and of water, and of the separate and independent existence of the allegorical representations of the attributes of God? Were the sublime works written by the learned among the Greeks ever able to shake the early acquired superstitious notions and polytheistical faith of the generality of their countrymen? Nay, even when Christian converts became numerous, did not those who were brought up in the ancient superstition introduce some vestiges of their idolatry into their new persuasion? In fact, nothing can more surely impede the progress of truth than prejudice instilled into minds blank to receive impressions; and the more unreasonable are the doctrines of a religion, the greater pains are taken by the supporters of them to plant them in the readily susceptible minds of youth.

The Editor has filled a complete page in proving that besides early impressed prejudices, there are also other causes of error in judgment-an attempt which might have been dispensed with, for I never limited the sources of mistake in examining religious matters to early impression alone. I attributed only the prevailing errors in Christianity to traditional instructions inculcated in childhood, as the language of my Second Appeal will shew. "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 I attribute their 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." (Pp. 304-305.) If the Editor doubt the accuracy of this remark, he might soon satisfy himself of its justice, were he to listen to the suggestion offered in the preceding paragraph with a view to ascertain whether the doctrine of the Trinity rests for its belief on scriptural authorities or on early religious impressions.

The Editor mentions ironically, (in page 3,) that my success in scriptural studies was such as to prove that the most learned and pious in every age of the church have been so completely mistaken as to transform the pure religion of Jesus into the most horrible idolatry." In answer to this, I only beg to ask the Reverend Editor to let me know first what a Protestant in the fifteenth century could have answered, if he had been thus questioned by a Roman Catholic: "Is your success in examining the truths of scripture such as to prove that the most learned and pious in every age of the church have been so completely mistaken as to transform the pure religion of Jesus into the most horrible idolatry, by introducing the worship of Mary the mother of God, and instituting images in churches, as well as by acknowledging the pope as the head of the church, vested with the power of forgiving sins?" Would not his answer be this?" My success is indeed so as to prove these

doctrines to be unscriptural. As to your inferences, they are no more divine than mine; and though I do not doubt the piety and learning of many Christians of your church in every age, I am persuaded that many corruptions, introduced into the Christian religion by the Roman heathens converted in the fourth and fifth centuries, have been handed down through successive generations by impressions made in the early part of life, and have taken such root in the minds of men, that piety and learning have fallen short of eradicating prejudices nourished by church and state, as well as by the vulgar superstition and enthusiasm." Were this reply justifiable, I also might be allowed to offer the following answer: "I find not the doctrine of the Trinity in the Scriptures; I cannot receive any human creed for divine truth; but, without charging the supporters of this doctrine with impiety or fraud, humbly attribute their misinterpretation of the Scriptures to early religious impressions."

The Editor assigns as a reason for his omission of several arguments adduced in the Second Appeal, that "we have before us a work of a hundred and seventy-three pages, to an examination of which we can scarcely devote half that number: and while to leave a single page unnoticed, might by some be deemed equivalent to leaving it unanswered, the mere transcription of the passages to be answered, were it done in every instance, would occupy nearly all the room we can give the reply itself. We shall, there

fore, adduce such evidence for these doctrines as, if sound, will render every thing urged against them nugatory, though not particularly noticed." To enable the public to compare the extent of the Second Appeal with that of the Review, I beg to observe, that the former contains 173 widely-printed, and the latter 128 closely-printed, pages, and that, if any one will take the trouble of comparing the number of words per page in the two Essays, he will soon satisfy himself that the one is as long as the other. I will afterwards notice, in the course of the present reply, whether or not "the evidence of these doctrines," adduced by the Editor in the Review, has still left a great many arguments in the Appeal quite unanswered.

In his attempt to prove the insufficiency of the precepts of Jesus to procure men peace and happiness, the Reverend Editor advanced the following position, "that the most excellent precepts, the most perfect law, can never lead to happiness and peace, unless by causing men to take refuge in the doctrine of the cross," (No. I. Quarterly Series of the Friend of India, page 111,) without adducing any arguments having reference to the position. I therefore brought to his recollection (in my First and Second Appeals) such authorities of the gracious author of Christianity, as, I conceived, established the sufficiency of these precepts for leading to comfort, and solicited the Editor "to point out, in order to establish his position, even a single passage pronounced

by Jesus, enjoining refuge in the doctrine of the cross, as all-sufficient or indispensable for salvation." (P. 153 of the Second Appeal.) The Editor, instead of endeavouring to demonstrate the truth of his assertion as to the insufficiency of the precepts to conduct men to happiness, or shewing a single passage of the nature applied for, introduces a great number of other passages of scripture which he thinks well calculated to prove, that the death of Jesus was an atonement for the sins of mankind. I regret that the Editor should have adopted such an irregular mode of arguing in solemn religious discussion; and I still more regret to find that some readers should overlook the want of connexion between the position advanced and the authorities adduced by the Editor. Were we both to adopt such a mode of controversy as to cite passages apparently favourable to our respective opinions, without adhering to the main ground, the number of his Reviews and of my Appeals would increase at least in proportion to the number of the years of our lives; for verses and quotations of scripture, if unconnected with their context, and interpreted without regard to the idiom of the languages in which they were written, may, as experience has shewn, be adduced to support any doctrine whatever: and the Editor may always find a majority of readers, of the same religious sentiments with himself, satisfied with any thing that he may offer either in behalf of the Trinity or in support of the Atonement.