To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post' LONDON November 28, 1774. SIR, Some years since, a gentleman published 'An exact translation of the Koran of Mahomet,' with a deign to contrast it with the Bible, and show how far preferable it was; consequently how greatly Mahometanism was preferable to Christianity. As this had not all the desired effect, another gentleman has lately published an exact translation of the Koran of Indostan, of the Shastah of Bramah, undoubtedly with the charitable deign to contrast this with the Bible, and to show how great is the pre-eminence of Indian Paganism over Christianity. Letting alone a thousand wonderful assertions scattered up and down his work, I would only at present (1) give an extract from this curious book in the words of this writer; (2) examine what he says concerning the antiquity of it and of the nations that hold it sacred; (3) observe some instances of this author's esteem for the Bible; adding some cursory remarks. And, first, I am to give an extract from this curious book. 'The rebellious angels groaned in hell for four hundred and twenty-six millions of years. After this, God relented. He then retired into Himself and became invisible to all the angels for five thousand years. Then He appeared again, and said, "Let the fifteen regions of punishment and purification appear for the residence of the rebellious angels, and let them be brought from hell to the lowest of these regions." And it was so. And He prepared bodies for their closer confinement, and said, "Herein they shall undergo eighty-seven transmigration's for their punishment and purgation. Then they shall animate the form of a cow, and afterward the form of man. This is their eighty-ninth transmigration. If they now have any good works, they shall pass from earth into the second region of punishment and purgation, and so successively through the eight, and then through the ninth, which is the first region of purification."' Accordingly, 'The souls that animate every mortal form, whether of man, beast, bird, fish, or insect, are fallen angels in a state of punishment.'

'When God began to create the world, He fought with two giants for five thousand years. Then He commanded His first-born creature, Birmah, to create the fifteen regions of punishment and purgation. And Birmah straightway formed a leaf of Betel, and thereon floated on the abyss. Then Bistnow, His second-made creature, transformed himself into a mighty boar, and, descending into the abyss, brought up the earth on his back. Then issued from him a mighty tortoise and a mighty snake, and he put the snake erect on the back of the tortoise, and put the earth on the snakes head.' 'The world is to continue six millions of years in all, of which 359,126 are to come.' Such is the substance of the Shastah; far more wonderful than the Tales of the Fairies. This Mr. H - gravely styles the Word of God, and seems to believe every word of it. As to the origin of it, we are told, 'Four thousand eight hundred and seventy-four years ago an angel received the laws of God, written in the language of angels, came down to Indostan, and, assuming an human form, translated them into the language of the country, calling them Chartah Bhade Shastah of Bramah that is, the four Scriptures of divine words of the Mighty Spirit, which he promulged as the only means of salvation.' I am, secondly, to examine what is said on the antiquity of this and of the nations that hold it sacred. 'For a thousand years the Shastah remained pure; but then it was corrupted by a bad paraphrase; and still more about five hundred years after, which was 3,374 years ago.' But what proof have we of this Why, 'This account we have had from some of the Bramins and from the most learned of the Laity. And in the earliest ages the Bramins were famed for their wisdom by the concurrent testimony of all antiquity.' Pray cite a few testimonies from authors that wrote four or five thousand years ago. We know of none such. If we except the Bible, we know of no book that is three thousand years old. And we see no reason to think that letters have been in use so much as four thousand years.

If 'Zoroaster and Pythagoras did visit them about the time of Romulus' (which I do not allow), what then Romulus did not live three thousand years ago; and Zoroaster a late author has sufficiently proved to be no other than Moses himself. The antiquity, therefore, of the Shastah is utterly uncertain, being unsupported by any clear authority. Equally doubtful is the antiquity of that empire. Nay, ' Indostan, by their own account, was peopled as early as most other parts of the known word.' But who can rely on their own accounts This authority is just none at all. But 'the first invaders of it found the inhabitants a potent, civilized, wise, and learned people: Alexander the Great found it so.' No. Arrian and Q. Curtius (the only writers who give us the particulars of that expedition) say quite the contrary. But 'the Gentoo records affirm it, which mention the invasion of a great and mighty robber.' I answer (1) How is it proved this was Alexander the Great There have been more great and mighty robbers than him. But if it was, (2) Of what antiquity was he who died little above two thousand years since (3) Of what authority are the Gentoo records As much as the visions of Mirza. But 'these doctrines were universally professed by the Gentoos, some thousand years before Christ; and the Metempsychosis was held in the most early ages by at least four-fifths of the earth; and the Gentoos were eminently distinguished in the most early times.' Roundly asserted: but that is not enough; a little proof would do well. Here it is at last. 'The Gentoos admit no proselytes to their faith or worship. This proves their great antiquity.' I know not how: the consequence halts sadly. But see another argument. 'This is also proved by the perpetuity of their doctrine through a succession of so many ages.' Right, when that succession is proved. A third proof! ' Pythagoras took his doctrines from them, which the Egyptians took from him.' I am an infidel as to both these facts till I see some proof of them. His true doctrines I believe Pythagoras learned from the Egyptians, and they from the Israelites.

I come, in the third place, to observe some instances of this writer's esteem for the Bible. 'We profess ourselves' says he, 'an unworthy though zealous subscriber to the pure, original Scriptures.' But for fear you should believe him, he immediately adds, 'and propagate no system but what coincides with every religious creed that has been or is now professed throughout the known world.' Why, are there not an hundred religious creeds now in the word that are taffy contradictory to each other How, then, can your system coincide with them all Certainly you do not understand the word. But if it coincides both with Paganism and Mahometanism, it does not with Christianity. For you everywhere strike at the root of those Scriptures on which alone it is built. This I shall briefly show both with regard to Moses, the Law, the Prophets, and the New Testament. As to the first, 'Moses' detail of the Creation and Fall of Man is clogged with too many incomprehensible difficulties to gain our belief.' (Add, for decency's sake, 'that it can be understood literally.') Hence his anger at Milton's diabolical conceits'; because he has shown that detail in all its parts to be not only simple, plain, and comprehensible, but consistent with the highest reason, and altogether worthy of God. Again: 'To suppose the Indians less the care of God than the Israelites,' that is, to suppose He ever had a peculiar people, or that He regarded the seed of Jacob more than that of Esau, 'this would arraign His justice.' Then what is Moses, who perpetually supposes this throughout the whole Pentateuch As to the Law: 'Nothing but the devil himself' (insert, for decency, 'the Bramins say') 'could have invented bloody sacrifices, so manifestly repugnant to the true spirit of devotion and abhorrent to' (it should be abhorred by) 'God.' This is an home thrust at the Mosaic Law, wherein without shedding of blood there was no remission. Therefore with him it is 'manifestly repugnant to the true spirit of devotion and abhorred by God.' As to the Prophets: 'Gods prescience' (so he affirms) 'of the actions of free agents is utterly repugnant and contradictory to the very nature and essence of free agency.' If so, the inference is plain: the Prophets were all a pack of impostors; for it is certain they all pretended to foretell the actions of free agents.

And this strikes at the New Testament also, wherein there are numerous Prophecies. But here, indeed, the mask quite falls off. He laughs at 'the reveries of Paul' (well he might! how unlike those of his apostle, Bramah!); and tells us in plain terms 'that only the words of Christ Himself are the pure, original Scriptures.' Nay, herein he allows too much; for some of His words foretell the actions of free agents. And lest we should urge the death of the Martyrs in favor of Christianity, we are told (which he that can believe may), 'The contempt of death is the character of the Gentoo nation. Every Gentoo meets death with a steady, noble, and philosophical resignation.' And yet 'the Gentoos in general are as degenerate, crafty, and wicked a people as any in the known world.' To complete the contrast between the doctrines of our Bible and his Bible, the Shastah he adds: 'The fundamental points of Religion were impressed on the heart of man at his creation; and he never has and never will be able to efface them. These primitive truths are: (1) the being of a God, the Creator and Preserver of all things; (2) the existence of three prime created beings; (3) the creation of angels; (4) the rebellion of part of them; (5) their fall from heaven; (6) the immortally of the soul; (7) future rewards and punishments; (8) that one angel tempted the other angel, and now tempts men; (9) the necessity of one, or more Mediators, for the expiation of sin; (10) an intermediate state of punishment and purification after death; (11) the existence of a golden age, wherein men used no animal food; and (12) the ministration of angels. These were the primitive truths revealed by God to man, and the only ones necessary to man's salvation!' Is not this inimitable Hither, ye Eastern Bramins, come! Hither, ye Western Locusts, Monks of Rome! Behold the frontless, all-imposing man, And match him with your Priestcraft if ye can.

Are these twelve articles of his creed the fundamental points of religion in particular, that men and brutes are devils incarnate and are to be in purgatory after death And are they all so 'impressed on the heart of every man as never to be effaced' Why, they never were impressed on my heart yet; several of them I no more believe than I do the Koran. I never have met with an American Indian who believed one half of them; nor with an uninstructed African who believed one of them unless, perhaps, the being of a God. And is the belief of all these (fundamental point, indeed!) 'necessary to man's salvation' I cannot but repeat the observation, wherein experience confirms me more and more, that they who disbelieve the Bible will believe anything. They may believe Voltaire! They may believe the Shastah! They may believe a man can put himself into a quart bottle!