f ; g
- ! l
ՀՀ8 welfare entirely depends upon such knowledge. For a right conception, therefore, of the purposes of his being, and of his future expectations, the weakness of man's faculties requires to be propped up by that Providence to which be owes his being and the continuance of it; and hence wrises the necessity of revelation. It has thing, however, to do with history, which is no more than a branch of literature, a part of human learning of the secular class and which had no existence until many centuries after the date of the latest revelation in the respective countries, where such revelation is said to have been made. The knowledge derived from the source of inspiration, deals with eternal truths which require no other proof than what the whole creation and the mind of man, unperverted by fallacious reasonings, asso, d in albundance. The evidence of revelation lies more in the matters revealed than in any thing else. The doctrines of religion are, iro doubt, in need of illustrations; but these have been equally well, if not better, founded on fables and parables which were so congenial to human ideas in the early ages of the world, the days of imagination and poetry. The Bible contains what is considered the history of the Jews, amongst whom it originated from the creation down to a certain period in ancient times. The V aids, on the other hand, teach only by addresses to our fancy or by speaking solely to our reason, with merely an intermixture of a few historical facts here and there. But this circumstance can neither add to the authority of the former, nor prove a ground of disparagement to the latter,<not to urge, that a history, which treats of the earliest ages at length but becomes scanty as it approaches modern times, is always to be considered as a very donbtful authority. The sole object which revelation had in view was to invulcate a knowledge of God ; and to teach our duties to him, to ourselves, and to others; tund for this purpose it was not necessary to give a historical view of things. The tenets taught, and the precepts given, were all that had to be looked to, as emanations from divine w skłonn. * lf what we have said above in respect to mysteries and the evidence that can be adduced in proof of the origin of a religion, be true, it is quite clear that the only ground on which the truth of any system of belief can be maintained, is that sountled on the nature of the doctrines inculcated by it. Let us, therefore, just take a glance over the tenets taught by the Vaidant, and then see what the pretensions of the Bible are to any superiority over it. Before we proceed to this, however, a word or two are N# in reply to the charge of pantheism brought against our doctrines. If this term be applied to designate the opinion of those who understand by pantheism that doctrine of theology, according to which God's Spirit is believed to pervade every thing, and every thing is supposed to live through Him, and in Him, there being nothing without Him—it is aundoubtedly the doctrine of the Vaidant, and we do not know, how its truth can be denied; the Bible teaches the same tenet when it declapes to men that “in Hinn we live and move and have onr being” (Acts Chap. 27 v. 28) and also when s | | Ba * 山俗 g ή ங் 嗣 * * * * i, ! * ,' ጳ 'i 輩 鹹 H 鹽 in Ephesians (Chap. 4 W. 5) it speaks of God as “One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all and in you all.” If this be Pantheism charged against our religion we have nothing to do but to ask how the doctrines can be disproved But if by pantheism is meant the opinion of those who consider God and the universe to be one and the same thing, or in other words, who believe that the Great First Couse is not distinct from other existences, and that the universe itself is God, we unhesitatingly *Sort that this is not the doctrine of the Vaidant. . It is indeed this pantheism that we have all along disclaimed, as not forming any part of our belief. Our sacred scriptures Ꮡ] Q where teach, that the universe is God, on the contrary they clearly point out, that lie is entirely distinct from all material existences. ন্তে যদ স্তুরা তদ্বন্ধ অন্য ঐমি:৫ ॥ নেতি নেতি ॥ অশব্দমসাপর্ণমরূপমব্যয়থ তথারসA নিত্যমগন্ধ বচ্চ স্থাৎ ॥ The passages quoted by the Reviewer in proof of his allegations, in this respect. have been misunderstood by him, as will be evident from the itnnexed versions of then in their entire context. 开花入 খালু ° ব্ৰহ্ম তজ্ঞলামিতি ॥ Verily this universe is the manifestation of the power of (iod; from Him it has come into existence and in I lim shall it sink. সদেব সৌম্যেদমগ্র আসীদের মেবাদ্বিতীয় ॥ Good Pupil 1 before this world existed, there was the sole existent Being alone, Ile who is One only without a second. অসদ্বাঈদম আসীহ তভোবৈ সদজায়ত ॥ This world at first was a non-entity, from IIim it became an entity ব্ৰহ্মলেদ ব্রহ্মৈব ভবতি ॥ সোংশ্বাতে সৰ্ব্বান কামান সচ ব্রহ্মণ বিপশ্চিতেতি। Ise who knows God becomes like God in wisdom and happiness. lie enjoys all felicity with the ()mmiseierìt Brahm এতদাল স্কন ডলাভৰ ব্ৰহ্মলোকে মঙ্গীতে ॥ “By knowing God a man ascends the Brahm Loak, the highest heaven.” Though Shankaracharya explains the text thus ; “man having acquired the knowledge of God becomes revered like him” he does not thereby mean that man is actually worshipped as the Supreme Being in the strict literal sense of the phrase, but merely indicates the high glory which the worshi ɔper of Brahm arrives at. In like manner the 醬 itself has elsewhere said: অস্মৈ দেবার লিমাকরন্তি ॥ The celestial beings adore him the worshipper bf Brahm. The text does not mean that the heavenly deitiço do regularly or occasionally perform the worship of the devotee, but merely implies that the latter attains superiority even over the heavenly beings. ন জায়তে ম্ৰিয়তে বা বিপশ্চিৎ। The Omniscient Being is weitber born noràieì.
