guage?" Equally perceiving the Supreme Soul in all beings, and all beings in the Supreme Soul, he sacrifices his own spirit by fixing it on the spirit of God; and approaches the nature of that sole Divinity, who shines by his own effulgence."-If there be any meaning in this rhapsody, it corresponds with the atheistical jargon of Spinoza, confounding the Creator with the work of his hands. That which follows is worse." The Divine Spirit alone is the whole assemblage of gods; all worlds are seated in the Divine Spirit, and the Divine Spirit no doubt produces, by a chain of causes and effects, consistent with free will, the connected series of acts performed by embodied souls." (p. 26.)

Such is their doctrine of "One Supreme Being!" Is then the infinitely glorious GoD to be not only associated but identified with the rabble of heathen deities, all which subsist in the oblations of the brahmans? Is his blessed Name to be annihilated and lost in theirs? Better a thousand times were it to make no mention of Him than to introduce him in such company. The last sentence, though it cautiously guards the idea of human agency, so much, indeed, as to possess the air of modern composition; yet it is certain, that the brahmans, on this principle, constantly excuse themselves from blame in all their deeds, as they have frequently alleged to the Missionaries, that it is not they, but God in them, that performs the evil.

What follows is still worse." We may contemplate the subtile æther in the cavities of his [that is God's] body; the air, in his muscular motion and sensitive nerves; the supreme solar and igneous light, in his digestive heat and visual organs; in his corporeal fluid, water; in the terrene parts of his fabric, earth. In his heart, the moon; in his auditory nerves, the guardians of eight regions;* in his progressive motion, VISHNU;t in muscular force, HARA; in his organs of speech, AGNI;§ in excretion, MITRA;|| in procreation, Brahma.¶"

I presume the reader has had enough, and needs no reflections of mine. Let us hear the Vindicator of image worship. "It is true

"Eight points of the compass. + The preserver.

♦ God of fire. The Sun. ¶ The Creator." (p. 27.)

The destroyer.

that in general they worship the Deity through the medium of images; and we satisfactorily learn from the Geeta, that it is not the mere image, but the invisible Spirit that they thus worship." (p. 44.) And thus from Abulfazel:* "They one and all believe in the unity of the Godhead; and although they hold images in high veneration, yet they are by no means idolators, as the ignorant suppose. I have myself frequently discoursed upon the subject with many learned and upright men of this religion, and comprehend their doctrine; which is, that the images are only representations of celestial beings, to whom they turn themselves while at prayer to prevent their thoughts from wandering: and they think it an indispensable duty to address the Deity after that manner." (p. 47.)

If this reasoning be just, there never were any idolators upon earth; for what is said of the Hindoos applies to the worshippers of Baal, and of all other heathen deities. But to call this worshipping the Deity through the medium of images, is representing them as connected with Him, when, in fact, they are rivals of him in the hearts of his creatures. The invisible Spirit to which their devotions are directed, according to this writer's own account, is CRISHNA; (p. 45.) who is not God, but a deified creature that takes place of God; a dæmon, whose character, as drawn even in their own shasters, is lewd and treacherous. We might know from these their records, even though an apostle had not told us, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice TO DEMONS AND NOT TO GOD.

It has been common to speak of the Hindoos as acknowledging one Supreme Being, but as worshipping a number of subordinate deities; and I may have used this language as well as others. The terms supreme and subordinate, however, do not appear to be happily chosen. They might as well be applied to a lawful sovereign and a number of usurpers who had set up the standard of rebellion against him. Whatever subordination there may be

*Abulfazel was the prime minister of Ackbar, one of the Mogul emperors in the sixteenth century, who, perceiving the ill effects of Mahomedan persecu tion, endeavoured to reconcile the different religious parties in the empire, and to persuade that of the court to think favorably of that of the country.

among these deities with respect to each other, they are all opposed to the true God. What claims can He have, after those of Creeshna are satisfied, who calls his " THE SUPREME NATURE, which is superior to all things?" (p. 45,) Our author would wish him, no doubt, to be thought an attribute of the true God, or, as he calls him, "the preserving power of the Divinity;" but this he cannot be, for his character is immoral. He must, therefore, be a rival, taking place of the Divinity. If it be alleged, that he is merely an imaginary being, and therefore neither the one nor the other; I answer, while he claims "a supreme nature," and is worshipped as possessing it, though he be nothing in himself, yet he is something to the worshippers, and answers all the ends of a conscious and active usurper of the throne of God.

After this, the reader will not be surprised to hear of "repent ance, devotion, and pious austerities," as the means of expiating sin. (pp. 29. 36.) We cannot wonder at such notions in benighted Pagans; but that a writer, who has read the New Testament, should think of alleging them as recommendation of the system to the favourable regard of Christians, is a proof of his having either never understood what Christianity is, or forgotten it amidst the charms of idolatry. As to what these "devotions and austerities" are, be they what they may, when considered as an expiation of sin, they are worse than nothing. But the truth is, they are neither aimed to propitiate the true God, nor do they consist of any thing which he requires at their hands.

Such are the excellencies of the Hindoo system; such the arguments which the Missionaries are challenged to answer; and such the faith which would be thought to erect her standard by the side of reason! Our author, after enumerating these and other glorious principles, asks, with an air of triumph, “What is it that the Missionaries propose teaching to the Hindoos?" What is it, in religious concerns, which they do not require to be taught.

He allows there are "many reprehensible customs among the Hindoos, the mere offspring of superstition;" but he contends that " they are not enjoined by the Vedas, and are chiefly confined to certain classes." (p. 69.) "I have no hesitation," he

says, "in declaring, that no branch whatever of their mythology, so far as I understand it, appears, to merit, in the smallest degree, the harsh charges of vice and falsehood." (p. 97.) Yet, to say nothing of things which it would be indecent to mention, Dr.. Buchanan has quoted a number of authorities from their sacred books in favour of the burning of women, and in which such voluntary sacrifices age declared not to be suicide, but, on the contrary, highly meritorious.* And the Institutes of Menu as Sir William Jones observes, are unaccountably relaxed in regard of light oaths, and pious perjury. But these things, and a hundred more, stand for nothing with our author, whose admiration of the general system leads him to forget, as trifling, all such imperfections. "Wherever I look around me," he says, "in the vast region of Hindoo mythology, I discover piety in the garb of allegory: and I see morality at every turn, blended with every tale and as far as I can rely on my own judgment, it appears the most complete and ample system of moral allegory that the world has ever produced!" (p. 97.)

How shall we stand against this tide of eloquence? I will transcribe a passage from Dr. Tennant. "It is curious," says he, "to observe how the indifference, or rather the dislike, of some old settlers in India, is expressed against the system of their forefathers. It is compared with the Hindoo Institutions with an affectation of impartiality, while, in the mean time, the latter system is extolled in its greatest puerilities and follies: its grossest fables are always asserted to convey some hidden but sound lessons of wisdom. They inveigh against the schisms, disputes, and differences of the western world, ascribing them solely to their religious dogmata. They palliate the most fanatical and most painful of the Hindoo rites, and never fail in discovering some salutary influence which they shed upon society. Wrapt up in devout admiration of the beauty and sublimity of the Vedas, they affect to triumph in their supposed superiority over the simplicity of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. This affectation is the more ridiculous, because it is

[PART II. indulged by those who pretend to great taste, and profound knowledge of Sanscrit learning."

If the Doctor's performance had not been written before that of the Bengal Officer, we should almost have supposed he meant to draw bis picture.

This author may suppose that a system so good-natured as to concede the divinity of Christ, (p. 50.) might be expected to receive some concessions in return: but he had better not attempt a compromise, for the systems cannot agree. If he be a heathen, let him cast in his lot with heathens. Let him, if he should get intoxicated, attend to the recipe of his "divine Menu;" let him in order "to atone for his offence, drink more spirit in flame till he severely burn his body; or let him drink, boiling hot, until he die, the urine of a cow, or pure water, or milk, or clarified butter, or juice expressed from cow-dung." (p. 41.) Let him, if he should be vicious, expect to become a dog, or a cat, or some more despicable creature; or, if he be virtuous, let him hope for his reward in the favour of Crishna. (p. 46.) But we are Christians, and have learned another lesson. We have been taught to revere the authority of HIM who hath said, Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.

sy;

Of the Moral Character of the Hindoos.

This is a subject of great importance in the present controverfor if Hindooism produce as good fruits as Christianity, the necessity of attempting the conversion of its votaries, must, in a great degree, if not entirely, be set aside. It is a subject too in which our author has the advantage of us, as it must be more agreeable to the public mind to think favourably than unfavourably of a great people who form now a component part of the empire. Nothing but truth, and a desire to do them good, can justify us in disputing these favourable accounts.

* Thoughts

on the British Government in India, p. 141. Note.