ing in itself the light of heaven and the truth of God—I cheerfully engage in a reply to your work, chiefly with a view to explain the fondamental doctrines of Unitarian Christianity, to remove the prejudices that are entertained against its professors, and to correct the misrepresentations which, perhaps, no bad design, but in most cases, and I am willing to hope in yours, only want of information may have occasioned.

Before, however,proceed. ing directly to a consideration of the doctrines you have advanced and the arguments by which you endeavour to support them, I think it desirable to make some general remarks upon the Missionary Controversy with Rammohun Roy, whose Appeals gave occasion to your "Defence," and upon the Rev. T. Scott's Essays on the Deity of Christ &c. &c. which you have deemed of sufficient value to republish and prefix to your own. Both the controversy in which you have thus sought to take a prominent part, and the Essays upon which you have thus stamped your unqualified approbation, furnish abundant proofs of the erroneous views of Unitarianism and the unjust prejudices against Unitarians which are propagated by

more will appear as I advance in the examination of your Essays.

The Missionary Controversy with Rammohan Roy bas received less attention than it deserves. The character of the parties-Christian Missionaries on the one side and a Hindoo Brahmun on the other renders it no. vel and extraordinary; and although most people may consider its details uninter esting, there are, perhaps, few in the religious world by whom its objects or its results will be regarded asunimportant: while both in its origin, progress, aud termination, it suggests somo weighty reflections and fur. nishes some valuable lessons which are worthy to be placed upon record. Ia taking a general view of this Controversy, I shall consider, first, the alleged grounds on which it was begun; secondly, the manner in which it has been conducted, and, thirdly, the effects which it has produced. The first of these particulars will occapy the remaining part of this Letter, and in the remarks which I shall make upon it, I shall confine my attention to the first publication on each side of the question. The first in, the Series is

entitled, "The Precepts of

Jesus the Guide to Peace and Happiness; extracted from the

p.

books of the New Testament as scribed to the Four Evangelists. With translations into Sungscrit and Bengalee. Calcutta: printed at the Baptist Mission Press, Circular Road. 1820;" and consists of four pages of an Introduction, - designed to recommend the Precepts of Jesus as the Guide to Peace and Happiness,and eighty-two pages of Extracts from the Authorized Version of the Four Gospels. Soon after the publication of this work, an article appeared in the Friend of India for February, 1820, No. XX. 23-31, partly by "A Christian Missionary," and partly by the Editor of that periodical, preferring several grave charges against the Compiler of the Precepts of Jesus. On the principle already explained, according to which I have prefixed your name to this Letter, it appears proper to state that Rammohun Roy bas since avowed himself to be the Compiler, that the "Christian Missionary" is commonly understood to be the Rev. Deocar Schmid, of tlie Church Missionary Society, and Chaplain to the European Female Orphan Asylom, and that the Rev. Dr. Marshman of Serampore was the Editor of the Monthly Friend of India at the date of these publications. The subsequent publications

consist only of Replies and Rejoinders, and therefore do not require to be noticed when we are inquiring into the alleged grounds on which the controversy was com menced.

66

1. The first charge which has been brought against Rammohun Roy and against which he has deemed it necessary to appeal, is that of depreciating the value of other parts of the inspired writings, "and of “venturing to intimate, in the Introduc tion, that the dogmatical and historical matter" of the New Testament "so far from be

ing necessary for the iustruo tion, guidance, and comfort of mankind is rather calcu lated to do injury." The following is that part of the Introduction which has been adduced in support of this charge, and it is particularly deserving of attention, as it seems to be almost the only passage that has given ground for the remaining charges also.

"I feel persuaded that by separating from the other mate ters contained in the New Testament, the moral precepts found in that book, these will be more likely to produce the desirable effect of improving the hearts and minds of men of different persuasions and degrees of understanding. For historical and some other pass sages are liable to the doubts and disputes of free-thinkers and antichristians, especially miraculous relations, which are

much less wonderful than the fabricated tales handed down to the natives of Asia*, and consequently would be apt at best to carry little weight with them. On the contrary, mo. ral doctrines tending evidently to the maintenance of the peace and harmony of mankind at Jarge, are beyond the reach of metaphysical perversion, and intelligible alike to the learned and to the unlearned."

I shall now inquire into the justice of this charge and the relevancy of the proof that has been brought in its support; and in order to show that the charge is anjust and the proof irrelevant, I ask nothing more than that the one be compared with the other. Where is the attempt to depreciate the value of other parts of the inspired writings? Where is it said that the dogmati. cal and historical matter of the New Testament is calcalated to do injury? I can discover no sueb attempt: I can trace no sach meaning. To ascribe such a design to the Compiler, and such a tendency to the lan. guage he has employed can be the effect only of a distempered imagination or of

a blind zeal an imagina tion which creates dangers where they are not to be found, or a zeal which seeks for opposition where none is intended.

It may perhaps be said that to represent some parts of the Scriptores as more likely to do good, when detached from the remaining parts than when taken in the connection in which the Sacred Writers have placed them, is, in Mr. Schmid's phraseology, "the ne plus ultra of arrogance." But is it not a fact that the Scriptures, if read at all, must be read in separate portions? Is it not a fact that Missionaries are in the constant habit of distributing the New Testament without the the Old, the Gospels unaccompanied by the Epistles, one Gospel or one Epistle detached from the other Gospels and the other Epis tles, and even a very small part of one book, such as the history of Joseph, or the sermon on the mount, disjoined from the other parts of the same book? Is it not a fact that numerous writers, including Mr. Schmid and yourself, have published Systems of Divinity,Summaries of the Holy Scriptures, and Harmonies of the Gospels in the words of Scrip. ture, but in which almost every passage is separated from the connection in

which it originally stood? By what reasons, then, do these Orthodox Missionaries and writers justify the liberties which they have taken with the sacred text? Obviously by the same reason which Rammohun Roy has assign. ed for the course be has pur. sued. They must bave considered that by thus se. parating, mixing op again, and moulding the language of Scripture into the form which best suited their own taste and judgement,it would be more likely to improve the hearts and minds of men than in its original texture aud shape. The Compiler bas carried this system to a much less extent than the Missionaries have done, and both have done it on precisely the same. principle and with precisely the same object in view, and yet it is the Missionaries who turn round upon him and accuse him of depreciating the rest of the Scriptures and even of representing them as calculated to do injury.

This sameness of principle and object will perhaps be denied, or rather is in fac denied, by alleging that the portions and summaries

of the Scriptures which Missionaries are in the constant habit of distributing are given only as a sample of the whole, whereas the Compilation of the Precepts of Jesus is presented as a

Now

substitute for the rest. it happens that both of these statements are incorrect. It is not correct that Missionaries distribute the separate portions and summaries of the Scripture which they have published, only as spe. cimens. As far as my experience and knowledge extend, I can recollect few. instances in which such an intimation was given, but many in which it was not given, and in which, consequently, the native was left to conclude, that he had been put in possession of the whole of the Christian Scriptures when only a portion of them had been given to him. In such cases it was justly supposed that if he was interested and instructed by the book which he had received he would naturally prosecute his inquiries respecting. Christianity; and this result might he expected to fellow from a perusal of the Precepts of Jesus, as well as from perusal of any Missionary abstract or compilation. Nor is it correct that Ram. mohun Roy proposed to su persede the rest of the Scrip tures by the Precepts of Je. sus. If he did, his language to that effect may be quoted, whereas I have already shown that he has only stated it to be his opinion that the moral precepts of Jesus, when presented alone,

would be more likely to beneAt his countrymen than when mixed up with doctrines, histories, and miracles; and surely to publish the moral precepts of Jesus without these accompaniments cannot be more calculated to "injure the cause of truth"than to publish only THE DOCTRINES of the Bible re. specting the nature, attri. bates, and works of God, as if the religion of the gospel had no connection whatover with morality.

This Mr. Schmid has done in the first and only number yet published of " A Summary of the Holy Scriptores," &ć. "composed in the words of Scripture," both in the Euglish and Bengalee languages. Calcutta, 1820.

In the compilation of this work Mr. Schmid has laid himself open to a charge of as serions a nature as that which he has with so little reason brought against Ram. mohan Roy. Although he professes to have composed it in the words of Scripture, yet he has not hesitated to make various additions which school. boys, converts, catechumens, and other natives for whom chiefly (Ses Advert. p. iv.) it is intended, will be apt to regard as of equal authority with the Scriptures themselves. Thus, the following words are added in p. 46: The nature and attributes of this unknown God will now be made known to you." In In the one 210: p. divine essence there are three persons, called the Father, the

To prove Rammohan Roy's design to depreciate the rest of the Scriptures, it can only be further urged that he has admitted the liability of historical and some other passages to the doubts and disputes of free thinkers and anti-christians. Here an obvious distinction is to be made between the fact of this liability, and the causes of it. The causes of it are not to be found in the falsebood or original obscurity of the scriptures,

Son (or the Word), and the Holy Ghost." In p. 216: The Father ¿s God." In The Son p. 218: is God." In p. 244: "The Holy host is God." To p. 255: There are three that bear re cord in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one Now althongh in the English part of the publication all these addi. tions are distinguished from the language of Scripture by being printed in the Italic character, yet in the Bengalee language no such distiuetion is or can be used, and therefore all native readers, at least, are left to con. clude that Mr. Schmid's addi. tions are the words of inspira tion.

I am aware that in adding the last passage quoted, Mr. Schmid has the example of the Authorized English version to keep him in countenance, but in following it he has de. serted the example of Luther, the Father of the Reformation and the Founder of the Lutheran Church, of which he profesess