to prove the deity and inspiration of Jesus Christ, on the other hand accuses the same being of having declared, what was totally contrary to the fact, saying, that he condescended to call himself the Son of man, although no man was his Father. I also feel surprized at the inconsistency of the Editor, who, while justifying the above statement respecting his Lord, charges the Hindoo Pouraniks with falsity, because the Poorans, in instructing men of weak understanding, have made allegorical representations of God, though they repeatedly confess the allegorical nature of their instructions and explain their motives for introducing them. Besides, he imputes false representation to one of the commentators of the Ved, and that only in his instructing the ignorant in a parabolical manner, and from this single circumstance he condemns "the whole of the Hindoo System.'

In the very reply of the Editor, I find the phrase "at the right hand of God" quoted by the Editor as a scriptural expression. I therefore beg to know whether the phrase "the right hand of God" implies a true representation of God, or not? I find the following expressions even within the three first chapters of the Bible: "he (God) rested on the seventh day from all his work." "The Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day;" "And (God) said unto him (Adam) where art thou?" Did Moses mean by the term "rested" that God ceased to act from fatigue, and attempt to prove the mutableness of God? Did he mean by the phrase "God walked in the cool of the day" that he moved by means of legs, like men in general, in the cool of the day to avoid the heat of the weather? Or did he mean by the question "where art thou ?" to imply the previous ignorance of the omniscient God? If so, Moses had strange ideas of Jehovah, and but little better than those maintained by his contemporary heathens. I am however inclined to think that Moses made use of these expressions conformably to the understanding of the ignorant Jews of his days, without subjecting himself to the charge of falsehood; and this, I am informed by Christians,

was the opinion of ancient teachers called Fathers of the Church, as well as of many modern learned Christians.

The Editor expresses his joy at "perceiving that the natives have begun to arouse themselves from that state of morbid apathy and insensibility which is a certain symptom of moral death and of universal corruption of manners &c." I cannot help feeling compassion for his total want of knowledge of the literary employment and domestic conduct of the native community at large, notwithstanding his long residence in India. During only a few years past, hundreds of works on different subjects, such as Theology, Law, Logic, Grammar, and Astronomy, have been written by the natives of Bengal alone. I do not wonder that they have not reached the knowledge of the Editor, who, in common with almost all his colleagues, has shut his eyes against any thing that might do the smallest credit to the natives. As to the "moral death" ascribed to them by the Editor, I might easily draw a comparison between the domestic conduct of the natives and that of the inhabitants of Europe, to shew where the grossest deficiency lies; but as such a dispute is entirely foreign to the present controversy, I restrain myself from so disagreeable a subject, under the apprehension that it might excite general displeasure.

As to the abusive terms made use of by the Editor, such as Father of lies alone to whom it (Hindooism) evidently owes its origin" "Impure fables of his false Gods" "Pretended Gods of Hindoos ;" &c. common decency prevents me from making use of similar terms in return. We must recollect that we have engaged in solemn religious controversy and not in retorting abuse against each other.

I conclude this reply with expressing my hope that the Editor on noticing it will arrange his observations methodically, giving an answer to each of my five questions in succession, that the public may judge with facility of the arguments employed on both sides.

THE

BRAHMUNICAL MAGAZINE

OR

THE MISSIONARY AND THE BRAHMUN.

TO BE CONTINUED OCCASIONALLY.

No. IV.

CALCUTTA:

1823.

PREFACE.

Notwithstanding my humble suggestions in the third number of this Magazine, against the use of offensive expressions in religious controversy, I find, to my great surprize and concern, in a small tract lately issued from one of the Missionary Presses and distributed by Missionary Gentlemen, direct charges of atheism made against the doctrines of the Veds, and undeserved reflections on us as their followers. This has induced me to publish, after an interval of two years, a fourth number of the Brahmunical Magazine.

In accordance with the mild and liberal spirit of universal toleration, which is well known to be a fundamental principle of Hindooism, I am far from wishing to oppose any system of religion, much less Christianity; and my regard for the feelings of its professors would restrain me from thus exposing its errors, were they not forced upon my notice by the indiscreet assaults still made by Christian writers on the Hindoo religion. But when they scruple not to wound the feelings of a Hindoo, by attacking the most ancient and sacred oracles of his faith, the inspired Veds, which have been revered from generation to generation, for time immemorial, should he submit to such wanton aggression, without endeavouring to convince these Gentlemen, that in the language of their own Scripture they "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" (Matth. XXIII. 24)? Hence they may at least learn from experience a lesson of Charity, which they are ready enough to inculcate upon others, overlooking, at the same time, the precept given by their God: "Do unto others as you would wish to be done by," implying, that if you wish others to treat your religion respectfully, you should not throw offensive reflections upon the religion of others.

I shall still be extremely glad to enter upon a minute in