attachment to Moheni, disregarding all ideas of decency. And a thousand similar examples must be familiar to every reader of the Poorans. I should be obliged by the learned gentleman's shewing how the contemplation of such circumstances, which are constantly related by the worshippers of these attributes, even in their sermons, can be instrumental towards the purification of the mind, conducive to morality, and productive of eternal beatitude. Besides, though the learned gentleman in this instance considers these attributes to be separate existences, yet in another place he seems to view them as parts of the Supreme Being, as he says: "If one part of the ocean be "adored, the ocean is adored." I am somewhat at a loss to understand how the learned gentleman proposes to reconcile this apparent contradiction. I must observe, however, in this place, that the comparison drawn between the relation of God and those attributes, and that of a king and his ministers, is totally inconsistent with the faith entertained by Hindoos of the present day; who, so far from considering these objects of worship as mere instruments by which they may arrive at the power of contemplating the God of Nature, regard them in the light of independent gods, to each of whom, however absurdly, they attribute almighty power, and a claim to worship, solely on his

own account.

11thly. The learned gentleman is dissatisfied with the objection mentioned in my translation to worshipping these fictitious representations, and remarks, that "the objections to worshipping the attributes are "not satisfactorily stated by the author." I conse

quently repeat the following authorities, which I hope may answer my purpose. The following are the declarations of the Véd: "He, who worships any god

66

66

excepting the Supreme Being, and thinks that he "himself is distinct and inferior to that God, knows nothing, and is considered as a domestic beast of "these gods." "A state even so high as that of "Brahma does not afford real bliss." "Adore God "alone." "None but the Supreme Being is to be "worshipped; nothing excepting him should be "adored by a wise man." I repeat also the following texts of the Védánt: "The declaration of the Véd, "that those that worship the celestial gods are the food "of such gods, is an allegorical expression, and only 66 means, that they are comforts to the celestial gods as "food to mankind; for he who has no faith in the "Supreme Being is rendered subject to these gods. "The Véd affirms the same."

And the revered Sankaracharjya has frequently declared the state of celestial gods to be that of demons, in the Bhasya of the Ishopanishad and of others.

To these authorities a thousand others might be added. But should the learned gentleman require some practical grounds for objecting to the idolatrous worship of the Hindoos, I can be at no loss to give him numberless instances, where the ceremonies that have been instituted under the pretext of honouring the allperfect Author of Nature, are of a tendency utterly subversive of every moral principle.

I begin with Krishna as the most adored of all the incarnations, the number of whose devotees is exceedingly great. His worship is made to consist in the in

L

stitution of his image or picture, accompanied by one or more females, and in the contemplation of his history and behaviour, such as his perpetration of murder upon a female of the name of Pootna; his compelling great number of married and unmarried women to stand before him denuded; his debauching them and several others, to the mortal affliction of their husbands and relations; his annoying them, by violating the laws of cleanliness and other facts of the same nature. The grossness of his worship does not find a limit here. His devotees very often personify (in the same manner as European actors upon stages do) him and his female companions, dancing with indecent gestures, and singing songs relative to his love and debaucheries. It is impossible to explain in language fit to meet the public eye, the mode in which Muhadéva, or the destroying attribute, is worshipped by the generality of the Hindoos: suffice it to say, that it is altogether congenial with the indecent nature of the image, under whose form he is most commonly adored.

The stories respecting him, which are read by his devotees in the Tuntras, are of a nature that, if told of any man, would be offensive to the ears of the most abandoned of either sex. In the worship of Kali, human sacrifices, the use of wine, criminal intercourse, and licentious songs, are included: the first of these practices has become generally extinct; but it is believed that there are parts of the country where human victims are still offered.

Debauchery, however, universally forms the principal part of the worship of her followers. Nigam and other Tantras may satisfy every reader of the horrible

tenets of the worshippers of the two latter deities. The modes of worship of almost all the inferior deities are pretty much the same. Having so far explained the nature of worship adopted by Hindoos in general, for the propitiation of their allegorical attributes, in direct opposition to the mode of pure divine worship inculcated by the Védas, I cannot but entertain a strong hope that the learned gentleman, who ranks even monotheistical songs among carnal pleasures, and consequently rejects their admittance in worship, will no longer stand forward as an advocate for the worship of separate and independent attributes and incar

nations.

12thly. The learned gentleman says, "that the Sa"viour," meaning Christ, "should be considered a "personification of the mercy and kindness of God (I "mean actual not allegorical personification)." From the little knowledge I had acquired of the tenets of Christians and those of anti-Christians, I thought there were only three prevailing opinions respecting the nature of Christ; viz. that he was considered by some as the expounder of the laws of God, and the mediator between God and man; by many to be one of the three mysterious persons of the Godhead; whilst others, such as the Jews, say that he was a mere man. But to consider Christ as a personification of the mercy of God is, if I mistake not, a new doctrine in Christianity, the discussion of which, however, has no connexion with the present subject. I however must observe that this opinion which the learned gentleman has formed of Christ being a personification of the mercy of God, is similar to that entertained by Mus

sulmans, for a period of upwards of a thousand years, respecting Mohummud, whom they call mercy of God upon all his creatures. The learned gentleman in the conclusion of his observations has left, as he says, the doctrines of pure allegory to me. It would have been more consistent with justice had he left pure allegory also to the Véds, which declare, "appellations "and figures of all kinds are innovations," and which have allegorically represented God in the figure of the universe: "Fire is his head, the sun and the moon are "his two eyes," &c.; and which have also represented all human internal qualities by different earthly objects; and also to Vyas, who has strictly followed the Véds in these figurative representations, and to Sankaracharjya, who also adopted the mode of allegory, in his Bhashya of the Védánt and of the Upanishadas.