tarians, to describe the professors of that system.

"The employing of the term Soci nian instead of that of Unitarian, was not intended as a cold sneer,' but because I do not consider the latter term as a fair one. I well know the modern Socinians strongly object to it, and have agreed to designate themselves Unitarians, and that simply on account of their worshiping one God; but it is not in that article of their creed that they can be allowed to be distinguished from other professors of Christianity, unless it can be proved that the latter profess to worship a plurality of Gods. Mr. Aspland knows that Trinitarians profess also to be Unitarians; they, in common with their opponents, believe that there is but one God. To give Socinians then this name exclusively, would be to grant them the very point which they seem desirous to assume, that is to say, the point in debate.

"But Mr. Aspland and his friends, forsooth, are not Socinians, because they do not imitate Socinus in paying divine worship to Jesus Christ: to do this, he says, would be Christian idolatry.' It seems, then, that calling them Socinians is to deprive them of the honour of having thus improved upon the system of Socinus, and to give them more credit than they are entitled to. Surely, Mr. Aspland might have forgiven me this wrong!

If, then, it is in future to be understood, that by Unitarians are meant those professors of Christianity only who consider the worship of Christ to be Christian idolatry, and who are contradistinguished from other Christians, not as to their faith in a plurality of divine persons in the unity of the Godhead, but as to their faith and practice in worshiping Christ as God, I shall have no objection in using the term Unitarian instead of Socinian. The late Rev. Andrew Fuller has fully expressed my sentiments and feelings upon this subject. 'Dr. Toulmin,' said he, complains of my using the term Socinians, as being a term of reproach. For my own part, I would much rather call them by another name, if they would but adopt a fair one. Let them take a name that does not assume the question in dispute, and I would no longer use the term Socinian.'

"I have, too, it appears, been grossly erroneous in saying that Ram Mohun Roy is still a Pagan, and with having violated the consistency of my character as a Christian Pastor, in not expressing warm congratulations on seeing an idolater of eminence and influence reclaimed to pure Theism.

"It is highly probable that I should differ from Mr. Aspland in stating what was essential in order to an idolater's becoming a Christian. To say the least, I am of opinion that he ought not only to renounce the worship of idols, but that he should declare himself a disciple of Jesus Christ; that he should profess his faith in the divine mission of Christ as a teacher sent from God to declare his Father's will to mankind; that he died, and rose again, and is gone into Heaven; and that he will come again to judge the world in righteousness, &c. &c. Mr. Aspland has produced no evidence that Ram Mohun Roy has avowed his faith even in these doctrines of Christianity. His having published the pure precepts of Jesus alone,' whilst he has reviled the miracles of the gospel, is surely no decisive proof of his Christianity. If it were, the Roman Emperor also was a Christian, because he was so delighted with the gospel precept, Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them,' as to have had it engraven on the gates of his palace.

"Mr. Aspland asserts, indeed, that Ram Mohun Roy is a 'pure Theist ;* that while his countrymen are worshiping Gods many, and Lords many, he worships one God only. But then the one God whom he professes to worship is not, if I have understood rightly, Jehovah, the God of Israel, the Creator and Governor of the world, but some undefined Being whom the Hindoos call, the Great Spirit, the Soul of the Universe.'

"If, then, a man's avowing himself to be a believer in one God, without any reference to that revelation by which only he can be known, or to the state of heart by which it is held, and whilst rejecting Christ as the Saviour of the world, constitutes him a Christian, Mr. Aspland may find others, who have hitherto been considered as beyond the pale of the Christian

Church, to whom he may give the right hand of fellowship with as much propriety as to Ram Mohun Roy. Were not Chubb, Woolston, Tindal, Toland and Paine, pure Theists? Are not Mahomedans pure Theists? Are not Jews pure Theists? But will Mr. Aspland contend that it is illiberal to withhold from the above-mentioned worthies, and from Mahomedans and Jews, the name of Christian? Mahomedans believe the unity of God, and also that Christ was a Divine Messenger; but they reject him as a Saviour. The Jews believe that God is One, but reject Christ as the promised Messiah. Ram Mohun Roy believes that God is One, but has not professed his faith in the divine mission of Christ his Theism, therefore, does not, any more than theirs, entitle him to the character of Christian.

"Nor is the single circumstance of Ram Mahun Roy's professing to believe in the unity of God, sufficient to prove that he has been reclaimed to pure Theism.' Mr. Aspland might not probably know that Unitarianism is a doctrine of the Hindoo faith. In the Rev. Mr. Ward's work on the Religion of the Hindoos, he says, "It is true, indeed, that the Hindoos believe in the unity of God. One Brumhee, without a second,' is a phrase very commonly used by them, when conversing on subjects which relate to the nature of God."*

"Mr. Aspland charges me with being ignorant of the real state of things in Calcutta.' I know, however, enough to inform him, if he is unacquainted with the fact, that Ram Mohun Roy does not defile himself by eating with Europeans, which would be to lose his caste, though in some instances he has entertained them at his house in the most splendid style of Eastern magnificence. Mr. Aspland, too, with all his knowledge of the

687

find it very difficult, if not impossible, to produce any proof that this Hindoo Reformer has declared himself to be a Christian, or that he is willing to be considered by his countrymen, or by Europeans, under that character.

"Mr. Aspland, will, perhaps, inform the public, should he write again upon this subject, whether, in the event of this celebrated Indian Reformer paying a visit to England, and applying for admission as a member of the religious community at Hackney, of which he is the Christian Pastor, he would be received into full communion, merely on account of his agreeing with them in the doctrine of the Unity of God, notwithstanding he has not in his creed one sentiment peculiar to Christianity?

"I am not aware of having intimated that Mr. Adam was 'amenable for his faith and practice to me;'to his own master he standeth or falleth.' But surely I may be permitted to 'lament his errors and aberrations,' if it were only because he has so awfully disappointed the expectations of the Society by which he was educated and sent to India, for the purpose, not of insulting, but of highly extolling Jesus Christ. Is it not a rational cause for lamentation, when men who were once members of our churches; who were educated for the ministry at our expense; who were introduced to the public as ministers through our influence; who owe every thing they are, as public men, to our friendship towards them; should have imitated the worst part of the worst man's conduct? 'He that eatheth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me!'

"I am, Sir,

"Your obedient servant, "JOSEPH IVIMEY."

"There has been a controversy in India between the Rev. Dr. Marshman, one of the Serampore Missionaries, and Ram Mohun Roy, on the subject of the Trinity. That part of it written by Dr. Marshman is reprinting in London, and will very soon be published; to that work, I therefore take the liberty of referring Mr. Aspland."

Mr. Ivimey.

versy, partly theological, for a newspaper, I shall not trespass at any great length upon your columns.

"It is amusing to find your correspondent complaining of personal reflections he who volunteered a personal attack upon individuals now in India, and who in the very letter that is introduced with this complaint brings forward a yet more serious, but unsubstantiated charge against one of them! Of the comparative temper, as well as arguments, of our letters, your readers will judge dispassionately.

"I have nothing further to say on the epithet Socinian.' By your correspondent's own shewing, it is improperly applied to Unitarians. Whether they be nearer to or further from scriptural truth, than the real followers of Socinus, Mr. Ivimey is at liberty to determine for himself, but (absit invidia!) they cannot allow him to determine for them.

"The sense which he represents the Unitarians as putting upon their own name, is not correct. By the term Unitarian,' they do not intend merely the worshiper of one God, as by the term Trinitarian,' they certainly do not understand the worshiper of three Gods: they use the former term to denote the worshiper of one God in one Person, One God the Father;' and the latter to signify the worshiper of one God in three Persons, one God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Unitarian is never confounded by their approved writers with Monotheist, nor Trinitarian with Tritheist. Their sense of the two appellations is horne out, I humbly conceive, both by etymology and by historic usage. In describing them, therefore, a candid opponent has no occasion to take up the offensive epithet Socinian,' (of fensive because it contains a misrepresentation,) in order to avoid circumlocution; although much as your correspondent may dislike this figure of speech, allow me to say that a style, circumlocutory even to tediousness, is far preferable to the most concise and convenient phraseology that violates truth and charity.

"Allowing, however, according to your correspondent's objection (but for argument's sake alone) that the term Unitarian seems to assume the

principle in debate between those that take upon them the name and their opponents, it only stands in the same predicament as several other words chosen to distinguish religious sects; amongst which I may point out Mr. Ivimey's own denomination, that of Baptist. This appellation is adopted by such Christians as practise baptism by immersion, on the personal profession of faith of the candidate, but the majority of the Christian world, who baptize infants by affusion, or sprinkling, might object that for AntiPædo-Baptists to call themselves Baptists is to beg the question; that this term implies that theirs is the only baptism, and that Pædobaptists are in truth as much Baptists as they. This is the same argument as Mr. Ivimey's against the propriety of the name Unitarian; and whatever answer he would give in the one case, I should probably be willing to appropriate in

the other.

"The greater part of what Mr. Ivimey says relating to Ram Mohun Roy is mere beating the air. He understands me to state positively that which I state hypothetically. I claim for the Indian Reformer the character and name of Christian, but I add, that were these not proved to belong him, a Christian Minister ought, notwithstanding, to rejoice in seeing an idolater reclaimed to pure Theism. Confounding the assertion with the supposition, Mr. Ivimey puts his ingenuity to the stretch, in framing questions on the fitness of admitting Theists to be Christians.

"It is a new thing for a Member and Director of a Missionary Society to be an anti-proselytist: yet your correspondent will not allow Ram Mohun Roy to be a convert to the Christian faith. To his assertions, I might content myself with opposing the quotations before given from the Calcutta Journal; but I have other and better evidence. Mr. Lvimey says, that it will be difficult, if not impossible to produce any proof that this Hindoo Reformer is willing to be considered by his countrymen, or by Europeans, under the Christian character. "Now, Sir, there is lying before me a Magazine published by the Baptist Mis sionaries in Bengal, and printed at the Mission Press, Serampore; viz. The

Friend of India,' No. 23, for May, 1820, in which the Editor attempts to defend himself from the charge of calling Ram Mohun Roy a Heathen, that Reformer having accused him in the use of this term of violating truth, charity and liberality.' The Editor's defence is, that this was the first hint that he had received (and he calls it an obscure one, though it is surely plain enough) of Ram Mohun Roy's wish to be denominated a Christian; and that he (the Editor) could not admit any one to be a Christian unless he acceded to certain points of his own creed. 'As we belong' (he says, p. 133) to that class who think that no one can be a real Christian, without believing the Divinity and the Atonement of Christ, and the Divine Authority of the whole of the Holy Scriptures, while we most cordially wish that he were altogether such, we could not term him a Christian without a violation of our own principles.' Here Mr. Ivimey may see that his Baptist Brethren in India refuse the Christian name to Ram Mohun Roy-not because he does not believe in the divine mission of Jesus Christ-but because he does not receive also the doctrine of Christ's personal deity. From certain expressions in his letter, I am happy to conclude that your correspondent would not establish so narrow a test of Christianity.

"I should now be justified in asking Mr. Ivimey, whether he knew, or not, of this passage in the Friend of India'? and in remarking that, if he were acquainted with it, his charge of Paganism against Ram Mohun Roy is scarcely ingenuous, (not to use a harsher word,) and that if he were not acquainted with it, his study even of the writings of his Baptist brethren at Serampore, is not such as to authorize him to undertake the office of Censor with regard to the ecclesiastical news of Bengal. But, leaving this topic, I proceed to observe, that a very little time will probably determine the merits of this controversy, as far as relates to the Hindoo Reformer, and that whatever may be the tenor of further information from India, it has not been without evidence that I have ranked that distinguished man amongst Christians, and vindicated his claim

689

to the right hand of Christian fellowship. With my views of the case, I cannot be sorry that the English Baptists are about to publish Dr. Marshman's part of the controversy with Ram Mohun Roy, on the doctrine of the Trinity; although I cannot help thinking that it would be more equitable to the latter, and more serviceable to the cause of truth, to lay before the public the controversy entire, instead of an ex parte statement. Still there may be no reason for long-continued regret: if Mr. Ivimey and his friends will not furnish us with the whole controversy, others may be found to supply what they omit, and when the dispute is fairly before the world, the impartial reader will be able to determine on which side is the weight of argument, as well as the balance of Christian temper.

"The accusation against the Hindoo Reformer of reviling miracles will be found, I have little doubt, to be either a forced inference from some, perhaps unguarded, expression of his, or, at least, to be deduced from some of his writings antecedent to his arriving at the conviction of Christian truth.

'Having read several of this extraordinary man's works on Hindooism, I was not uninformed (as Mr. Ivimey seems to suppose) of his hypothesis, that this system was originally simple Unitarianism, and that it has been reduced by successive corruptions to gross Polytheism; but it would be egregious trifling to draw from this hypothesis the sweeping conclusion that the modern Hindoos are Unitarians. The well-founded appeals that the Baptist Missionary Society is perpetually making to the liberality of the public, proceed upon the principle that this people are Polytheists, and upon the notorious fact that they are idolaters.

"Your correspondent writes concerning Mr. Adam, the late Baptist Missionary, and present Unitarian Minister at Calcutta, under evident irritation of feelings, for which great allowance ought to be made, since he and his friends have been (to use his own expression) awfully disappointed.' But there are limits to the venial indulgence of resentment, and to others of your readers besides myself, he may possibly have appeared to go far be