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,

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 :

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