the following pamphlets, intituled, "An Appeal to the Christian Public in Defence of the Precepts of Jesus, by a Friend to Truth." The writer is now known to have been Rammohun Roy himself. He complains, in strong terms, of the application to him of the term Heathen, as "a violation of truth, charity, and liberality ;" and also controverts some of Dr. Marshman's objections to the compilation, and to his reasonings in the introduction. In a subsequent number of the "Friend of India,"* Dr. Marshman inserted a brief reply to this "Appeal," in which he still denied to the author the title of "Christian," because, he writes, "we belong to that class who think that no one can be a real Christian without believing the divinity and the atonement of Jesus Christ, and the divine authority of the whole of the Christian Scriptures,' disclaiming, however, all intentions of using the term "Heathen" in an invidious sense. Dr. Marshman, in his first "Observations," had promised to "take up the subject" of Rammohun Roy's work "more fully in the first number of the Quarterly Series" of The Friend of India, then in preparation. Accordingly, there appeared in that publication some "Observations on certain ideas contained in the Introduction to the Precepts of Jesus the Guide to Peace and Happiness." In reply to this paper, Rammohun Roy published the last of the following pamphlets, in * No. XXIII. May, 1820. Dr. Marshman's Papers, London edition, p. 5. + Idem, p. 17, Friend of India, September, 1820. tituled, "A Second Appeal to the Christian Public in Defence of the Precepts of Jesus." To this tract Dr. Marshman printed an elaborate answer in the fourth number of the Quarterly Series of "The Friend of India."* Here the discussion rests, as far as we are at present informed.† Dr. Marshman's friends having collected, and printed in England, his papers in this controversy, it was thought by many to be demanded by truth and justice, that Rammohun Roy's pamphlets should also be given to the British public, to enable them to form an accurate judgment of the merits of both the parties in the support of their respective tenets. As there appeared no prospect of the work being undertaken by any bookseller, the Unitarian Society were induced to become the publishers. They are aware that, holding, as they do, the strict and proper humanity of Christ as one of their fundamental tenets, they may possibly be charged with a dereliction of principle in thus circulating, under their authority, a work which maintains his pre-existence, and super-angelic rank and dignity.. But they rest their defence upon the peculiar nature of the case, and *December, 1821. Dr. Marshman's Tracts, London edition, pp. 64, &c. The reader may be referred, for some further particulars relating to Rammohun Roy, to the Monthly Repository, vol. XIII. pp. 229, &c.; XIV. pp. 561, &c.; XV. pp. 1, &c.; XVI. pp. 477, &c. ; XVII. pp. 682, &c.; and to Mr. Belsham's Introduction to William Roberts's (of Madras) First Letter to the Unitarian Society, 1818. The work is intituled, "A Defence of the Deity and Atonement of Jesus Christ, in Reply to Rammohun Roy, of Calcutta, by Dr. Marshman, of Serampore." London, 1822. upon their anxiety to give every possible publicity to so learned and able a defence of the great doctrine of the proper unity of God, from the pen of a Hindoo convert to the Christian faith. In reprinting the following pamphlets, the Calcutta editions have been strictly followed, except in a few instances, in which some obvious typographical errors have been corrected; and even the principal of these corrections have been inserted in brackets. It is not intended in this preface to enter into a review of the controversy. Dr. Marshman has, however, made a remark, which, as it refers to the Unitarian Society, we may be permitted to notice. In raising an argument for the Deity of Christ, upon the supposed application to him of the term "fellow" in the English translation of Zechariah xiii. 7, he thus quotes Rammohun Roy's criticism upon that text: "Unable to deny this, our author merely hints in a note that Immithi, fellow, signifies one that lives near another; therefore, the word fellow, in the English translation, is not altogether correct, as justly observed by Archbishop Newcome in his Improved Version,' lately published," adds Dr. Marshman, "by the SociNIANS of England."* Dr. Marshman has here allowed his zeal to outrun his knowledge. The work quoted by Rammohun Roy is not Archbishop Newcome's translation of the New Testament, which formed the basis of the "Improved "Dr. Marshman's Defence," &c. p. 135. 66 Version," published by the Unitarian Society; but that learned prelate's Attempt towards an Improved Version, &c. of the Twelve Minor Prophets;" a production well worthy of the perusal of every Biblical student. It is with regret we observe, that Dr. Marshman, who, in general, writes like a scholar and a gentleman, has, in the passage above cited, condescended to imitate the conduct of some low bigots on this side of the water, in designating the Unitarians by the term "Socinians," which, he must know, is not correctly descriptive of their opinions, and is generally employed as an epithet of reproach. With almost the solitary exception of this deviation from liberality, it affords us great pleasure to be able to remark, that the controversy on both sides has throughout been conducted with a spirit of Christian candour and fairness, which is highly honourable to the able and learned disputants. THOMAS REES, Secretary to the Unitarian Society. Kennington, March 14, 1823. |