fore, adduce such evidence for these doctrines as, if sound, will render every thing urged against them nugatory, though not particularly noticed." To enable the public to compare the extent of the Second Appeal with that of the Review, I beg to observe, that the former contains 173 widely-printed, and the latter 128 closely-printed, pages, and that, if any one will take the trouble of comparing the number of words per page in the two Essays, he will soon satisfy himself that the one is as long as the other. I will afterwards notice, in the course of the present reply, whether or not "the evidence of these doctrines," adduced by the Editor in the Review, has still left a great many arguments in the Appeal quite unanswered.

In his attempt to prove the insufficiency of the precepts of Jesus to procure men peace and happiness, the Reverend Editor advanced the following position," "that the most excellent precepts, the most perfect law, can never lead to happiness and peace, unless by causing men to take refuge in the doctrine of the cross," (No. I. Quarterly Series of the Friend of India, page 111,) without adducing any arguments having reference to the position. I therefore brought to his recollection (in my First and Second Appeals) such authorities of the gracious author of Christianity, as, I conceived, established the sufficiency of these precepts for leading to comfort, and solicited the Editor "to point out, in order to establish his position, even a single passage pronounced

by Jesus, enjoining refuge in the doctrine of the cross, as all-sufficient or indispensable for salvation." (P. 153 of the Second Appeal.) The Editor, instead of endeavouring to demonstrate the truth of his assertion as to the insufficiency of the precepts to conduct men to happiness, or shewing a single passage of the nature applied for, introduces a great number of other passages of scripture which he thinks well calculated to prove, that the death of Jesus was an atonement for the sins of mankind. I regret that the Editor should have adopted such an irregular mode of arguing in solemn religious discussion; and I still more regret to find that some readers should overlook the want of connexion between the position advanced and the authorities adduced by the Editor. Were we both to adopt such a mode of controversy as to cite passages apparently favourable to our respective opinions, without adhering to the main ground, the number of his Reviews and of my Appeals would increase at least in proportion to the number of the years of our lives; for verses and quotations of scripture, if unconnected with their context, and interpreted without regard to the idiom of the languages in which they were written, may, as experience has shewn, be adduced to support any doctrine whatever: and the Editor may always find a majority of readers, of the same religious sentiments with himself, satisfied with any thing that he may offer either in behalf of the Trinity or in support of the Atonement.

Whether Jesus died actually as a sacrifice for the sins of men, or merely in the fulfilment of the duties of his office as the Messiah, as it was predicted, is merely a matter of opinion, the truth of which can only be ascertained from a diligent examination of the terms used and doctrines set forth in the evangelical writings. This, however, has no relation to a proof or disproof of the sufficiency of his precepts for salvation. In order to come to a conclusion as to the value of the precepts of Jesus being either really effectual or merely nominal, I deem it necessary to repeat a few passages already quoted in my Appeals, to ask the Editor, whether they demand explicit belief, or are unworthy of credit ;-and, in case he admit the former alternative, I should beg to ask him, whether they confirm the opinion that the precepts preached by Jesus are sufficient to lead men to eternal peace and happiness, or are a set of sentences delivered by him conformably to the principles of his hearers, similar to other codes of moral law written by the ancient philosophers of Greece, Egypt, and India? The passages in question are as follow :

Mark xii. 29: "Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like unto it, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

There is none other commandment greater than these." Is there another commandment absolutely enjoining refuge in the doctrine of the cross, so as to shew that these two commandments are insufficient for salvation, and comparatively insignificant?

Matt. vii. 24: "Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine," (alluding to the precepts contained in ch. v., vi., and vii.,)" and doth them, I will liken him unto a wise man who built his house upon a rock," &c. Are not these sayings declared by Jesus to afford a stable foundation, on which may be raised the indestructible edifice of eternal life? John xv. 10: "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love." Ver. 14: "Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you." I therefore again ask the Reverend Editor to shew a commandment of Jesus directing refuge in the doctrine of the cross, in the same explicit way as he has enjoined love to God and to neighbours, and obedience to his precepts as sufficient means for attaining eternal happiness. Did not Jesus, in Matt. xxv. 31, et seq., by means of a parable in the description of the day of judgment, declare that acts of charity and beneficence toward fellow-creatures will be accepted as the manifestation of love towards God, and be the sufficient cause of eternal life?

With a view to depreciate the weight of the following explicit promise of Jesus, "Do this, and thou shalt live," the Editor interprets, (page 509,) that "Jesus, taking him" (the lawyer) " on his own

principles, as though he had been what he vainly imagined himself, a sinless man who needed no Saviour, directed him to the whole of the divine law, adding, This do, and thou shalt live,' though he knew that it was utterly impossible for that lawyer to observe his instructions." The Editor, however, quite forgot, that by his attempt to undervalue the precepts of Jesus, he was actually degrading the dignity of the author of them; for, according to his interpretation, it appears, that as the lawyer tempted Jesus by putting to him a question which he thought the Saviour could not answer, so Jesus, in return, tempted him by directing him to do what he knew to be impossible for a man to perform, though this teacher forbids others to shew revenge even to very enemies. Did Jesus take also the scribe "upon his own principles" by instructing him in these two commandments?*-a man who was never inclined to tempt Jesus, but "having heard him reasoning, and perceiving that he had answered well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?"† and when he heard the reply of Jesus, he said, "Well Master, thou hast said the truth,"-a man whom Jesus declared to be at least out of danger of hell from his acknowledgment of the truth of his precepts as the means of salvation, telling him, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of heaven"? Did Jesus on the Mount take also his disciples "upon their

* Mark xii. 29.

+ Mark xii, 28-34.