in

also used by Christians to denote those who are neither Atheists nor Deists, Jews, Mohummudans, nor Christians, but pagans or idolaters. Although in both cases it expresses rather the misfortune than the fault of those to whom it is applied, yet it is always understood to imply those who use it a conscious. ness of superiority; superior privilege, superior knowledge, superior sanctity; in short, all those feelings of spiritual pride, arrogance, and contempt, which in the present day are as familiar to the Pharisaic Christian as they formerly were to the Pharisaic Jew. Dr. Marshman and Rammobun Roy are, neither of them, Jews; and therefore in the first sense it is equally applicable to both. Again they are, neither of them, worshipers of idols; and therefore in the second sense it is not applicable to the one or the other. Now it was evident ly not in the first but in the second sense of the term that Dr. Marshman applied it to Rammohan Roy, thus desiguating him as an idolater, although his reason, ings against idolatry had been published at least four years before he compiled the

ྃ

Precepts of Jesus," and although singly he has done more for the overthrow of

"

idolatry in Bengal than all the European Missionaries put together. In such cir cumstances, it was as un just as it was invidious in Dr. Marshman to apply this epithet to Rammohug Roy; and that the latter should vindicate himself from this stigma was due to his own character and principles,

That “the spi rited manner" in which be did this should apparently bave met with your appro bation, will, I should think, afford him some degree of satisfaction. But you drew too hasty an inference when you concluded that because he would not permit any man to call him a heathen, therefore he was in a fair way of soon becoming a Trinitarian. There does not at first view ap pear so striking a contrast between heathenism and Trinitarianism as to imply that he who renounces the one must necessarily or will probably embrace the other on the contrary the Rev. Mr. Maurice and other Trinitarian writers have endeavoured to show that almost all heathens are in one sense Trinitarians; for that a Divine Triad or Trinity is to be found in almost every known system of idolatry whether of aucient or of modern times.

You go on to speak of "the appeal that he made

prove his right to the title of a Christian" as still further justifying the expectations which you had formed. Dr. Marshman had denied that title to Rammo. bon Roy. Rammohun Roy, says the "meek" Editor of the Friend of India, will readily perceive that as we belong to that class who think that no one can be a real Christian without beljeving the Divinity and the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the Divine Authority of the whole of the Holy Scriptures, while we most cordially wish that he were altogether such, we could not term him a Christian without a violation of our own principles." ." No one can doubt the cordiality of Dr. Marshman's wish that all men's understandings were shaped to an exact conformity with his own, but he has not made it ap pear that he was under an absolute necessity of cal ling Rammohun Roy a hea then, because he could not conscientiously call him a Christian. Besides from whom has Dr. Marshman received the power to determine who are and who are not real Christians? If from heaven, let him assert bis Divine commission and produce the evidences of it. If not, it will be judged that he is aiming to exhibit at Serampore a miniature resem

blance of his Holiness at Rome. The name of Christian associates the person thus denominated with one who so pre-eminently centred in himself every ba man excellence, that he must have little self-respect who is acquainted with the cha racter of Christ and yet de clines to receive it; and, on the other hand, it imposes obligations so powerful and salutary that to deny it to any one who is desirous of assuming it is an act of the greatest cruelty to the indi. vidual and a real injury to society at large. Why should it be thought, as many think, that there is any thing difficult or mysterious in the application of this name to particular individuals? A Mobummudan is one who believes that Mohummud is the last and greatest of God's prophets and messengers. Why should not be bo deemed a Christian who simply believes in the Divine mission and ultimate authority of Christ? But this does not suit Dr. Marshman. According to him a Christian is not one who implicitly submits to the authority of Christ, who believes whatever it can be ascertained he taught, who practises whatever it appears he enjoined, and who acknowledges every book of portion of scripture accors

ding as it can be proved genuine, authentic, or inspired. No. A Christian is one who receives Dr. Marsh. man's interpretations of the words of Christ, who believes the doctrines of Christ just as Dr. Marshman believes them, and who acknowledges the authority of those books which Dr. Marshman will at some future period inform bim Constitute "the whole of the Holy Scriptures." Dr. Marshman's definition of a Christian involves conse quences of which he himself was not fully aware. It consists of two parts, the first relating to the doctrines and the second to the books of Scripture. With respect to the latter, I should like to know whether he himself believes in "the Divine Authority" of the History of Bel and the Dragon. If he does not, then he rejects what has been declared to be a part of "the Holy Scriptures" by one quite as infal lible as himself, and consequently, according to his own definition, he himself is not a Christian. Again, I 'should like to know whether he considers the Epistle of James and the ReveJation of John to be parts of the Holy Scriptures." If he does, he will be sur prized to learn, I should father say, to be reminded, that Luther utterly rejected

the one, and Calvin doubted the authority of the other and consequently, according to his definition, two of the most orthodox and most successful Re formers of the Christ an religion in modern times were not Christians. With respect to the doctrinal part of the definition would only remark that Chillingworth, the cham pion of Protestantism and the Bible, the profound and philosophic Locke, and Sir Isaac Newton whose name, as well as those of the two former, is constantly employed to rebut the exclus sive pretensions of Infidelity to genius and talent and learning-these three, according to all the evidence which has hitherte been produced, were Unftarians, and consequently, in Dr. Marshmau's jadge ment, were Nor Christians. It might almost be supposed that, by placing Rammohan Roy in such company, De Marshman intended to pay him a high compliment, even at the expense of denying him the Christian name. And although Ram moban Roy successfully proved both his own right and theirs to that title, yet I cannot perceive that ho thereby furnished you with any just ground to expect his conversion to Trinitari anism. Such an expecta

tion could be formed ou such a ground only by confounding Christianity and Trinitarianism with each other; and although in your mind they are identical and you have therefore an undoubted right to say that they are so, yet you are not ignorant that there are many who think them diametrically opposed, and you were therefore not justified in supposing that because he wished to be considered a Christian, be would soon bave no objection to be called a Trinitarian.

The next circumstance on which you grounded your disappointed expectations was "the condescension of the Editor of" the Friend of India to answer" Rammobun, Roy on his own terms." I am at loss-to know what you mean by Rammohun Roy's "terms" except that he insisted upon not being called a beathen, and preferred a claim to be considered and treated as a Christian. With respect to the former epithet Dr. Marshman justified the application of it to Rammohun Roy, and although the castigation he received from his opponent prevented him from repeating it, yet he subsequently has had recourse to language equally offensive. With respect to the latter title he bas uniformly and in various

forms of expression denied Rammohun Roy's claim to it. These facts lead me to suppose that you must have referred to something else when you speak of Dr. Marshman's having ада swered him "on bis own terms;" but as you have not afforded any other clao to your meaning I must leave it in the obscurity in which I find it. This is so much the greater from my ut ter inability to find any thing in Dr. Marshman's management of this controversy even remotely approaching to "condescension;" or any thing in Rammohun Roy's management of it which called for the exer cise of this virtue from his opponent. Admitting, however, that Dr. Marsh man's “condescension" was required by Rammohun Roy's character or conduct, and that it was as great as you would have it to be, you certainly over-rate its probable effect upon him. Could you seriously expect that, any act of " condescension" from Dr. Marshman or from any one else would stand in place of reasoning and argument to convince him of the doctrine of the Trinity? And were you really surprized at your own disappointment? Every honest man must lament that such a means should bave been expected to contribute to

such an end; and must rejoice that it proved ineffectual.

You next speak of “the frequent intercourse that be held with Christians of va rious denominatious" as affording grounds for the hopes you once entertained. This intercourse certainly furnished him with some very favourable opportunities of making himself ac. quainted with the peculiar opinions and practices of different Christian sects, and the grounds of them. Generally speaking, the members of one Christian sect have little intercourse with the members of all other Christian sects; and in the limited intercourse which the professors or mimisters of different sects bave with each other they are so distrustful of each other's temper and so afraid of quarrelling, that a friendly conversation about the points on which they differ, is almost, if not altogether, a thing unknown. Each wraps himself up in the mantle of his own orthodoxy and pities the errors of others without en deavouring, or rather without being permitted to endeavour, amicably to remove them. A's all were desirous of having Rammohan Roy for a convert, he had Constant access them all and freely discussed

to

with the professors of each sect their respective pecu liarities. He was equally conversant with Episcopalians and Presbyterians, and you will think that he decided justly and fairly when he preferred the simple forms and the tolerant orthodoxy of the latter, as these have been for the most part exhibited in Ćalcutta, to the pompous ser vices and the damnatory creed of the former. was equally conversant with Churchmen and Dissenters, and you will give him credit for doing justice to your own principles when he preferred the dignified indes pendence of unprivileged Dissent to that subservi

He

The advocates of the Chur. ches by law established Wilk urge, that the independence of Dissent is sometimes more nominal than real-that Dis. senting Ministers bave learned from their "superiors" to dic tate to each other-Dissenting Congregations to dictate to their Pastors and Dissenting Pastors to dictate to their Congregations--and that Dis. sent on the whole is more unfriendly to true independence of character than the mild and tolerant sway of an Episcopal' or Presbyterian hierarchy. The premises are admitted, but the conclusion is denied. Many Dissenters act inconsistently with their professed principles, but the genuine tendency of these principles is to free the mind from every undue bias and to produce a deep and