1796.] 
of fcience, than to the general diffemi- 
nation of knowledge, and advancement 
of civilization ;—it is impoffible to fay 
to what degree of perfection human na- 
ture might not by this time have at- 
tained. 
It is certain, and cannot too often be 
repeated, that knowledge is power. 
Why then fhould men be reftriéted in 
thofe improvements of intelleét which, 
by enlarging their fphere of a€tion, can- 
not fail to increafe their capacity of 
happinefs > Can they be too wife, or 
too happy? If not, let the excurfions 
of invention be unconfined, let the re- 
fearches of redfon be uncontrolled. ‘This 
is, undoubtedly, the policy which phi- 
lanthropy teaches; and a narrower po- 
licy can only be diétated by bigotry or 
felfithnefs. If the perfeétibility of hu- 
man nature be not the dream of benevo- 
lence—the philofopher’s fone of the 
prefent day ;—if it at leaft be true, that 
man has not yet reached his appointed 
fummit of knowledge and happinefs, let 
not his progrefs be retarded by coercive 
reftri€tions on the freedom of enquiry, 
of fpeech, and of writing: let all good 
men, who love their country and their 
{pecies, unite to folicit the removal of 
every obftruétion to the difcovery and 
the application of truth, and the inftitu- 
tion of one univerfal law for the pro- 
tection and encouragement of enquirers ; 
that, henceforward, Opinion, like the 
air, may become ‘a chartered liber- 
tine.” 

On Mr. Maurice's INDIAN AN- 
TIQUITIES. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, Feb. 10, 17096. 
jl! GS myfelf of the new field 
of liberal difcuffion which you have 
opened, I fubmit to the confideration of 
the public, a fingle-obiervation on a late 
important publication, Mr. Maurice’s 
Indian Antiquities. 
I leave it to profetfional critics to efti- 
mate this writer's literary merit, and to 
apportion to him the due fhare of praife 
for the induftry with which he has, from 
various fources, collected a large mafs of 
curious and ufeful information. My fole 
objeét is to put enquirers after truth upon 
their guard againft a precipitate adoption 
of the conclufions which Mr. Maurice de- 
duces from his faéts. Through the whole 
_work, the author appears rather in the 
capacity of a theological polemic, than an 
hiftorian. A large, and, many will think, 
On Maurice’s Indian Antiquities. 
¢ 
a difproportionate fhare of attention is 
beftowed upon the doétrine of the Tri- 
nity; and the point chiefly laboured is, 
that this doétrine is conveyed by an- 
cient tradition from the Hebrews to the 
Indians; the awful myftery having been 
originally ‘* revealed to Adam im the fa- 
cred bowers of Eden,” where he “ freely 
converfed with the holy perjozages that 
compote the Trinity,” and ‘‘ faw the ra- 
diance of the divine Triad.” “ I muft 
take permiffion,” fays Mr. M. © to affert 
my folemn belief, founded upon long 
and elaborate inveftigation, that the In- 
dian, as well as all other triads of Deity, 
fo univerfally adored through the Afiatic 
worid, and under every denomination, 
whether they confift of perfons, prin-~ 
ciples, or attributes deified, are all cor- 
ruptions of the Chriftian doétrine of the 
Trinity (1)”. 
After this folemn affeveration, no one 
will doubt the fincerity of Mr. Maurice’s 
belief: but his belief will produce no 
fympathetic affent in minds capable of 
enquiry, till a clearer connection is efta- 
blithed between his faith and his ‘ long 
and elaborate invettigations,’ than ap- 
pears in thefe volumes. ‘The exiftence 
of three principal objets of worthip, 
under the names of Brahma, Veefhnou, 
and Seeva is afcertained. That thefe 
three divinities are fometimes worfhip- 
ped in union, under the name of Tri- 
mourti, appears probable; and that 
their union is {ymbolically defignated by 
the monftrous image found in the ca- 
vern-payoda of Elephanta, with shree 
heads, or, as fome fay, for travellers are 
not agreed upon the faét, with four, isa 
plaufible fuppofition : but, to fay that this 
magnificent piece of {culpture decidedly 
eitablifhes the folemn faGi, that from the 
remoteft ages the Indian nations have 
adored a tri-une deity, and that the ca- 
vern was a2 itupendous temple to this 
trinity (2), 1s to affert fomewhat tou con 
fidently. A ftatue with three or four 
heads, without any infcription or record, 
can, at beit, only furnifh matter for un- 
certain conjecture. 
Through the whole of Mr. Maurice’s 
work, the reader will find no proof that 
the primitive Indian faith, concerning 
the divine nature, was trinitarian. Large 
extracts, given by various authors, from 
the ancient facred books of India, fhow 
that the early philofophers of that country 
were believers in the unity of the Divine 
Nature. It is the decided opinion of 

(2) pe 427. (2) p. 772. 
P, 
