DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9550#0214
SECOND DEFENCE OF THE
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 sightr
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 omni-
science also the learned Brahmun, I dare say, believes,
to assume a form in order either to acquaint himself
with the affairs of men, or to accomplish any bene-
volent 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 Brahmun 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,.
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 sightr
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 omni-
science also the learned Brahmun, I dare say, believes,
to assume a form in order either to acquaint himself
with the affairs of men, or to accomplish any bene-
volent 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 Brahmun 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,.