directly opposed to those held by the mass of real Christians in every age." To vindicate myself from the presumption with which I am here charged, and to shew by what necessity I have been driven to the publication of opinions, unacceptable to many esteemed characters, I beg to call the attention of the public to the language of the Introduction to "The Precepts of Jesus," compiled by me, and which was my first publication connected with Christianity. They may observe therein, that so far from teaching any "opposite doctrines," or " rejecting the prevailing opinion held by the great body of Christians," I took every precaution against giving the least offence to the prejudices of any one, and consequently limited my labour to what I supposed best calculated for the improvement of those whose received opinions are widely different from those of Christians. My words are, "I decline entering into any discussion on those points, (the dogmas of Christianity,) and confine my attention at present to the task of laying before my fellow-creatures the words of Christ, with a translation from the English into Sungscrit, and the language of Bengal. I feel persuaded that, by separating from the other matters contained in the New Testament, the moral precepts found in that book, these will be likely to produce the desirable effects of improving the hearts and minds of men of different persuasions and degrees of understanding." (Introduction, p. xxvii.) The Precepts of Jesus, which I was desirous of

teaching, were not, I hoped, “opposed to the doc trines held by the mass of real Christians," nor did my language in the Introduction imply the "rejection of those truths which the great body of the learned and pious have concurred in deeming fully contained in the Sacred Scriptures."

Notwithstanding all this precaution, however, I could not evade the reproach and censure of the Editor, who not only expressed, in the "Friend of India," No. 20, his extreme disapprobation of the compilation, in a manner calculated more to provoke than lead to search after truth, but also indulged himself in calling me an injurer of the cause of truth. Disappointed as I was, I took refuge in the liberal protection of the public, by appealing to them against the unexpected attacks of the Editor. In that Appeal I carefully avoided entering into any discussion as to the doctrines held up as the fundamental principles of Christianity by the Editor. The language of my First Appeal is this: "Humble as he (the Compiler) is, he has therefore adopted those measures which he thought most judicious to spread the truth in an acceptable manner; but I am sorry to observe, that he (the Compiler) has unfortunately and unexpectedly met with opposition from those whom he considered the last persons likely to oppose him on this subject." (Page 120.) "Whether or not he (the Compiler) has erred in his judgment, that point must be determined by those who will candidly peruse and consider the arguments already

"The

advanced on this subject, bearing in mind the lesson particularly taught by the Saviour himself, of adapting his instructions to the susceptibility and capacity of his hearers; John xvi. 12, 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.'" (P. 122.) "What benefit or peace of mind can we bestow upon a Mussulman, who is an entire stranger to the Christian world, by communicating to him, without preparatory instruction, all the peculiar dogmas of Christianity?" (Page 123.) Compiler obviously having in view at least one object in common with the Reviewer and Editor, that of procuring respect for the precepts of Christ, might have reasonably expected more charity from professed teachers of his doctrine." (P. 105.) In reviewing the First Appeal, the Reverend Editor fully introduced the doctrines of the godhead of Jesus and the Holy Ghost, and of the Atonement, as the only foundation of Christianity; whereby he compelled me, as a professed believer of one God, to deny, for the first time publicly, those doctrines; and now he takes occasion to accuse me of presumption in teaching doctrines which he has himself compelled

me to avow.

The Editor assigns, as a reason for entering on this controversy, that after a review of "The Precepts of Jesus, and the First Appeal," he "felt some doubt whether their author fully believed the deity of Christ," and, consequently, he "adduced a few passages from the Scriptures to confirm this doctrine."

He then adds, that this Second Appeal to the Christian Public confirms all that he before only feared. (Page 1.) I could have scarcely credited this assertion of the Reviewer's unacquaintance with my religious opinions, if the allegation had come from any other quarter; for both in my conversation and correspondence with as many missionary gentlemen, old and young, as I have had the honour to know, I have never hesitated, when required, to offer my sentiments candidly, as to the unscripturality and unreasonableness of the doctrine of the Trinity. On one occasion particularly, when on a visit to one of the reverend colleagues of the Editor, at Serampore, long before the time of these publications, I discussed the subject, with that gentleman, at his invitation; and then fully manifested my disbelief of this doctrine, taking the liberty of examining successively all the arguments he, from friendly motives, urged upon me in support of it. Notwithstanding these circumstances, I am inclined to believe, from my confidence in the character of the Editor, that either those missionary gentlemen that were acquainted with my religious sentiments have happened to omit the mention of them to him, or he has forgotten what they had communicated on this subject, when he entered on the review of my publications on Christianity.

In page 503 the Editor insinuates, that vanity has led me to presume that "freedom from the powerful effects of early religious impressions" has enabled me to discover the truths of scripture, in its

most important doctrines, more fully in three or four years, than others have done by most unremitting study in thirty or forty." The doctrine of the Trinity appears to me so obviously unscriptural, that I am pretty sure, from my own experience and that of others, that no one possessed of merely common sense will fail to find its unscripturality after a methodical study of the Old and New Testaments, unless previously impressed in the early part of his life with creeds and forms of speech preparing the way to that doctrine. No pride, therefore, can be supposed for a moment to have arisen from commonly attainable success. The Editor might be fully convinced of this fact, were he to engage a few independent and diligent natives to study attentively both the Old and New Testaments in their original languages, and then to offer their sentiments as to the doctrine of the Trinity being scriptural, or a mere human invention.

To hold up to ridicule my suggestions in the Second Appeal, to study first the books of the Old Testament, unbiassed by ecclesiastic opinions imbibed in early life, and then to study the New Testament, the Reverend Editor states, that "could it be relied on indeed," my compendious method" would deserve notice with a view to Christian education, as," on my plan, "the most certain way of enabling any one to discover, in a superior manner, the truths and doctrines of Christianity, is to leave him till the of thirty or forty without any religious impres

age