"confined to those objects only which are evident to your senses." As far as my recollection goes with respect to the contents of my publications, both in the native language and in English, I believe I never denied the materiality of God, on the mere ground of its not being evident to our senses. The assertion which I quoted, or made use of in my former treatise, is, that the nature of the God-head is beyond the comprehension of external and internal senses; which, I presume, implies neither the denial of the materiality of God, on the sole ground of his being invisible, nor the limitation of my faith merely to objects evident to the senses. For many things that far surpass the limits of our senses to perceive, or experience to teach, may yet be rendered credible, or even demonstrated by inferences drawn from our experience. Such as the mutual gravitation of the earth and moon towards each other, and of both to the sun; which facts cannot be perceived by any of our senses, but may be clearly demonstrated by reasoning drawn from our experience. Hence it appears, that a thing is justly denied only when found contrary to sense and reason, and not merely because it is not perceptible to the senses.

66

I have now to notice the friendly advice given me by the learned Brahman (in p. 23, 1. 16): "But at all events, divest yourself of the uneasy sensations you profess to experience at witnessing the "worship paid to idols, prepared at the expense and labour of "another." In thanking him for his trouble in offering me this counsel, I must, however, beg the learned Brahman to excuse me, while I acknowledge myself unable to follow it; and that for several reasons. 1st. A feeling for the misery and distress of his fellowcreatures is, to every one not overpowered by selfish motives, I presume, rather natural than optional. 2ndly. I, as one of their countrymen, and ranked in the most religious sect, of course participate in the disgrace and ridicule to which they have subjected themselves, in defiance of their scriptural authority, by the worship of idols, very often under the most shameful forms, accompanied with the foulest language, and most indecent hymns and gestures. 3rdly. A sense of the duty which one man owes to another, compels me to exert my utmost endeavours to rescue them from imposition and servitude, and promote their comfort and happiness.

He further observes (p. 30, 1. 16). "In the like manner, the "King of kings is served equally by those worshippers who are "acquainted with His real essence, and by those who only recognize

"Him under the forms of the deities; but in the future distribution "of rewards a distinction will be made." As the learned Brahman confesses, that the same reward is not promised to the worshippers of figured deities as to the adorers of the Supreme Being, it seems strange that he should persist in alleging that God is truly worshipped in the adoration of figured gods; for if the worship be in both cases the same, the reward bestowed by a just God must be the same to both; but the rewards are not the same to both, and therefore the worship of figured deities cannot be considered equal to the adoration of God.

In the same page (1. 7), he compares God to a mighty emperor saying, "As a mighty emperor travels through his kingdom in the "garb of a peasant, to effect the welfare of his subjects, so the King "of kings pervades the universe, assuming a divine, or even a human 'form, for the same benevolent purpose." This comparison seems extremely objectionable, and the inference from it totally inadmissible. For a king being ignorant of things out of the reach of his sight, and liable to be deceived respecting the secrets and private opinions of his subjects, may sometimes be obliged to travel through his kingdom, to acquire a knowledge of their condition, and to promote their welfare personally. But there can be obviously no inducement for an omnipotent being, in whose omniscience also the learned Brahman, I dare say, believes, to assume a form in order either to acquaint himself with the affairs of men, or to accomplish any benevolent design towards his creatures.

He again observes, that these figures and idols are representations of the true God, a sight of which serves, as he alleges, to bring that Being to his recollection (p. 30, 1. 5): "They are as pictures, which "recall to the memory a dear and absent friend, or like the worship of the moon, reflected in various waters."

This observation of the learned Brahman induces me to suppose that he must have formed a notion of the Godhead quite strange and contemptible: for it is almost impossible for a man, who has a becoming idea of God's superiority to all creatures, to represent Him, as the Hindoos very often do, in a form so shameful, that a description of it is prohibited by common decency, or in a shape so ridiculous as that piebald kite called Kshemankari, and that of another bird called Nilkanth, or of jackals, &c. And it is equally difficult to believe that a rational being can make use of such objects to bring the All-perfect Almighty Power to his recollection.

He further says (p. 31, 1. 32): “If any one assert that the case is "otherwise, that the deities, mankind, the heavens, and other objects "have an existence independent of God, that faith in him is sufficient "without worship, that they (the deities) cannot meet with reverence, "how can that person affect to disbelieve the doctrine of independent "existence, or assert that he is a believer in universality or a follower of the Vedanta?" To acquit myself from such gross but unfounded accusation as that of my believing material existence to be independent of God, I repeat a few passages from the abridgment of the Vedanta. (P. 10, 1. 29): "Nothing bears true existence excepting God." Again in 1. 31, "The existence of whatever thing that appears "to us, relies on the existence of God." Besides, there is not, I am confident, a single assertion in the whole of my publications, from which the learned Brahman might justly infer that I believed in the independent existence of deities, mankind, the heavens, or other objects. The public, by an examination of these works, will be enabled to judge how far the learned Brahman has ventured to brave public opinion, in the invention of arguments for the defence of idolatry.

He again says (p. 34, 1. 28): "If, by the practice of the prescrib"ed forms in a church, a temple, or a mosque, God be worshipped "how can he be dishonoured by being worshipped under the form of "an image, however manufactured?" Those who contemplate God in a church or a mosque, or elevate their minds to a notion of the Almighty Power in any other appropriated place, for the sake of good example, never pay divine homage to those places; but those that pretend to worship God under the form of an image, consider it to be possessed of divine nature, and at the same time, most inconsistently, as imbued with immoral principles. Moreover, the promoters of the worship of images, by promulgating anecdotes illustrative of the supposed divine power of particular idols, endeavour to excite the reverence of the people, and specially of pilgrims, who, under these superstitious ideas, are persuaded to propitiate them with large sacrifices of money, and sometimes even by that of their own lives. Having so far entered into this subject, the learned Brahman will, I hope, be convinced of the impropriety of the analogy which he has drawn between a worship within a certain material object and a worship of a material object.

As to his question (p. 34, 1. 32), "Is the sight of the image unpleasing?" My answer must be affirmative. It is extremely natural

that, to a mind whose purity is not corrupted by a degrading superstition, the sight of images which are often of the most hedious or indecent description, and which must therefore excite disgust in the mind of the spectator, should be unpleasing. A visit to Kalighat,* or Burahnugur, † which are only four miles distant from Calcutta, will sufficiently convince the reader of the unpleasant nature of their beloved images. He again asks in the same page, (1. 33): "Will a "beloved friend be treated with disrespect by being seated on a chair, "when he arrives in your house, or by being presented with fragrant "flowers and other offerings?" To which I shall say, no; but at the same time I must assert that a friend worthy of reverence would not, we may be sure, be at all pleased at being exhibited semetimes in a form, the bare mention of which would be considered as a gross insult to the decorous feelings of the public; and sometimes in the shape of a monkey,§ fish,|| hog,¶ or elephant,** or at being represented as destitute of every virtue, and altogether abandoned. Nor would he believe his host to be possessed of common sense, who, as a token of regard, would altogether neglect his guest, to go and lay fruits and flowers before his picture.

It is said (p. 39, 1. 23): "In the accounts of ancient Greece we "meet with the worship of idols, and the practice of austerities; but "these acts have been contemned by the more enlightened moderns." I am really glad to observe that the learned Brahman, more liberally and plainly than could be expected, confesses that idolatry will be totally contemned as soon as the understanding is improved. I, however, beg leave to remark on this instance, that though the idolatry practised by the Greeks and Romans was certainly just as impure, absurd, and puerile as that of the present Hindoos, yet the former was by no means so destructive of the comforts of life, or injurious to the texture of society, as the latter. The present Hindoo idolatry being made to consist in following certain modes and restraints of diet (which according to the authorities of the Mahabharata and other histories were never observed by their forefathers), has subjected its unfortunate votaries to entire separation from the rest of the world, and also from each other, and to constant inconveniences and distress.

The temple of Kali.

Under which Siva is adored.

The first incarnation of Vishnu.

Where there are twelve temples dedicated to Siva, § Hanuman.

¶The third incarnation of Vishnu.

** Ganesh.

A Hindoo, for instance, who affects particular purity, cannot even partake of food dressed by his own brother, when invited to his house, and if touched by him while eating, he must throw away the remaining part of his meal. In fact, owing to the observance of such peculiar idolatry, directly contrary to the authorities of their scripture, they hardly deserve the name of social beings.

The learned Brahman further says (p. 23, 1. 3): “If you affirm "that you are not an infidel, but that your arguments are in conformity "with those of the philosophers who were ignorant of the Vedas," &c. A remark of this kind cannot, I am sure, be considered as at all applicable to a person who has subjected himself to this writer's remarks only by translating and publishing the principal parts of the Veda, and by vindicating the Vedanta theology, and who never advanced on religious controversy any argument which was not founded upon the authorities of the Vedas and their celebrated commentators. It is, however, remarkable that, although the learned Brahman and his brethren frequently quote the name of the Vedas and other Sastras, both in writing and in verbal discussion, they pay little or no attention in practice to their precepts, even in the points of the most important nature, a few of which I beg leave to notice here.

1st. The adoration of the invisible Supreme Being, although exclusively prescribed by the Upanishads, or the principal parts of the Vedas, and also by the Vedanta, has been totally neglected, and even discountenanced, by the learned Brahman and his followers, the idol-worship, which those authorities permit only to the ignorant, having been substituted for that pure worship.

2ndly. Angira and Vishnu, and also the modern Raghunandana,. authorize a widow to burn herself voluntarily along with the corpse of her husband; but modern Brahmans, in direct opposition to their authority, allow her relations to bind the mournful and infatuated widow to the funeral pile with ropes and bamboos, as soon as she has expressed a wish to perform the dreadful funeral sacrifice, to which the Brahmans lend a ready assistance.

3rdly. Although an acceptance of money or of a present in the marriage contract of a daughter is most strictly prohibited by the Vedas and by Manu (texts 98 and 100 of chap. 9), yet the sale of

• A person of this description is distinguished by the name of Swayampaka, one who is his own cook.