the following paragraphs on the deistic reformers of to-day we are indebted to an article of Professor Williams, which first appeared in the thirteenth volume of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, and has since been published in the same author’s Brahmanism and Hinduism.]

     [Footnote 108:  Born in 1818.]

[Footnote 109:  ekam[=a]tr[=a]dvit[=i]ya (masculine); with this form contrast below, in the Br[=a]hma Dharma (religion) of Debendran[=a]th, the neuter ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam.  The only God of the first Sam[=a]j; is a person; that of the reform is exoterically Nature.]

[Footnote 110:  But, as will be noticed in the four articles (which are in part a compilation of phrases from the Upanishads) the personality of Brahm[=a] is not insisted on for the outer church.  For this reason, although the inner church doubtless understands It as He, yet this neuter should be preserved in the translation.  The articles are so drawn up as to enable any deist to subscribe (without Vedantic belief as a condition of acceptance) to the essential creed of the Congregation.  One or two sentences in the original will reveal at a glance the origin of the phraseology:  brahma (being) v[=a] ekam idam-agra [=a]s[=i]t; tad ida[.m] sarvam as[r.]jal; tad eva nityam, ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam; tasmia pr[=i]tis ... tadup[=a]sanam.  Compare Ch[=a]ndogya Upanishad:  sad (being) idam agra [=a]s[=i]d ekam ev[=a]dvit[=i]yam; and the V[=a]jasaney[=i]-Br[=a]hmana Upanishad:  brahma v[=a] idam-agra [=a]s[=i]t, etc.]

[Footnote 111:  It is interesting to see this fervor, or ecstatic delirium, surviving from the time of the Rig Veda, where already (albeit only in the latest hymns, which are quite Brahmanic) flourishes the mad muni: and fervid ascetism (’heat,’tapas) begins to appear as a means of salvation.  RV. x. 109, 136.]

[Footnote 112:  “I regard myself as Christ and C[=a]itanya,” reported by Sen’s own missionary as the words of the former.  Sen’s disciples deny some of these assertions, but they seem to be substantiated, and Sen’s own language shows that he claimed miraculous powers.  Compare the discussions on this point, JRAS. xiii. 281 ff.]

[Footnote 113:  This was afterwards excused on the ground that the marriage would not have been legal without these rites.  But Sen presumably was aware of this in advance.  From the performance of the rites he had the decency to absent himself.  It should be said, however, in Sen’s behalf, that the marriage itself had nothing revolting about it, and though in consenting to it Sen violated his faith, as is evident from the protest of the Sam[=a]j, yet was the marriage not an extreme case of child-marriage, for both the ‘children’ were sixteen.  Sen’s own excuse (he thought excuse necessary) was that he was inspired when he consented to the