all the learned Brahmins affert the unity of the Deity. And nothing is more certain than that this, and not the great body of the rituals of the Jewish religion, was the principal doctrine which the Jews received from Abraham. And furely the following reasoning will never bear the touch. The impofture of Moham med is founded upon Mofes and the prophets; that imposture is also fo certainly founded upon the fourth Beda, that the Gentoos for that reafon have rejected that part of their scripture: therefore this goes far to prove that Moses and the prophets are connected with, or (as the hint implies) derived from the Bedas. This is the fair analysis of our author's reasoning: but unhappily for his whole argument, Mahommedism is not founded on Mofes and the prophets. Let him again perufe his Koran, and he will find that it indeed contains a strange perverfion of Mofes and the New Teftament. But furely Mr. D. will not pretend that the historical

which thus fill the Koran, are

The duty of prayer, and the

paffages of the O. and N. T. founded upon the Obatar Bah. worship of One God were borrowed by Mahommed, who was bred a Pagan, from Mofes and the Prophets. But furely Mr. Dow will not perfift to infinuate, that these, the doctrines of the Apoftate Abraham, were borrowed from those who banished him for Apoftacy; or that a famenefs in thefe doctrines will prove the fuperior antiquity of the Obatar Bah. Yet to these circumstances, for no other can be fuppofed, must his observations be reduced. But who has ever read this * Obatar Bah? Why truly Mr. D. tells us, p. xxix. that "the language of the Obatar "Bab

It is curious to obferve that the Obatar Bab, fo ancient according to Mr. D. that hardly any body can read it, is nevertheless execrated by Mr. H. as the most modern, and most corrupted of all the Gentoo Scriptures. Mr. D. himself mentions this difagreement.

"Bah is now become obfolete, fo that very few Brahmins pretend "to read it with propriety." And this in our opinion goes far to prove that the Brahmins know little or nothing about the contents of it. In difcuffing an argument repetition is often neceffary: Both Mr. Holwell and Mr. Dow affure us that they received their information from fome of the most learned of the Brahmins. And an equal credit is certainly due to each of these gentlemen. But this affords us a clear demonftration that the Brahmins contradict each other in the most effential circumstances, in matters of no lefs importance, than in the queftion, who were the authors, and what are the contents of their facred Scriptures.

Nothing can be more evident than that both Meff. Holwell and Dow have endeavoured to give fanction to their favourite fyftems, by the authority of their admired Gentoos. Mr. Holwell's fyftem is a fpecies of Chriftianity. And Mr. Dow furely cannot be offended, if we call his, radically the reverfe of every such species. And whatever deference we willingly pay to the veracity of both thefe gentlemen, yet we must observe that, one of their learned Brahmins must have been amazingly erroneous, And one of these gentlemen has perhaps given a deeper attention to his fubject than the other. If we can determine whether Mr. Holwell or Mr. Dow are most authentic, fome light will from thence be thrown on the fabrication of the Gentoo Scriptures. Nor will we hefitate one moment to pronounce, that, in our opinion, Mr. Holwell's account, upon the whole, is the moft authentic. Our reafons are these : Mr. Dow confeffes that he had neither time nor leisure to acquire the Shanfcrita language, the

tongue

tongue in which the facred books of India are written, but that he trufted entirely to his Pundit or interpreter. Mr. Holwell tells us that he read and understood the Sanfcrit. Mr. Dow tells us, "the Mahommedans know nothing of the Hindoo learn“ing, and that it is utterly inacceffible to any but those of "their own Caft." His words are thefe, "The Bedas are, by the "Brahmins, held fo facred that they permit no other fect to read

them..... they would deem it an unpardonable fin to fatisfy "their curiofity in that respect, were it even within the compass "of their power. The Brahmins themselves are bound by fuch "ftrong ties of religion, to confine those writings to their own "tribe, that were any of them known to read them to others, " he would be immediately excommunicated. This punishment "is worse than even death itself among the Hindoos. "fender is not only thrown down from the nobleft order to the

The of

"moft polluted Cast, but his posterity are rendered for ever in

capable of being received into his former dignity." (See Differt. p. xxiv.) And Mr. D. adds, “Not all the authority of Akbar "could prevail with the Brahmins to reveal the principles of their "faith *. "" p. xxv. And all this does very well when brought as an argument against the accounts which every other writer has

given

*So ftrict in this are they, fays Mr. Dow, that only one Muffelman was ever instructed in it, and his knowledge was obtained by fraud. Mahummud Akbar, emperor of India, though bred a Mohammedan, studied feveral religions. In the Chriftian he was inftructed by a Fortuguefe. But finding that of the Hindoos inacceffible, he had recourfe to art. A boy of parts, named Feizi, was, as the orphan of a Brahmin, put under the care of one of the most eminent of these philofophers, and obtained full knowledge of their hidden religion. But the fraud being difcovered, he was laid under the re ftraint of an oath, and it does not appear that he ever communicated the knowledge thus acquired.

given of the Brahmins. But furely Mr. Dow ought to have paid some respect to his reader's power of memory, ought to have told him by what means it happened that he was the only man who ever overleapt the dreadful fences which guard the Gentoo faith in impenetrable darkness. Excommunication, that punishment worse than death itself, was, it feems, difregarded on his ac count; and what the great emperor Akbar could never obtain, the principles of the Brahmin faith were laid open to him. In the very page preceding the above quotation of the impoffibility of getting a Brahmin to read his Scriptures to one of another Caft, Mr. Dow, without the least hint how the dread difficulty was overcome, fimply tells us that he "prevailed upon his noble friend "the Brahmin, to procure for him a Pundit from the University "of Benaris, well versed in the Shanscrita, and master of all the "knowledge of that learned body." And this Pundit or interpreter, thus openly procured from an university, read to Mr. Dow, as he affures us, the facred books of the Brahmins, and explained to him the principles of their faith.

On this we shall make no farther remark; but proceed to some other reasons why we prefer the authority of Mr. Holwell. Mr. D. has in fome inftances discovered rather a partial acquaintance with his fubject; and even a desire to suppress what he did not like. He undertakes to give us an account of the religious rites and principles of the Brahmins: he laments that the claffics have given us fuch imperfect accounts of the Druids; and hints that his account of the Brahmins will leave pofterity no room to complain of a like defect. Yet how unkind to future ages has he been! He says not one word of the holiness of the Gentoo

COWS. He fays not one word of the remiffion of fin, and subsequent holiness which they afcribe to the fprinkling of cow-pifs and cow-dung; though no fact can be better ascertained than the fupreme veneration which the Brahmins pay to the cow and to her facred excrements; for no doctrine was ever more generally received in any country than this in India. His total omiffion therefore of the most popular religious ceremony of the Gentoos is quite unpardonable.

"It is an allowed truth," fays Mr. Holwell, "that there

never was yet any system of theology broached to mankind, "whose first professors and propagators did not announce its "defcent from God." Yet though this obfervation be univerfally and inconteftibly just, and though no people lay bolder claims to various revelations than the Gentoos, though fuch is the very spirit of every legend, yet all this will be quite unknown to future ages; for Mr. Dow paffes over all these pretenfions in the flightest manner. The existence of Brimha, he fays, is not believed. Beäfs Muni, the author of the Bedang, was a reputed prophet; and Goutam the founder of the other fect was only a philofopher. And thus the Gentoo pretenfion to divine revelations, a fact as notorious as the Gentoo veneration of cow-dung, is alfo very handsomely suppressed.

Mr. Holwell, on the other hand, has also his foibles. His system, and all the arguments he has brought in fupport of it, are pretty well fpiced with infanity. Yet whenever he was for happy as to lofe fight of his favourite fyftem, Mr. Holwell's counts of Gentoo opinions and manners bear every mark of authenticity, and are fully confirmed by the most intelligent of

VOL. II.

R

former