English
When immediately after the first and fatal transgression of man, a promise was given that " the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpenti but that the serpent should bruise his heel " however obscure these expressions 154 may be, yet we may fairly interpret them to signify, that a future deliverer should appear, assuming a double charafter, both suflfering and triumphant : so far we may be allowed to go, but no farther. We may imagine it probable, that some additional information was given con- cerning this extraordinary personage ; but we have no right to argue that there really was. We have no right to assume, that the promise extended so far as to predift, that this personage should be divine, or rather the divinity itself j still less that any intimation was given concerning the time of his appearance^ or concerning -the place where he should appear. But if it be found that the incarnation of the divinity, by his own will and pleasure, was a doftrine of universal extent, and unquestionable antiquity ; if this do£lrine be found generally current throughout the East, and forming a leading article of their popular creed ; if it be found also diffused throughout the western world, and taught by those philosophers who had acquired a knowlege of oriental learning j if it be also discovered that this opinion was more than ordinarily predomi- nant at the time of the appearance of Christ j if it be proved that the Jews vwere, at that time, in such a state of depression, as to be the con- tempt and derision of the nations around them j 155 and that if the rumour had entirely originated from them, it would have neither been entitled to any credit, nor would have been imputed to any other motive than national vanity ; if above all it be found that all these distindl circumstances are transmitted to us, not by <3hristians, but by some who were indifferent, and by. others who were hpstile, to the Christian cause ; if we conne£t all this iiifofmation with the'written promise con- tained in the history of Moses, we may fairly and reasonably infer, that the written promise was pnly the substance of what was more fully com- municated to the early world, and which, com- munication traditional authority has thus contri- buted to preserve. , But in this method of reasoning, however 'corre£t the general principle may be, there is a pecessity for caution in its exercise and applica- tion. Of all authority, traditional authority is the most equivocal and least satisfactory. As infor- mation, conveyed through this channel, is always liable to corruption, by the addition'' of foreign circumstanc-es, it must on that account, be dif- ficult to trace the original truth through the mazes of error. That all Pagan mythologies are founded on 15 real revelation, is a position, which though gene- rally true, is true only to a certain extent : this assertion must be understood with several import- ant and interesting limitations. In no instance have learning and ingenuity been more unsuc- cessfully direfted, thati in unravelling their intri- cacies, and especially in referring them to one cause. To explain every hieroglyphical symbpl, to reconcile every physiological solecism, to reduce every poetical hyperbole, and to unravel > evexy astronomical enigma, with the avowed design of discovering through those shadows, some important ^reality ; even if the principle were in itself just, coujd never be executed in such a manner as to command a reluftant assent, and still less to enforce a rational convifilion. Much of the antient Pagan creed and ritual is doubtful in its origin, much is absolutely inex- plicable, and much, if it were capable of expla- nation, would perhaps be found to have its rise in causes trivial and absurd, Neither will the gre?it truths and mysteries of the Christian Revelation ever gain credit, by such an injudicioils mode of defence ; but on the contrary, its utility and its necessity will be less conspicuous, and may even appear problematical. Let us not, through a blind zeal, to prove that 157 all false religions are shadows of tlie true, confer on the aerial form the substance^ the sinews, the vitality, and the vigor which are the property of the living original : let us not make the true religion itself nothing; rnore than an unmeaning _ replicate of. the false. All that . we should in fairness contend for, because all that Ve can salisfaftorily prove is, that, .a few prominent features af the true religion are visible through the mask (if deformity, which polytheism , has superinduced ; with this^additional circumstance, that these lines must be more clearly discernible in the countiiieg. situated nearest , to the seat of primeval tradition. ' This preliminary view of the subjefl was absolutely necessary, to enable us to enter into the discussion ; proposed J and will supply us with some necessary cautions, in aid ; of our judgment^ when we ;attefnpt to delineate those proofs, still; to be discovered in the Brahminical system, and which point to a higher and uncor- rupted original. ' The first grand do£trine of prihieval revelation prevalent in all the mythologies of the Heathen world, though not generally insisted on, and seldom considered jn its-true light, is that which 158 constitutes the basis of every true religion, the doftrine of the Unity of God. However the forms of Paganism may be varied, yet in asserting this important truth they all agree. " From all the properties of man and nature" (is the- language of an eminent writer) " from all the various branches of science, from all the deduftions of human reason, the general corollary admitted by Hindoos, Tartars, and' Arabs, by Persians and Chinese, is the supremacy of an all-creating and all-preserving spirit, in- finitely wise, good, and powerful ; but infinitely removed from the comprehension of his most exalted creatures."! While the universal voice of tradition proclaims that the religion of the primitive world was something more than pure deism, the same au- thority attests that this religion was nothing difi'erent from the worship of the one true God j and fully rebuts the notion^ that polytheism and idolatry were the oldest religion, on which the doftrine of the Unity of God was a refinement. If this had been the case, the opinion might have found its way into the systems of speculat ive I SirW.JonM, 159 philosophers, who might be supposed to entertain exalted conceptions concerning the divine nature ; it might, have animated the language of their poets, who in the sutjlimity of their conceptions, frequently rise higher'' than their philosophers themselves j but would never have fiarmed a leading article of popular belief, would never unexpeQiedly' appear in those very writings, which in other placesinculcate the most degrad- ing and licentious ideas of the divine Being, and which prescribe a mode of worship, in direft co!ntradi£lion to his unity and spirituality. The doftrine of a pure and invisible Spirit is so totally abhorrent from idolatry, and yet is so frequently expressed and acknowleged in those writings, which inculcate the grbssest idolatry, that it is impossible to consider this tenet as belonging to them. It is a tenet so entirely incongruous, that it must have been derived from a source foreign and extrinsical: it is like a solitary figure in a painting, which differs from the rest of the groupe, and betrays the hand of a <iifferent master. The Brahminical redords, although they often display most absurd and degrading idccfe of the Deity, yet occasipna,lly speak of him in a lan- guage truly noble and, exalted. It has been i6o truly said, that the philosophical treatise of the Geeta was designed to reform the abuses which, had been introduced into the Hindoo religion; and more particularly to inculcate the doQrine of the Unity of God : but the other, and more ancient sacfed books of the Brahmins, not less strenuously enforce the same truth. ; Their great legislator describes him as "the sole self-existing power, he whom the mind alone can perceive, whose essence eludes the external organs, who. has no visible parts, who exists from eternity, even the soul of all beings, , whom no being can comprehend."" The desctiption. of the Deity exhibited in the Vedas has been compared, and not unaptly, with ;the ;dd£trlnes contained in the first Article of the Church of England. Although the Brahmins have expressed the different powers of God and nature, by intro- ducing different personifications of the Deity into their worship ; although^ at a subs,equent period, they expressed these powers by images suited to their own licentious imaginations, yet concerning their supreme Divinity it is written : " of him who is so great thereiis no image."; ^ Menu, c. 1, V. 6i 7. " Colebrooke on the V6das, AsUt. Res, v. S. i6^i . .. Though the Hindoos hav6 represented the creating,' preserving, and destroying powers of , nature, by different divine personages, yet that they are to be understoo|i in'a mystical, and not in a real sense; that they denote qualities, arid not persons, the fol'lovving paissage which has before been cited' on the subjeft, may again be quoted as- decisive. "You are hot to consider Vishnu, Brahma, and Mahdeva, and other incorporate beings^ as the' Deity, although they have each of them the denoniiriation of Deva or divine. They are all created'; while the supreme B^Ing is without beginning , or end, unformed, and uncreated : worship and adore him. " The worship Which is paid to inferior Deities and to the representations of them, proceeds from this.