tion or to the quotation from it contained in a preceding page, for the probable grounds upon which it rests. I shall have occasion, in a subsequent letter, to expose the gross and shameless misrepresentation of the Unitarian Doctrine which the above paragraph contains. At present I only remark that a writer can expect little credit to be given to his assertions who classes "rectitude of intertion" among the depraved principles of human nature, which it is the proper business of the Saviour to redace mankind to the necessity of surrendering. If Unitarianism were, in its leading principles, what he bas described it, or, in its practical requirements, what he has represented his own system to be, I should never be found among its advocates. These ravings of an ignorant and intemperate zeal against Unitarians "in Britain and on the Continent" \are mixed up with similar accusations against Ram mohan Roy. What, I would ask, did Rammohan Roy say or do to subject him to these accusations? Where bas he described Jesus Christ as a mere moral Teacher, on a level with Confucius or Mahomet? Where has be said that Jesus Christ never intends to examine whether his precepts are cordially obeyed, and is not capable of doing so, if he would? I search in vain for such words or for the opinions which they ex. press in the Introduction to the Precepts of Jesus, although this was the only one of his publications on Christianity that bad appeared at the time Dr. Marshman advanced these serious allegations. The charge against Rammohun Roy of having repre sented Jesus Christ as a mere Teacher of morality, like Contacius or Mahomet, must have originated in the fact that he attempted to publish the Precepts of Jesus without his Doctrines. But this fact does not support the conclusion whichis drawn from it. It is clear from the publication itself that he ranked Jesus Christ, considered even as a moral Teacher, much bigher than any that had preceded or followed him, and no reason for this avowed preference could be more probable than that he considered His precepts to possess a higher excellence and a more commanding authority. Besides, the same argument will prove, among other things, that Mr. Schmid, who has had the honour of leading the way in this objection as well as in the whole controversy, compilation, which обо considers the religion of the Bible to be a mere system of doctrines unencumbered with morality. He has permitted the First number of bis Summary of the Scriptares to remain four years before the public without any addition, and although it treats only of the nature, attributes, and works of God, and is much more thoroughly purged of moral precepts than Rammohun Roy's compilation is of docBrines, yet I hear of no ob jection that has been made to it. Has it been found out at last that it is safer to believe mysteries without practising morality, than to practise morality without believing mysteries? Neither the nature of Rammoban Roy's publication, therefore, nor the language of his Introduction will authorise | Rammohan Roy could have The conclusiou that he considered Jesus Christ aninspired, like Confucius or Mahomet, or inspired only to teach morality. man systems of Divinity than to the Revelation of the Divine will in the New Testament. In that book the precept enforced is so intimately blended with the truth which is taught, that if you reject the one you in most cases lose the other, in which The only way effected his object would have been to form from the Four Evangelists a small collection of moral axioms similar or additional to those contained in the book of Proverbs. But with the large quotations from the Gospels which his compila 1 have said that Rammo. bun Roy attempted to publish the precepts of Jesus without his doctrines. Did he succeed in the attempt?tion includes it was vain in On the contrary, Mr. Schmid asserts, and asserts truly, that he has, “from a happy inconsistency," or rather from a positive necessity, in troduced "several," he might bave said many, passages of ♦ dogmatical nature into his him to make the attempt which he has made, and with that knowledge of Scripture which Mr. Schmid and Dr. Marshman ought to bave possessed it was more than ridiculous in them to unite ip the chorus of lamentation wn Nor is it difficult to trace to their source the mistakes into which both parties have fallen. Mr. Schmid and Dr. Marshman have argued on the supposition that dortrines are necessary to be believed solely on their ow account, as if a mere belief in doctrines were essential to future salvation. Now this completely overlooks "the grand design" of Divine Revelation, which is to make men holy and happy, to promote piety and virtue, love to God and benevolence to our fellow creatures. With this view the Divine Being by extraordinary messengers reveals or confirms certain facts or truths undiscoverable or only ob 'sourely suggested by human reason. These facts or truths when inculcated are called doctrines, when received as real and certain they operate as motives upon the mind, and thus operating they be come the sufficient means for the accomplishment of the above all important end. None of the truths or facts or doctrines of Revelation terminate in themselves: they are only means towards an end. They have all a direct and positive moral bearing, and it is im possible to conceive, consistently with the acknow ledged character of God, why he should make known to his creatures any doctrine in a supernatural way but on account of, and with view to, the moral effects which it is fitted to produce πρού reasonable beings. Instead, therefore, of Rammobun Roy having shown, by his attempt to compile only the precepts of Jesus, that he was, as Dr. Marsh man gratuitously asserts, completely opposed to the grand design of the Saviour's becoming incarnate" this, very fact shows that his "mind" was in full accord. ance with the great and ultimate object of the Savi our's mission, while Dr. Marshman's assertion to the contrary affords him too much reason to retort the charge upon his accuser. 0:6 Rammohan Roy, on the other hand, has fallen into the opposite mistake of placing the end before the means, and of endeavouring to attain the one without the use of the other. The religion of Christ is superior to every other religion not only as possessing a purer and more sublime morality, but as enforcing that inora, lity with a higher authority and with more powerfal motives. To separate, there fore, the doctrinal from the practical parts of Scriptare, if it were possible, would be hurtful by diminishing the probability that the lat ler would be obeyed. It will be found, however, on examination, that the doctrines which he sought to exclude from bis compi. lation are not those which Jesus Christ really taught. Did he seek to exclude the doctrine of Christ respect ing the nature of God and the worship which he requires, the character of God and the service with which sages which he has inserted in his compilation. 66 What then, it may be in quired, are those doctrines from which it was his aim to separate the moral pros cepts of Jesus? He evidently refers to those " various doctrines" which he found insisted on in the writings of Christian authors, and in the conversation of the teachers of Christianity with whom" he had 66 had the honour of holding commu❤. he is pleased, or the govern-nication," among which he ment of God and the rewards of good and evil which he will bestow? Did he withhold those passages of the gospel which teach us to depend upon a superintending Providence, and to acknowledge the undeserved goodness of God in all that we are and pos. aess and enjoy? Did be omit those passages which inculcate the necessity of repentance and reformation in order to receive the par don of sin and enjoy the favour of God, or those which declare the certainty of a future state, and of that righteous retribution which awaits all the sons of men? He did nothing of all this. On the contrary, these, which are the prominent truths and fundamental doctrines of the gospel, may be satisfactorily proved over and over again from the very pas particularly mentions" the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost." Giving credit, apparently, to these Christian authors and teachers for knowing better than him. self the genuine doctrines of Christianity, but unable to receive what they represent. ed as such, be naturally excluded from his compilation all those passages in the Discourses of Christ which his researches and inquiries had taught him were com. monly referred to in proof of these doctrines. He might Batter himself that this was the best way, with out violating the convictions of his own mind, to benefit his country men, and at the same time to avoid giving offence to his religious friends by publicly contro verting those doctrines which they were known to support. Accordingly, in his Introduction, after having stated the fact that different criteria of the Christian character are laid down by different sects, he expressly declines entering into the discussions they involve and limits himself to an ex. hibition of "the words of Christ." In short the whole of the Introduction is an ingenuous declaration of the difficulties he had experienced in arriving at the conclusion that the regulation of the heart and life is the great end of all religion, and in making the discovery that this also is the specific object of Christianity; and that, therefore, whatever trath ΟΙ error there might be in the opinions which separate Christians from each other, he could not be doing wrong nor expect opposition in inculca. ting upon his countrymen the moral precepts of Jesus on the excellence of which all are agreed. Considering the opinions which he has since avowed and so ably defended, he must have exercised a great degree of forbearance both in adopting the language of his Introduction and in selecting the materials to form the body of his work; and so far from his having first attacked the doctrines of orthodoxy, he seems to have been driven most unwillingly, by the perso nal and unprovoked as saults of the Editor of the Friend of India, to a defence of himself and of the religious sentiments which he had conscientiously embraced as the truths of God. lebins Such, then, arethe original charges brought against Rammohun Roy, and the original grounds on which the Missionary controver sy with him was begun; charges and grounds which every competent judge will pronounce to be altogether unjust and insufficient. Every man, it is believed, who coolly and impartially weighs all the circumstances of the case, must disapprove the course which the Missionaries have pursued'; while a plain practical believer, who has never been initiated into the mysteries of human systems, will find himself utterly at a loss to account for the manner in which Rammohun Roy's publication has been assailed. What is the nature of the work which has receiv ed such decided opposition? Will it be believed that it is not only in name but in deed and in truth the Precepts of Jesus-that with the exception of four pages of an Introduction, it consists entirely of the very words of Christ, without note or comment, gloss or interpretation-and that, whatever objections may |