourage me from any other attempt of the kind; but it is my reverence for Christianity, and for the Author of this religion, that has induced me to endeavour to vindicate it from the charge of polytheism, as far as my limited capacity and knowledge extend. It is indeed mortifying to my feelings to find a religion, that, from its sublime doctrines and pure morality, should be respected above all other systems, reduced almost to a level with Hindoo theology, merely by human creeds and prejudices; and from this cause brought to a comparison with the Paganism of ancient Greece; which while it included a plurality of gods, yet maintained that og EOT is, or "God is One," and that their numerous divine persons were all comprehended in that one Deity. "Having derived my own opinions on this subject entirely from the Scriptures themselves, I may perhaps be excused for the confidence with which I maintain them against those of so great a majority, who appeal to the same authority for theirs; inasmuch as 1 attribute the different views, not to any inferiority of judgment compared with my own limited ability, but to the powerful effects of early religious impressions; for when these are deep, reason is seldom allowed its natural scope in examining them to the bottom. Were it a practice among Christians to study first the Books of the Old Testament, as found arranged in order, and to acquire a knowledge of the true force of scriptural phrases and expressions, without attending to interpre tations given by any sect; and then to study the New Testament, comparing the one with the other; Christianity would not any longer be liable to be eucroached upon by human opinions. I have often observed that English di vines, when arguing with those that think freely on religion, quote the names of Locke and Newton as defenders of Christianity; but they totally forget that the Christianity which those illustrious persons professed did not contain the doctrine of the Trinity, which our divines esteem as the fundamental principle of this religion. For the conviction of the public as to the accuracy of this asserstion, I beg to be allowed to extract here a few lines of their respective works, referring my readers to their publications upon religion for more complete information. But "Locke's Works, VII. 421: that neither he nor others may mistake my book, this is that in short which it says-1st. That there is a faith that makes men Christians. 2ndly. That this faith is the believing Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah.' 3rdly. That the believing Jesus to be the Messiah, includes in it a receiving him for our Lord and King, promised and sent from God; and so lays upon all his subjects an absolute and indispensable necessity of assenting to all that they can attain of the knowledge that he taught, and of sincere obedience to all that he commanded.' "Sir I. Newton's Observations upon the Prophecies, p. 262: The beasts and elders therefore represent the Christians of all nations; and the worship of these Christians in their churches is here represented under the form of worshiping God and the Lamb in the Temple. God, for his benefaction in creating all things, and the Lamb for his benefaction in redeeming us with his blood. God as sitting upon the throne and living for ever, and the Lamb exalted above all by the merits of his death.' "It cannot be alleged that these personages, in imitation of several Grecian philosophers, published these sentiments only in conformity to the vulgar opinion, and to the established religion of their country; for both the vulgar opinion and the religion of the government of England in their days were directly opposite to the opinions which these celebrated men entertained. "The mention of the name of Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest mathematicians (if not the greatest) that ever existed, has brought to my recollection a mathematical argument which I some time ago heard a divine adduce in support of the Trinity, and which I feel inclined to consider here, though I am afraid some of my readers may censure me for repeating an argument of this kind. It is as follows: that as three lines compose one triangle, so three per sons compose one Deity. It is astonishing that a mind so conversant with mathematical truth as was that of Sir Isaac Newton, did not discover this argument in favour of the possible existence of a Trinity, brought to light by Trinitarians, considering that it must have lain so much in his way. If it did occur to him, its force may possibly have given way to some such considerations as the following: This analogy between the Godhead and a triangle, in the first instance, denies to God, equally with a line, real existence; for extension of all kinds, ab. stracted from position or relative situation, exists only in idea. Secondly, It destroys the unity which they attempt to establish between Father, Sou and Holy Ghost; for the three sides of a triangle are conceived of as separate existences. Thirdly, It denies to each of the three persons of God, the epithet God,' inasmuch as each side cannot be designated a triangle; though the Father of the universe is invariably called God in the strict sense of the term. Fourthly, It will afford to that sect among Hindoos who suppose God to consist of four persons, an opportunity of using the same mode of arguing, to shew the reasonableness of their sentiments, by comparing the compound Deity with the four sides of a quadrilateral figure. Fifthly, This manner of arguing may be esteemed better adapted to support the polytheism of the majority of Hindoos, who believe in numerous persons under one Godhead; for, instead of comparing the Godhead with a triangle, a figure containing the fewest sides, and thereby proving the three persons of the Godhead, they might compare God with a polygon, more suitable to the dignified rank of the Deity, and thus establish the consistency with reason of the belief, that the Godhead may be composed of numerous persons. Sixthly, This mode of illustration would, in fact, equally suit the Atheist as the Polytheist. For, as the Trinity is represented by the three sides of a triangle, so the eternal revolution of nature, without any divine person, may be compared to the circle, which is considered as having no sides nor angles. Or, seventhly, as some great mathematicians consider the circle as a polygon, having an infinite number of sides, the illustration of the Trinitarian doctrine by the form of the triangle will, by aualogy, justify those sects who maintain the existence of an infinite number of persons in the Godhead, in referring for an illustration of their opinions to the circular, or rather, perhaps, to the globular figure, in which is to be found an infinity of cir 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 Onlybegotten,' 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.' The passage which Ram Mohun has quoted from " Locke's Works," I find in Ed. 1740, II. 723, at the close of his "Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity," 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. Yet the writer, who receives" the orthodox doctrine of a Trinity," appears 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 (0. T.) says, most erroneouscommon inaccuracy. Thus I recollect ly, of Firmin, that "he was called a Socinian, but was really an Arian.” "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 ou a subject or of a nature to make a noise, in the present times especially, when so many distinguished persons are Journalist, or with joy at the belief of taken up with the hope of crushing the 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 understand 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. 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 corre spondent in the high praise due to Ram Mohun 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 columns 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 Cal cutta. 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 mild and temperate spirit that pervades every line of this intelligent Native's rejected Letter, as compared with the intolerant anger and fury of the Layman's denunciation, to which it is a reply, and which was so readily accepted by the Hurkaru, that it was published in breathless haste in one of its evening or extra sheets, will convince our readers of the utter worthlessness of all the empty professions of the Editor of that miserable paper; and shew them that he is incapable of the exercise of that impartial justice, which the interests of religion and the amelioration and improvement of the natives of India demand. He can find space for the lowest and most contemptible writings from day to day, directed against The Journal,' and at the same time denies to a Native of learning and talent the insertion of such a Letter as the present, to the tone and spirit of which the most furious bigot could not reasonably object. This production of a native Indian will be read in England with admiration of its temper and composition, as indicating the refinement of the mind that gave it birth; although it has been rejected by the narrow and contracted spirit of one calling himself an Englishman, yet proving by this act, how much he is inferior in understanding and in liberality, to this enlightened Hindoo. "The following is the rejected Let. ter: "To the Editor of the Bengal Hurkaru. man,' in your paper of the 2nd instant, on the subject of a Letter and Extracts from a late publication of Ram Mohun Roy's, given in the Calcutta Journal of the preceding day. The tone of resentment and asperity which runs throughout the whole Letter, indicates plainly that the Layman was actuated in his mode of expression and reasoning rather by mo mentary passion than by cool judgment. His principles as a Christian will, I hope, upon more mature consideration of the subject, serve more effectually to make him aware of the uncharitable spirit which pervades his Letter, than a reply couched in a similar style of expression. "The Layman declares, in the con cluding part of his Letter, that religious controversy is the last article that should appear in a periodical publication;' yet with great inconsistency he fills almost two columns with religious argument, a short notice of which I beg now to offer. "Ram Mohun Roy observes, in his Appeal, that if it was a practice among the Christians to study the Old Testament first, and then the New, Christianity would not be liable to be encroached upon by human opinions.' The Layman, in noticing this assertion, affirms positively that in the very first chapter of Genesis, the Trinity in Unity is distinctly avowed;' but he does not refer to the passage or text in which the avowal of Trinity in Unity may be found: 1 regret to say, that, for my own part, so far from being able to discover such avowal, cannot find the least allusion to Trinity, nor even a word expressing the number three in any part of the chapter. 1 "I am aware, however, of the arguments by which this supposed avowal is inferred; and would beg the Layman's patient attention to the discussion of them in Ram Mohun Roy's Appeal, p. 96. In noticing the following assertion of Ram Mohun Roy, found in the Extract, What credit can be obtained in proving one is not three, and the same Being cannot be God and Mau? the Layman questions him, whether he can explain how the soul and body make one man? how we feel them distinct though united? and then concludes, that if Ram Mohun Roy believes these things without being able to explain them, he should Unity, though beyond comprehension. not reject the mystery of the Trinity in The Layman would not, I suppose, draw such a conclusion in a cool moment, were he to pay attention to the following passage, found in the same Extract from the Appeal of Ram Mohun Roy, that appeared in the Calcutta Journal: It is "I saw a Letter written by A Lay- too true to be denied, that we are led by "SIR, "Having in a late Number admitted into your pages some very serious remarks on a publication by Ram Mohan Roy, I trust that you will in justice to him, give a place to the following Reply. "I am, Sir, "6 your obedient Servant, "SUTYU-SADHUN. "To the Editor of the Bengal Hurkaru. *SIR, |