But, first, a word about the author of this remarkable volume. He is well known among our Missionary brethren, as the first convert (we believe) of our oldest missionary in India, the Rev. Mr. Smith. An account of his conversion was published many years ago, under the title of "The New Birth," in allusion to the false notions of regeneration held by the Hindoos in their doctrine of metempsychosis. Educated as a Pundit, at that ancient school of Indian philosophy, Benares, he is a man of considerable power and acuteness of mind; and when in this country, at the Missionary College at Islington, where he was placed for a short time, it was thought that none of our own students were a match for him in metaphysical subjects. Nehemiah, as he is familiarly called, is still known sometimes to startle our young missionaries fresh from an English University, by quietly asking themperhaps, at breakfast-what is the force of that passage where it is said that God breathed into man the breath of life, and he became a living soul? Ever since the Lord met with him, he has been walking consistently, and labouring in his native place for the good of the educated classes of India, not as an ordained minister, but as a layman, thinking he can do more service in this unofficial capacity. Ordination has been pressed upon him, but he has declined it on this conscientious ground; and it is in prosecution of these his disinterested studies that he has written the essay before us, as well as one on the same subject last year.

The history of philosophy in India is rather peculiar. Like all the Oriental systems, it appeals as much to reason as to revelation. The Greek and Roman philosophers entrenched themselves behind supposed revelations of Deity. Such were their oracles. Numa, the philosopher king of Rome, had to encourage the report that he visited the nymph of Egeria, and assured his people that the safety of the empire depended upon the preservation of the sacred shield which had dropped down from heaven. But in India, though they have their Vedas, and other sacred books, breathed forth, as they affirm, from Brahma himself, and revealed to the Kishis-holy sages, inspired men-yet upon these they have built an elaborate series of explanations and defences, in which the most subtle thought is displayed. Of the philosophical systems into which Hindoo religions may be resolved, there are no less than six; and it is to the exposure of the inconsistencies and absurdities of these systems that our author addresses himself, conceiving that to shake these is to shake the whole fabric of Hindooism, inasmuch as the people invariably refer to their priests as a final appeal, and their priests, leaving the ritual and outward observances to the ignorant masses, always fall back upon these philosophies and metaphysics, as the essence and stronghold of their religions.

It is a question, indeed, sometimes raised, and often weighed, by the Committees of our Missionary Societies, how far it is well to follow these subtle minds to their own ground? One view of the matter obviously would be to make no distinction at all between the upper and lower classes, but to send our Missionaries to preach the simple Gospel alike to the wise and foolish, the educated and uneducated, trusting that it would, by the Holy Spirit's blessing, work its way, and be made the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. There is much, no doubt, to be said for this plan of procedure; and not a few failures, from Henry Martyn's time to our own, warn us of the difficulty of reaching, and still more of affecting, the learned classes of India.

But, on the other hand, there is much to be said for a separate and special treatment in this case; and we believe that the voice of our Missionary brethren on the spot is unanimous in favour of some efforts at least being made in this direction. The Brahmins form the influential class, and there is no other way of getting at this influential class, but in meeting them in argument. Our common tracts, and translations, and teachings, they treat with the utmost contempt. The pride of these native literati forbids then to have any dealings with the vernacular beyond the narrow range of social occasions. Every thing, if they are to look at it, must be in their sacred language, Sanskrit, and saturated with the technicalities and terminology of the schools in which they have been trained. It may be said, indeed, that they are so absurdly proud of their philosophies, and have got lost in such a cloud of metaphysics, that it is simply impossible, as well as inexpedient, to follow them into all their positions. But still it does seem a duty laid upon the Christian Church, in preaching the Gospel to every creature, and becoming all things to all men, to examine, and as far as possible refute, the objections which all false religions present in limine to the admission of God's truth. In our modern Roman Catholic missions, we have found the advantage of exposing error as well as of setting forth positive truth; and we have little doubt that it will be found necessary to follow the same path in India. Certain it is, we see, by the very instance before us, the wisdom of such a course. To gain a learned Brahmin, is to gain one already gifted and qualified to teach, and who will be likely to draw after him former pupils and devotees.

We can only indicate briefly the process of reasoning followed in this work. The six systems are carefully analysed and examined, first as to their points of mutual agreement, and then separately on those points in which they differ from each other. It is shown that some of these systems are theistic, and some atheistic. The most popular-the Vedantin-appears to be

Vol. 63.-No. 319.

4 B

virtually a system of Atheism; for while it speaks of a Supreme Being, Brahma, it denies to Him every attribute of intelligence and cognition. An example from the doctrine of the Vedantins on "the true state of existence," as they call it, will illustrate this point. "Brahma is true; the world is false; the soul of Brahma is himself, and no other." "As expanded and

expounded by the advocates of Vedánta, this quotation," says our author, "imports as follows:-Brahma alone-a spirit; essentially existent, intelligence and joy; void of all qualities, and of all acts; in whom there is no consciousness, such as is denoted by I,' thou,' or 'it;' who apprehends no person or thing, or is appehended of any; who is neither parviscient nor omniscient; neither parvipotent nor omnipotent; who has neither beginning nor end; immutable and indefectible-is the true entity. All besides himself, the entire universe, is false; that is to say, is nothing whatsoever. Neither has it ever existed, nor does now exist, nor will it exist at any time future. And the soul is one with Brahma." Holding such views, it is scarce surprising that young India claims Hume as one of themselves. They would also gladly avail themselves of the name of Bishop Berkeley, but Nehemiah clearly shows, that whether right or wrong, the Bishop's theory has no real resemblance to the doctrine of the Vedánta.

Upon the whole, we gather, from a perusal of this volume, just what might be expected where there was no true revelation from God-that the Hindoo philosophies are nothing more than reflections of the dark human mind, groping about and determined to exalt itself into the place of God, charging sin upon the body, making ignorance to consist in a non-apprehension of the power and perfection of intellect, and utterly confounding all moral distinctions. Eternity of matter, eternity of soul, and finally absorption into an incomprehensible Brahma -such is the gulf into which the wisdom of this world plunges its followers. Well may our author exhort his fellow-countrymen to come out from these snares. "For philosophersthemselves corrupt, as being human-to exhort their fellow men, in contrariety to the teachings of the true faith, to regard God as false, to think themselves one with Brahma, and to count sin and their virtue, and their fruits, nonentities, is to administer to a sick man poison instead of medicine. Cease, I entreat you, my beloved countrymen, to consider as true a religion which contains such things as these."

The opening up of this controversy leads us deeply to sympathise with our missionaries abroad, and especially in India. Here is no mere superstition like that of the South Sea Islanders, that crumbled away at the first sight of the Gospel. But it is a deeply rooted and inveterate religion this, based on written records, and surrounded by learned defences-a regularly fortified position-one of those places of which it may be

said emphatically, "There Satan's seat is." What constant labour and faith in the promises of God do such assaults require! How much does our small band of Christian men, and now, blessed be God, strengthened by the adhesion of native Christians, placed in the midst of so much abounding iniquity, need our prayers and interests!

Such a review is rather timely, too, for those who are willing to observe what other men in the pursuit of truth have come to. Behold the end of vaunted reason, of the voice of the congregation, of the verifying faculty, and of ideas of the absolute! It is but the picture of the silly animal running round after its own tail. We are sinners, sold under sin, and engaged to error, and every attempt to escape from our difficulty, save in God's wondrous way, through a Divine Saviour, by righteous grace, simple faith, and an indwelling Spirit, moulding us again by His Word into all that is good and right, only adds to our misery and hopelessness. Pride and self must fall in England and in India, and men become as little children ere they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

But let us conclude, as we began, with encouraging thoughts. We hail such a book as this. It is the cuckoo harbingering the spring. Brighter are its unpretending pages in our eyes than all the far famed jewels, and costly fabrics, and luscious fruits we are accustomed to associate with the name of India. Often, as we have been reading, have we been reminded of the days of early Christians, when the Apologists of the first three centuries were called forth. The clear and calm argumentation of Nehemiah is not unlike, and not unworthy to be compared with, that of Arnobius or Lactantius, themselves once heathen philosophers, but afterwards converted to the faith of Jesus. And this being so, may we not fairly argue from the past to the future? If truth once so prevailed, why should it be weak now? If it conquered Europe, why not India? Most thankfully do we accept this volume as an earnest of what the native mind may become by the grace of God, and then do for the glory of God. Years of sowing and watching are beginning to tell at last, and our Christian public, and especially our beloved Church Missionary Society, may look for great and glorious things. So far duty has been done, and some measure of success attained. Nehemiah says in his closing chapter, "The true religion is now accessible to the people of India. May God, in His infinite mercy, grant, my dear countrymen, that you quench not the Divine light which He has lighted in your breasts; that, on the contrary, you may follow its leading; that you may meekly and patiently try by it the Christian Scriptures; that you may take hold on their priceless promises; and that, in the end, you may inherit, as your everlasting portion, the joy of the Heavenly Kingdom."

As

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIE,-A perusal of the article, "Church Politics," in the Christian Observer for this month, prompts me to submit to your consideration the subjoined remarks, though I have no desire to trespass upon your

pages.

The oaths which "1 Will. c. 8." imposed are no longer in force. They were repealed in 1858 by 21 and 22 Vict. c. 48.

The subscriptions, &c., required by "13 Eliz. c. 12," have also been repealed by "26 and 27 Vict. c. 125." See its

pg. 1282.

The clergy no longer swear (Christian Observer, p. 350) "the oaths of allegiance and supremacy," but they take an "oath to be taken instead." The words just quoted from your Reviewer may be allowed to pass unnoticed in Reports of Ordinations, &c., but they are not sufficiently correct for the serious discussion of Clerical Subscriptions. These terms were correct from 1605, "3 J. 1. c. 4," to 1688-9, "1 Will. and Mary, c. 8." In 1688-9, James's oath of allegiance was superseded by a shorter oath of allegiance; but the Elizabethan "oath of supremacy" was displaced by the enactment of one of its clauses only, in order that the Royal supremacy might not be sworn to. From this period, therefore, it became incorrect to say that the oaths required were "the oaths of allegiance and supremacy" in propriety of speech, and in fact, they were "oaths of allegiance and of non-supremacy." The Act of 1858 does not dignify its strange compilation with any title; but it is, in respect of its incongruous parts, a piece of an old oath of succession joined to the non-supremacy oath of 1688. According to the Act, it has neither name nor meaning.

Your Reviewer would retain this non-supremacy clause in any new form of Clerical Subscription. With regard to such retention, I first remark that it is doomed. There are two notices of motion respecting the Oath of 1858 now recorded on the books of the Lower House. The government last session declared that the form would not be retained as it is; and the Papists have repeatedly declared their will that the whole question of the Oaths must be reopened. Secondly, this non-supremacy clause is now an absolute falsehood. Its true and proper sense, and the sole object of its enactment in 1688-9, was to bar overt submission on the part of Roman Catholics to the ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction, i. e. to the supremacy of the Pope. The presence of the new Popish hierarchy within this realm absolutely falsifies it.

At an enormous cost, I have directed the attention of Bishops and Priests to this momentous fact during no less than nine years. I have written, and now write, with a perfect knowledge of the subject. I have received no attention, nor do I expect to receive any; but I