On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
which have qqvgv been regarded as authority , they always represent the Hindoo religion as yery base . "— -Pp , 21 , 22 .
In the passage next to be quoted , the reader will find a striking instance of the retort theological , of which we have spoken : " With a view to prove the errors of the Poorans and Tuntrus , you say , that the Foorans represent God as possessed
of various names and forms , as possessed of a wife and children , and as subject to the senses and to the discharge of bodily functions ; from which it follows that there are many gods , that they are subject to sensual pleasure , and
that the omnipresence of God cannot be maintained . I therefore humbly ask the Missionary gentlemen , whether or not they call Jesus Christ , who is possessed of the human form , and also the Holy Ghost , who is possessed of the dove shape , —the very God ? And whether
they do not consider that Jesus Christ , the very God , received impressions by the external organs , eyes , &c , and operated by means of the active organs , hands , &c . ? And whether or not they consider him as subject to all the human passions ? Was he angry or not ? Was his mind afflicted or not ? Did he
experience any suffering or pain ? And did he not eat and drink ? Did he not live a long time with his own mother , brothers and relations ? Was he not born , and did he not die ? And did not the
Holy Ghost , who is the very God , in the form of a dove , remove from one place to another ? r— if they acknowledge all this , then they cannot find fault with the Poorans , alleging that in them the names and the forms of God are
established , and that according to them God must be considered as subject to the senses , aud as possessing senses and organs ; and that God must be considered as having a wife and child , and as not possessed of omnipresence on account of his having a form . Because all these
errors , viz ., the plurality of gods , their sensual indulgence and their locality , are applicable to themselves in & complete degree . To say that every thing , however contrary to the laws of nature , is possible with God , will equally afford a pretence to Missionaries and Hindoos in
support of their respective incarnations . The aged Vyas h ^ is spoken truth in the Muhabharut : ' O king ! a person sees the faults of another although they are like the grains of mustard seed ; but < ilthoiig ] h hiq own faults £ ire big as the Bel fruit , looking at them he cannot perceive tfaein . ' Moreover , the Poorans fiay that the names , forms and sensual
Untitled Article
indulgence qi God which lye tyav& men * , tioned , are fictitious ; and we h ^ ve so spoken with a view to engage the minds of persons of weak undersjandipg ; but the Missionary gentlemen say th ^ t the account \ vhich is given in the BiWe of
the names , forms and sensual indulgence of God is real . Therefore the plurality of gods , their locality and subjection tp sensual indulgence , are faults tp be fbuqd in a real sense , only in the system of tfye Missionary gentlemen . Secondl y ^ the Hindoo Poorans aud Tuntrus , in whicli
the fictitious account is given , are sub * prdinate to the Ved , but are pot the very Ved itself : when they cJis # gree witli the Ved their authority is not regarded . 1 When the Ved and the Poorans disagree , the Ved must be regarded ; pious men will always explain the PooFan ,
&c , in agreement with whaf the Ve $ declares : ' Quotation by the Sinartta . — But the Missionary gentlemen consider the Bible as their Ved , and in explaining it have in this manner dishonoured God in a real sense . A real , error therefore ^ find a , p excess of error is discovered ia their own system . " - —^ P p . 32-H ? 4 .
Not contented with answering objections , Sbivu-Prusad Surjna take § bis turn to ask questions . He says of the Missionaries , " They call Jesus Christ the Soa of God and the very God , " and then demands , ** How can the Son be the very Father ? " The Missionaries reply , < f that the Bible no where says that the Son is the Father /* The Brahmin answers .
Christian teachers profess that God is one , and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God , and the very God . Hence I naturally concluded , that they believe the Son to be the Father , and consequently questioned the reasonableness of sueh a doctrine . For when a person affirms
that such a one , say James , is one , ant } that John is his son , and again says tha ^ t John is actually James , we should naturally conclude that he means that John the sou is James the father , and be at liberty to ask , how can John the son be
James the father ? But as the Editor , a leading minister of that religion , declares that ' the Bible no where sa ^ s that the Son is the Father , but says that the Sou is equal to the Father in nature and essence , ' and * distinct in person , * &c . and recommends me to reflect on
mankind , of whom * every son who has not the same human nature with bis father , mu « t be a monster ; " it woulid be too much boldness on my part to xlvp preference tq my apprehension of the meaning of the Bible over that of the Editor .
Untitled Article
Review . -rr-Ea $ t-fndi& Unitarian Tracts 35 ?
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1824, page 357, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2525/page/37/
-