held intercourse with the Divine incarnation Krishna, in a manner suitable to that feeling did the God hold intercourse with him, and it was in this way that he accomplished the salvation of all. Now should you ask why he committed theft, we answer that doing so is the glory of the Godhead, not its shame. He was the Lord of the Universe; and therefore whatever He wanted he took without scruple. The inhabitants of Gokúla too were so delighted with him that, on what pretence soever, they would have him to come to their houses; and, in order to gratify them, he used to go and steal. "Why did he do so? why did he not please them in some other way"? O ye wiseacres have we not already proved that all that God did was right and good? and who are you, great men, that come and propose that he should act precisely as you think fit? If you say that this is not at all your meaning,—that all you maintain is that he ought not to have been guilty of those things which are now immoralities among men, then we ask you why you should not go on to maintain that God must act like men in every respect?

In the history of those on whom men of other religious place their confidence, we find, as has been already clearly shown, actions of the same description as those just mentioned,—some at variance with the common opinion of mankind, some of a reproachful nature, and some strange and miraculous. Why did the incarnations perform a number of strange and miraculous deeds? why did not they act like other men? The answer given to this will equally apply to the objection that is taken to those parts of their conduct that to fools appear to be at variance with the common opinions of mankind. The argument stands thus. As the Being concerned is God and surpasses all in power, and therefore performs such miracles as men cannot perform, so is he superior to the control of any law, and therefore does such actions as men may not do.

A certain Christian Priest makes the following remarks:"God is the Father of all mankind; and no Father gives opposite laws for the government of his children. God has given one Law; and therefore there is but one true religion, and oné true written rule of religion; in the same manner as there is but

one Sun for this earth". For this earth, indeed, there is but one Sun; but in the Universe are there not many Suns? How can the light of one Sun reach those fixed stars which are at an inconceivable distance from it? That they shine by their own light must be allowed on all hands. If a man have two sons, the one wise and the other foolish, will he give them rules according to their respective abilities, or will he give the same rules to both? Although he should prescribe to them different ways according to their talents, yet his intention is one, and that isto make both wise. The same is true of God in his dealings with men.

Another Christian Priest writes as follows:-"In the Sacred Books of the Hindus the gods are said to have had Fathers and Mothers, and different works are ascribed to each, as, for instance, to Brahmá the work of creation, to Vishnu the work of preservation, and to Shiva the work of destruction, and so forth". Now God is no where said to have had a Father and Mother. There is but one God, whose name in the Sanskrita language is Brahma: he is the one God. When this Brahma forms the desire of creating the world, he obtains the name of Brahmá; in the time of preservation he obtains the name of Vishr.u; and at the time of destruction he obtains the name of Shiva. This appears evident from the names of all these gods bearing a particular meaning. From the Sanskrita rootVriha,-which signifies Increase, is derived the word Brahmá; from the root-Visha,-which signifies Encompassing, is derived Vishnu; and Rudru [a name of Shiva] signifying Destructive, is a word known to all. The same is to be understood with respect to all the other gods. That God has a Father and Mother is indeed altogether false; and no where is it said that Brahma sprung from any one. When, however, he became incarnate, he had a Father and Mother, and in this there is nothing surprizing.

This is a partial quotation from a Report of Discussions, held in Bombay, in June 1830.-J. W.

A passage similar to this occurs in a tract which I remember having given to Mora Bhatta. The words are those of a Brahman converted many years ago in the Madras Presidency.—J. W.

Jesus Christ, too, sprung from a woman: he did not fall down from heaven. It is, however, the way of all men to expose the faults of others however small, and never to look to their own however great.

In the late Discussions in Bombay, a certain Christian Disciple made the following observation:-"In order to punish men God does not need to take an incarnation". Excellent remark, indeed! God needs to send his Son to establish the true religion, and to suffer death; and the only thing he needs not do is to take an incarnation.* A man, who could speak in this manner, speaks because he has got a mouth; that's all.

When the whole subject is thus considered, not a single objection remains. This being the case, the person, that still thinks he sees something objectionable in the religion advocated, must attribute this unhappy circumstance to the sin of this or of a former birth. The man who could idly suspect his mother of adultery, when he himself was conceived in her womb, is the only man fitted to suspect and object to his own religion,-the religion of this vast continent of India. Our desire, therefore, is that these arguments, written for the benefit of the people, may, through the blessing of God, become in some measure useful to bring such a one to a knowledge of the true religion.

* In order to punish men?

(END OF THE BHATTA'S TRACT.)

EXPOSURE

OF THE

HINDU RELIGION.

HINDU-DHARMA-PRASID’DHIKARANA.

MORA BHATTA DANDEKARA, with the aid of other Bráhmans, has lately composed a work in the Marát,hì language entitled "The Verification of the Hindu Religion", and called upon me to give a reply. I rejoice on account of its publication, and having read it with the greatest attention, I now beg leave to express my sentiments respecting it. I consider, that its author has fallen into the most serious errors; and while I endeavour to expose these errors, I solicit the candid consideration of my readers. The questions which come before us for discussion respect the Creator of heaven and earth, and the salvation of the souls of men. They ought not to be trifled with, but to be viewed as subjects of the greatest importance. They ought to be treated with humility, with the desire of discovering and receiving the truth, with the most anxious application, and with the

prayer, that God may enlighten the mind. No offence should be taken at the facts which are stated. They should be viewed with patience; and the decision pronounced upon them ought to accord with justice. Let the all-seeing God be our Helper!

The author of the Hindu-dharma-stápaná remarks in the commencement of his tract, that "all men, having, according to their inclination, made minute inquiry practise the observances of religion". I do not see, however, that this is the case. [The generality of mankind, in this country in particular, make little or no inquiry on the subject, and ask nothing about the evidence of religion. They regulate their practice according to the faith which they repose on the words of their parents, and the doctrines of their priests. This procedure is in perfect conformity with what the Bhatta himself admits. He remarks that "all men are naturally stubborn, sinful, and ignorant"; and hence, it is not to be wondered at, that many persons should be found conducting themselves according to a false religion; that they should imagine that by that religion they will be saved; and that they should shew no disposition to enter into the true religion. Were they to make every inquiry in their power, we should undoubtedly see them turn to the right way; but if they make no inquiry, and continuing in ignorance, search not for wisdom, it is not to be expected that they should discover the truth.