is not allegorical, and I regard the same as an ether diffused throughout ten thousand objects. If this reasoning be admitted, why cannot the prayer offered to the All-pervading Spirit, in the dedicated object, be considered as prayer to the universal and Almighty God? If one part of the ocean be adored, the whole ocean is adored.'

It becomes us, as christians to regard with pity, the melancholy state of these poor Hindus. Alas! how weak is human reason, which can support so plausibly, a doctrine so unworthy to be practised by an immortal soul. Who, on reading the above extract does not wish that no obstacles might ever be interposed by the ruling powers in India, to the labours of those men who are willing to instruct its inhabitants in that which is, emphatically, the truth. We add another extract from Sastri's plea for idolatry.

If the worship of the attributes be rejected, what means can be substituted to inculcate the truth, and to enlighten. the understanding of an indolent man, who, on being told that God is all-pervading, and invisible, thinks him to be like the air, or the sky; or hearing that, by a figure of speech, he is called the splendor of splendor, believes that he is of 'a luminous nature? if these helps be denied him, will he not, at last, become ignorant of the true faith, or be induced to follow atheistical doctrine, rather than to trouble his head to attain the difficult knowledge of the divine nature?'

The highest argument which we can oppose to the preceding extract is the divine command against the practice of idolatry. But, we apprehend that this is not one of those subjects to the discussion of which reason is unequal, and in regard to which it becomes her to bow in meek submission to the authority of religion. May not the vulgar, by the contemplation and adoration of idols, be induced to consider that which they worship, not as an image of God, but as God himself. Should this be the case, the idol, instead of being a help to the worshipper, is, indeed, a great obsta

cle to him in his approaches to the divinity. But we proceed with our extracts from Sastri's argument.

'I have, lastly, to observe, that, according to the christian doctrine of the trinity, or the three persons in the god-head, though one and united, yet are personally, or occasionally distinguished, and prayers offered to the god-head, are concluded by the words, "through Jesus Christ our Saviour." I believe, though I may be mistaken, that the Saviour should be considered a personification of the mercy and kindness of God, (I mean actual, not allegorical personification: pure allegory, I leave to Ram Mohun Roy)-if this be so, is not mercy an attribute of God? Is not the prayer offered to him, through his attribute, of the same nature as the worship of the Hindus? Do not the votaries of the christian religion, like the Hindus, acknowledge him to be essentially united to the godhead, though occasionally separate, and do they not believe that they are certain of obtaining salvation, in this faith?'

It becomes us, in touching on so mysterious a doctrine as that of the sacred Trinity, to be extremely careful of what we assert. Many christians, indeed, believe that the godhead is distinguished into three persons. They believe, also, that, in consequence of the unity of the divine nature, the mercy and kindness of God are personified in Jesus Christ. But then they consider that prayers should be offered to him through Jesus Christ, because this is part of the divine scheme, and that such prayers are offered not merely in the name of an attribute of the Deity, but of one who is a constituent part of the divine substance. Nor do they believe that he can ever be separated from the divinity. The concluding paragraph of Sastri's arguments is as follows.

'For these reasons, why cannot the Hindu worship of the attributes, which are affirmed to be essentially united, but occasionally separate from the godhead, be admitted, and why may not this be the means of obtaining mocsham, or, salva

tion? It seems, upon the whole, that technical terms, modes of worship, and external rites, respectively observed, constitute an apparent difference between the religions of the earth, though, in truth, there be none.'

We apprehend that many christians who concur in worshipping the Deity for the display of exalted attributes, would be shocked at the idea of admitting the worship of these attributes under the guise of idols, which appears to be the practice generally prevalent in Hindostan. The reflection of Sastri as to the agreement of religions seems to have arisen from his misapprehension on the subject of the Trinity.

We shall proceed with a few extracts from the answer of Ram Mohun Roy, and add such observations as they may suggest. In reply to Sastri's objections to the terms discoverer, and reformer, as applied to Ram Mohun Roy, the lat ter has written as follows.

'In none of my writings, nor in any verbal discussion, have I ever assumed the title of reformer, or discoverer: so far from such an assumption, I have urged in every work that I have hitherto published, that the doctrines of the unity of God are real Hinduism, as that religion was practised, by our ancestors, and as it is well known, even at the present age, to many learned brahmins: I beg leave to repeat a few of the passages, to which I allude.

'In the Introduction to the Abridgment of the Vedanta, I have said, " In order, therefore, to vindicate my own faith, and that of our forefathers, I have been endeavouring, for some time past, to convince my countrymen of the true meaning of the sacred books: and prove that my aberration deserves not the opprobrium, which some unreflecting persons have been so ready to throw upon me." In another place, of the same Introduction: "The present is an endeavour to render an Abridgment of the same (the Vedanta) into English, by which I expect to prove, to my European friends,

that the superstitious practices, which deform the Hindu religion, have nothing to do with the pure spirit of its dictates." In the Introduction of the Cenopanishad: "This work will, I trust, by explaining to my countrymen, the real spirit of the Hindu scriptures, which is but the declaration of the unity of God, tend, in a great degree, to correct the erroneous conceptions which have prevailed, with regard to the doctrines they inculcate:" And, in the Preface of the Ishopanishad, “many learned brahmins are perfectly aware of the absurdity of idol worship, and are well informed of the nature of the pure mode of divine worship." A reconsideration of these passages will, I hope, convince the learned gentleman, that I never advanced any claim to the title, either of a reformer, or of a discoverer of the doctrines of the unity of the godhead. It is not at all impossible, that from a perusal of the translations above alluded to, the editor of the Calcutta Gazette, finding the system of idolatry, into which the Hindus are now completely sunk, quite inconsistent with the real spirit of their scriptures, may have imagined that their contents may have become entirely forgotten, and unknown; and that I was the first to point out the absurdity of idol worship, and to inculcate the propriety of the pure divine worship, ordained by their Vedas, their Smirts, and their Poorans. From this idea, and from finding, in his intercourse with other Hindus, that I was stigmatized, by many, however unjustly, as an innovator, he may have been, not unnaturally, misled to apply to me the epithets of discoverer, and reformer.'

In order to enable our readers to judge of the correctness of the sentiments advanced in the extract which we have. just made, we shall take the liberty of submitting to them a sketch of the contents of the Vedas, which we have drawn from an essay of considerable length, on the subject of these writings, by H. T. Colebrooke, Esq. in the eighth volume of the Asiatic Researches.

The Vedas are the writings on which is mainly founded the theological system of the Hindus. Mr. Colebrooke has conjectured that their antiquity may be traced back as far as the fourteenth century before the christian era, but he acknowledges that his calculation is not by any means certain. Mr. Pinkerton has advanced the position that they are of modern date, but we know not on what evidence he relies. Sir William Jones was of opinion that they were very ancient writings.

The Hindus suppose the Vedas to have been revealed by Brahma, one of their principal divinities, and to have been preserved by tradition until they were committed to writing by a sage, who thence received the appellation of Vedavyasa, a compiler of the Vedas.

The Vedas are four in number, and each is divided into two parts, the former containing hymns for different occasions, and the latter the doctrinal and preceptive part of the Hindu religion, veiled frequently in absurd legends. The hymns are ascribed to many different authors, and are, as we have already mentioned, addressed to various deities. We have already intimated that this offers an insuperable bar to the argument that the Vedas teach a consistent system of monotheism. The doctrinal parts do indeed sometime unveil the great truth of the divine unity, but our readers will judge, from the following extract of the unworthy and contradictory manner in which this sublime doctrine is inculcated in these writings.

'The deities are only three, whose places are the earth, the intermediate region, and heaven: (namely) fire, air, and the sun. They are pronounced to be the deities of the mysterious names, severally: and Piajapati, the lord of the crea tures, is the (deity) of them, collectively. The syllable O'm intends every deity: it belongs to Paramesht'hi, him, who dwells in the supreme abode; it appertains to (Brahme) the vast one; to (Deva) God; to (Adhij'atme) the superintend