*: fmall, indivifible, and perpetual. God, fays he, can neither make nor annihilate these atoms, on account of the love which "he bears to them, and the neceffity of their exiftence; but they are in other refpects totally fubfervient to his pleasure."

Not to be tedious, we fhall only look into this metaphyfical labyrinth. Goutam supposes the vital foul is material, fays Mr. D. by giving it the following properties, number, quantity, motion, contraction, extenfion, divifibility, perception, pleasure, pain, defire, averfion, accident and power. How Mr. D. discovers that Goutam fuppofes perception, defire, &c. as the characteristics of matter, we know not; neither can we conceive the number, quantity or divifibility of a living foul. The Akash, or atoms, which God can neither make nor destroy, were formed by him into the feeds of all productions, when Jive Attima, or the vital foul affociating with them, animals and plants were produced. And thus the greatest act of creation is afcribed to Five Attima, a principle or quality which God did not produce. "The fame vital foul, fays Goutam, which before associated with the atom of an animal, afterwards afsociate with the atom of a man;" the fuperiority of man confifting only in his finer organization. "The follow"ers of the Bedang, fays Mr. Dow, affirm, that there is no "foul in the universe but God; the fect of Neadirfen ftrenuously "hold that there is, as they cannot conceive that God can be "fubject to fuch affections and paffions as they feel in their own "minds, or that he can poffibly have a propensity to evil.” That is, in plain words, fome do, and fome do not think themselves to be God. Wherefore, according to Goutam, the author of the humbler fect, the vital foul is the fource of evil, and is of neceffity

may

co-eternal with the eternal mind. But the neceffity of the co-eter. nity of the vital foul, is as unphilofophical, we apprehend, as the much fuperior agency afcribed to it by Goutam, in the work of creation, is blafphemous and abfurd. Yet Mr. D. has told us, p. lxxvi. that the Hindoo doctrine, while it teaches the pureft morals, is fyftematically formed on philofophical opinions.

Goutam, fays Mr. Dow, admits a particular providence. But "though he cannot deny the poffibility of its existence," fays our author," without divefting God of his omnipotence, he fuppofes "that the Deity never exerts that power, but that he remains in "eternal reft, taking no concern, neither in human affairs, nor in "the course of the operations of nature."

This may be called philofophy, but furely this article in the creed of Goutam is incompatible with the idea of religion, the philofophical definition of which is certainly thus, A filial depend ence on the Creator, fimilar to that of a child who fincerely wishes to render himself acceptable to his father.

"The learned Brahmins, fays Dow, with one voice, deny "the existence of inferior divinities. Their polytheism is only "a fymbolical worship of the divine attributes, and it is much to "be doubted, whether the want of revelation and philosophy, "thofe neceffary purifiers of religion, ever involved any nation "in grofs idolatry, as many ignorant zealots have pretended."

"Under the name of Brimha, they worship the "wisdom and creative power of God; under the appellation of "Bishen, his providential and preserving quality; and under that "of Shibah, that attribute which tends to deftroy."

"Shibah,

"Shibah, fays the fame author, among many others, is known "by the names of Mahoiffur, the great demon; Bamdebo, the "frightful fpirit; and Mohilla, the destroyer."

The fame authority alfo informs us, that they erect temples to Granesh, or policy, whom they worship at the commencement of any defign, represented with the head of an elephant with only one tooth: that they have many figurative images of Brahma, one of which reprefents him riding on a goofe, the emblem of fimplicity among the Hindoos: that they worship Kartic, or fame; Cobere, or wealth; Soorage, or the fun; Chunder, or the moon; the deities of water, fire, &c. befides an innumerable herd of local divinities. In another place, our author confeffes that there are two religious fects in India: "The one,

fays he, look up to the divinity through the medium of reafon "and philosophy; while the others receive as an article of their "belief, every holy legend and allegory which have been tranf"mitted down from antiquity." He confeffes, also, the groffnefs of the vulgar of all countries, who cannot comprehend abftract fubjects. Nay, he fays, it cannot be denied, p. xlix. but that the more ignorant Hindoos do believe in the existence of their inferior divinities, "in the fame manner that Chriftians do in an"gels." Yet, along with all this, Mr. D. is feveral times offended with the charge of idolatry brought against the Brahmins. Fear lefs, however, of the name of ignorant zealot, we will not scruple to affert, that the refined opinions of a very few ought by no means to fix the characteristic of the religion of any country. To call the obvious idolatry of India only a fymbolical worship of the divine attributes, is only to prefent to us a fpecious fhadow which

will disperse and evanish, as foon as the light of just examination fhines upon it.

That the polytheism of Egypt, the worship of dogs, crocodiles, and onions, was only a fymbolical worship of the divine attributes, has been often faid, and with equal juftice. For our part we can diftinguish no difference between the worship of Janus with two faces, or of Brahma with four. The philofophers of Rome were as able to allegorife as thofe of India. The apology for the idolatry of the Brahmins is applicable to that of every nation, and, as an argument, falls nothing short of that of a learned Arab, who about the eleventh century wrote a treatise to prove that there never was fuch a thing as idolatry in the world; for, every man, he faid, intended to worship some attribute of the di vinity, which he believed to refide in his idol.

Nor is a fentiment of Mr. Dow inapplicable to this: "Let us "reft affured, fays he, that whatever the external ceremonies of re

ligion may be, the self fame infinite being is the object of uni"verfal adoration." Yet whatever the metaphyfician may think of this ingenious refinement, the moral philofopher will be little pleafed with it, when he confiders that the vulgar, that is ninetynine of every hundred, are utterly incapable of practising their idolatry, according to this philofophical definition. That the learned Brahmins with one voice affert there is but one fupreme God, has been acknowledged by almost all modern travellers. Xavier himself confeffes this. But be their hidden religion what it will, the Brahmins, in public, worship and teach the worship of idols. To give an account both of the popular and what is

called

talled the philofophical religion of India, is the purpose of this effay. To abstract our view therefore from the popular practice of the country, and to indulge the spirit of encomium on the enlarged tenets of the learned few, is just the fame as if a traveller should tell us there is no popery at Rome, or that the divine miffion of Mohammed is denied at Conftantinople; because at the one place he converfed with a deiftical bifhop, or at the other with a philofophical Mufti. However pleafed therefore the metaphyfician may be with ingenious refinement, the moralift will confider that the queftion is not, how the philofopher may refine upon any system, but how the people will, of confequence, practise under its influence. And on this view alone, he will pronounce it reprehenfible or commendable. That the religion of the Brahmins is highly reprchenfible every moralist must allow, when he confiders, that the moft unworthy ideas of the Divinity, ideas deftructive of morality, naturally arife from idol worship; and the vulgar, it is every where confeffed, cannot avoid the abuse. What can he think of the piety of perftitious Indian, when he worships the great dæmon, the deftroyer, and frightful fpirit? Does he love what he worships? And can piety exift where the object of adoration is hated? Nor can we ftop here; the futility of our refined apology for idolatry will fill appear in a ftronger light. finition avail in the balance of morality, when all the inhuman, impure, and immoral rites of idolatry are laid in the other scale? Palestine, Tyre, and Carthage, made their children "pass "through the fire unto Moloch;" and human facrifices have prevailed at one time or other in every land. The human facrifices of Mexico (of which fee the Introduction) afford the

a poor

fu

What will the de

most