Against Trinitarian Orthodoxy

( 1820—1824 )

REGULAR AND IRREGULAR CAMPAIGNS AGAINST TRINITARIAN ORTHODOXY

• 1820. Precepts of Jesus and Appeal to the Christian Public in defence thereof.
• 1821. Second Appeal to the Christian Public. Mr. Adam’s Conversion. Letter of June 21. Brahmanical Magazine, I., II., III. Sept.—Calcutta Unitarian Committee formed. Dec. 4—Rammohun starts the Sambad Kaumudi.
• 1822. (Baisākha) Starts the Mirat-ul-Akhbar. Publishes Brief Remarks on Ancient Female Rights. About this time starts Anglo-Hindu School. Publishes Answers to Four Questions.
• 1823. Monthly Meetings. Jan. 30—Third and Final Appeal to the Christian Public. April—Memorial against Government Press Order of March 14. May—Letters in Hurkaru. Ram Doss papers. Cessation of Mirat. June 16—The Raja of Burdwan begins his law-suit against Rammohun. Nov. 15—Brahmanical Magazine, IV. Nov.—Letter to Lord Amherst. Humble Suggestions to his Countrymen who believe in One God. Signs Appeal for Scottish Presbyterian Missionaries. Publishes Medicine for the Sick.

• 1824. Feb. 2. Letters to Rev. H. Ware on the Prospects of Christianity. March 11—Appeal for famine in S. India. We now enter upon a wholly new scene of Rammohun’s career,—his relations to Christianity. It may be remembered that in his letter of 1817 to Mr. Digby, he said :—“The consequence of my long and uninterrupted researches into religious truth has been that I have found the doctrine of Christ more conducive to moral principles, and more adapted for the use of rational beings, than any other which have come to my knowledge.”¹ With his habitual thoroughness, he took the trouble to acquire the Greek and Hebrew languages (the latter he learned, it is said, from a Jew, in six months) that he might gain a full understanding of both the Old and the New Testaments ; and the remarkable mastery of their contents which is shown in his later writings bears witness to the success of his study. The result was the publication, in 1820, of his celebrated work entitled The Precepts of Jesus, the Guide to Peace and Happiness ; extracted from the Books of the New Testament, ascribed to the Four Evangelists. With translations into Sanskrit and Bengali. As the preface to this book has, I think, been but imperfectly understood, and as it throws important light on the then state of his mind, I give it nearly entire :—

        “A conviction in the mind of its total ignorance of the nature and of the specific attributes of the Godhead, and a sense of doubt respecting the real essence of the soul, give rise to feelings of great dissatisfaction with our limited powers, as well as with all human acquirements which fail to inform us on these interesting points.—On the other hand, a notion of the existence of a supreme superintending power, the Author and Preserver of this harmonious system, who has organized and who regulates such an infinity of celestial and terrestrial objects ; and a due estimation of that law which teaches that man should do unto others as he would wish to be done by, reconcile us to human nature, and tend to render our existence agreeable to ourselves and profitable to the rest of mankind. The former of these sources of satisfaction, viz., a belief in God, prevails generally ; being derived either from tradition and instruction, or from an attentive survey of the wonderful skill and contrivance displayed in the works of nature. The latter, although it is partially taught also in every system of religion with which I am acquainted, is principally inculcated by Christianity. This essential characteristic of the Christian religion I was for a long time unable to distinguish as such, amidst the various doctrines I found insisted upon in the writings of Christian authors, and in the conversation of those teachers of Christianity with whom I have had the honour of holding communication. Amongst those opinions, the most prevalent seems to be, that no one is justly entitled to the appellation of Christian who does not believe in the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, as well as in the divine nature of God, the Father of all created beings. Many allow a much greater latitude to the term Christian, and consider it as comprehending all who acknowledge the Bible to contain the revealed will of God, however they may differ from others in their interpretations of particular passages of scripture ; whilst some require from him who claims the title of Christian, only an adherence to the doctrines of Christ, as taught by himself, without insisting on implicit confidence in those of the Apostles, as being, except when speaking from inspiration, like other men, liable to mistake and error. That they were so is obvious from the several instances of difference of opinion amongst the Apostles recorded in the Acts and Epistles.” On the relative claims of these different conceptions of Christianity, which had been so extensively and confidently debated, he declines entering into discussion, and continues thus :— “I 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 Sanskrit and the language of Bengal². 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 more likely to produce the desirable effect of improving the hearts and minds of men of different persuasions and degrees of understanding. For, historical and some other passages are liable to the doubts and disputes of free thinkers and anti-Christians, especially, miraculous relations, which are much less wonderful than the fabricated tales handed down to the natives of Asia, and consequently could be apt at best to carry little weight with them. On the contrary, moral doctrines, tending evidently to the maintenance of the peace and harmony of mankind at large, are beyond the reach of metaphysical perversion, and intelligible alike to the learned and to the unlearned. This simple code of religion and morality is so admirably calculated to elevate men’s ideas to high and liberal notions of one God, who has equally subjected all living creatures, without distinction of caste, rank, or wealth, to change, disappointment, pain and death, and has equally admitted all to be partakers of the bountiful mercies which he has lavished over nature, and is also so well fitted to regulate the conduct of the human race in the discharge of their various duties to God, to themselves, and to society, that I cannot but hope the best effects from its promulgation in the present form.” From this we may see that the very last thing Rammohun desired or anticipated for his book was theological controversy. It was that from which he was trying to escape. To him, the “essential characteristic of the Christian religion” was its ideal humanity, its tendency to promote “the peace and harmony of mankind at large,” and to raise them to “high and liberal notions of one God who has equally admitted all to be partakers of ( his ) bountiful mercies.” It was this which he thought would improve the hearts and minds of “men of different persuasions,” and in his sanguine soul he could not but “hope the best effects from its promulgation in the present form.” What effect his work might have produced on his countrymen if he and they had been able to discuss it together without interruption, can never now be known. For before he had had time to make the translations into Sanskrit and Bengali which he had somewhat prematurely announced on his title page, the book was attacked by the chief missionaries of the day in their periodical The Friend of India and Rammohun was at once immersed in a sea of controversy which lasted for years. A unique opportunity was thus worse than wasted, and made the occasion of increased strife. No doubt all this was providentially over-ruled for eventual good ; but it is impossible not to regret that the Christians of the day and hour had not been wiser. Here we must digress a little. At this time (1820) Christianity was very imperfectly represented in Bengal. Henry Martyn was dead, and Reginald Heber had not yet arrived. The bishopric of Calcutta, established in 1814, was occupied by Dr. Middleton, a man of scholarly attainments and plodding industry, but of somewhat rigid and unsympathetic temperament. The Church of Scotland was represented by the Rev. Dr. Bryce, a clever and rather liberal-minded man, whose ministry Rammohun attended for some time, but who was so eccentric and indiscreet that he gradually alienated most of his friends, and Rammohun among them. The chief missionary activity of that time was in the hands of the English Dissenters, especially the celebrated Baptist Mission of Serampore, near Calcutta, under the presidency of Drs. Carey and Marshman. Carey was originally a poor shoemaker, with very little general education, but with a great taste for languages, and an ardent desire to convert the heathen. Marshman was a successful and earnest school-master and a most valuable colleague to the enthusiastic but unpractical Carey. Their joint mission was started in 1799,³ and they had been working zealously ever since. How soon Rammohun made their acquaintance does not appear, but their “Periodical Account” for the year 1816 contains the following notices of him and his doings : “Rama-Mohuna-Raya, a very rich Rarhee Brahmun of Calcutta, is a respectable Sanskrit scholar, and so well versed in Persian, that he is called Mouluvee-Rama-Mohuna-Raya : he also writes English with correctness, and reads with ease English Mathematical and metaphysical works. He has published, in Bengalee, one or two philosophical works from the Sanskrit which he hopes may be useful in leading his countrymen to renounce idolatry. Europeans breakfast at his house, at a separate table, in the English fashion ; he has paid us a visit at Serampore, and at a late interview, after relating an anecdote of Krishna, relative to a petty theft of this God, he added, ‘The sweeper of my house would not do such an act, and can I worship a god sunk lower than the man who washes my floors ?’ He is at present a simple theist, admires Jesus Christ, but knows not his need of the atonement. He has not renounced his caste, and this enables him to visit the richest families of Hindoos. He is said to be very moral ; but is pronounced to be a most wicked man by the strict Hindoos.”⁴ Of this man Mr. Yates writes thus, in a letter dated August, 1816 :— “I was introduced to him about a year ago : before this, he was not acquainted with any one who cared for his soul. Some time after I introduced Eustace Carey to him, and we have had repeated conversations with him. When I first knew him he would talk only on metaphysical subjects such as the eternity of matter, the nature and qualities of evidence &c. but he has lately become much more humble, and disposed to converse about the Gospel. He has many relations, Brahmuns, and has established religious worship among them. He maintains the unity of God, and hates all heathen idolatries He visited Eustace lately and stayed to family prayer, with which he was quite delighted. Eustace gave him Dr. Watt’s Hymns ; he said he would treasure them up in his heart. He has been to Serampore once, and has engaged to come and see me in the course of a few weeks. He has offered Eustace a piece of ground for a scoool.” One might have thought that these worthy men, who expressed such care for Rammohun’s soul, would have given some sort of fraternal welcome to his spontaneous recommendation of the teachings of Christ to his countrymen. But unfortunately they belonged to the narrowest school of Calvinistic orthodoxy, and not only held the doctrine of the Atonement in its harshest form, but were so engrossed by it as to regard that alone as “the Gospel.” A review of Rammohun’s book soon appeared in the Friend of India, by a “Christian Missionary,"—Rev. Deocar Schmidt, who feared that the “Precepts” might “greatly injure the cause of truth.” Dr. Marshman added some editorial comments, in which he spoke of Rammohun as “an intelligent Heathen, whose mind is as yet completely opposed to the grand design of the Saviour’s becoming incarnate.”⁵ All this hurt Rammohun’s feelings very much, and he quickly replied with “An Appeal to the Christian Public in defence of the ‘Precepts of Jesus,’ by a Friend to Truth.” In this he defended himself with much spirit from the charge of being a “heathen” (which term he regarded as virtually synonymous with an idolator), and claimed to be “a believer in one true and living God,” and not only that, but also “in the truths revealed in the Christian system.” He proceeds :— “I should hope neither the Reviewer nor the Editor can be justified in inferring the heathenism of the Compiler, from the facts of his extracting and publishing the moral doctrines of the New Testament, under the title of a “Guide to Peace and Happiness”—his styling the “Precepts of Jesus” a code of Religion and morality,—his believing God to be the Author and Preserver of the Universe,—or his considering those sayings as adapted to regulate the conduct of the whole human race in the discharge of all the duties required of them. . . . Although he was born a Brahman he not only renounced idolatry at a very early period of his life, but published at that time a treatise in Arabic and Persian against that system, and no sooner acquired a tolerable knowledge of English than he made his desertion of idol worship known to the Christian world by his English publication—a renunciation that, I am sorry to say, brought severe difficulties upon him, by exciting the displeasure of his parents, and subjecting him to the dislike of his near as well as distant relations, and to the hatred of nearly all his countrymen for several years. I therefore presume that among his declared enemies, who are aware of those facts, no one who has the least pretension to truth would venture to apply the designation of heathen to him”. He then vigorously defends the principle on which his selection of Precepts was made, and illustrates it by copious and cogent passages from the words of Christ Himself. He recalls the emphasis laid by Christ on the two-fold law of love as that on which hung all the Law and the Prophets ; His charge to the rich young man to keep the commandments—“This do and thou shalt live” ; and the description of the last Judgment in Matt. xxv., which declares eternal destiny decided by the discharge or neglect of the duties of human beneficence. “These precepts (he proceeds) separated from the mysterious dogmas and historical records, appear to the Compiler to contain not only the essence of all that is necessary to instruct mankind in their civil duties, but also the best and only means of obtaining the forgiveness of our sins, the favour of God, and strength to overcome our passions and to keep His commandments.” After this he goes on to point out how unsatisfactory have been results of the missionary methods of propagating Christianity. The Compiler, residing in the same spot where European missionary gentlemen and others for a period of upwards of twenty years have been, with a view to promote Christianity, distributing in vain amongst the natives numberless copies of the complete Bible, written in different languages, could not be altogether ignorant of the causes of their disappointment. He, however, never doubted their zeal for the promulgation of Christianity, nor the accuracy of their statement with regard to immense sums of money being annually expended in preparing vast numbers of copies of the Scriptures ; but he had seen with regret that they have completely counteracted their own benevolent efforts, by introducing all the dogmas and mysteries taught in Christian Churches to people by no means prepared to receive them ; and that they have been so incautious and inconsiderate in their attempts to enlighten the natives of India, as to address their instructions to them in the same way as if they were reasoning with persons brought up in a Christian country, with those dogmatical notions imbibed from their infancy. The consequence has been, that the natives in general, instead of benefiting by the perusal of the Bible, copies of which they always receive gratuitously, exchange them very often for blank paper ; and generally use several of the dogmatical terms in their native language as a mark of slight in an irreverent manner ; the mention of which is repugnant to my feelings. . . . It has been owing to their beginning with the introduction of mysterious dogmas and of relations that at first sight appear incredible, that, notwithstanding every exertion on the part of our divines, I am not aware that we can find a single respectable Moosulman or Hindoo, who was not in want of the common comforts of life, once glorified with the truth of Christianity, constantly adhering to it.

        From what I have already stated, I hope no one will infer that I feel ill disposed towards the Missionary establishments in this country. This is far from being the case. I pray for their augmentation, and that their members may remain in the happy enjoyment of life in a climate so generally inimical to European constitution ; for in proportion to the increase of their number, sobriety, moderations, temperance, and good behaviour, have been diffused among their neighbours as the necessary consequence of their company, conversation, and good example. A letter written at this time to a friend, Colonel B —— gives Rammohun’s own account of the controversy which had been commenced. Calcutta September, 5, 1820.

        As to the opinion intimated by Sir Samuel J ——, respecting the medium course in Christian dogmas, I never have attempted to oppose it. I regret only that the followers of Jesus, in general, should have paid much greater attention to enquiries after his nature than to the observance of his commandments, when we are well aware that no human acquirements can ever discover the nature even of the most common and visible things and moreover, that such inquiries are not enjoined by the divine revelation. On this consideration I have compiled several passages of the New Testament which I thought essential to Christianity, and published them under the designation of Precepts of Jesus, at which the Missionaries of Srirampoor [Serampore] have expressed great displeasure, and called me, in their review of the tracts, an injurer of the cause of truth. I was, therefore, under the necessity of defending myself in an “Appeal to the Christian Public”, a few copies of which tract I have the pleasure to send you, under the care of Captain S —— and entreat your acceptance of them.

        I return with my sincere acknowledgments, the work which Sir S. J. was so kind as to lend me. May I request the favour of you to forward it to Sir S. J., as well as a copy of each of the pamphlets, with my best compliments, and to favour me with your and Sir S. J’s opinion respecting my idea of Christianity, as expressed in those tracts, when an opportunity may occur ; as I am always open to conviction and correction ? This appeal elicited certain “Remarks” from Dr. Marshman in the Friend of India of May 1820.⁶ Dr. Marshman disavows any uncharitable purpose in the use of the word Heathen which, he thinks, “cannot be candidly construed into a term of reproach,” but refuses to call Christian anyone who does not accept “the Divinity and Atonement of Jesus Christ, and the Divine Authority of the whole of the Holy Scriptures”. Quite conformably to this narrow limitation of the term Christian, he passes on to a singularly negative version of Christianity. The leading doctrines of the New Testament……may be summed up in the two following positions : That God views all sin as to abominable that the death of Jesus Christ alone can expiate its guilt ; and that the human heart is so corrupt that it must be renewed by the Divine Spirit before a man can enter heaven. In the first number of the quarterly series of the Friend of India published in September 1820, the worthy Baptist sets himself to prove this version of his faith from the sayings of Jesus.⁷ To this essay Rammohun replied in a “Second Appeal” published in 1821, nearly six times the length of the first. He repudiates any desire to challenge the credibility of the miracles recorded in the New Testament, or to put them on a level with the marvels of Hindu mythology. He had only recognised the fact that the Hindu mind was as it were sodden with stories of miracles, and he had hoped to direct his countrymen to those precepts the moral sublimity of which had first moved him to admiration of Christianity. He describes himself by implication as “labouring in the promulgation of Christianity.”* He then opposes the main positions advanced by Dr. Marshman. He disputes the consonance with justice of Dr. Marshman’s theory of the atonement, but he declares that he has “repeatedly acknowledged Christ as the Redeemer, Mediator, and Intercessor with God on behalf of his followers.” He confesses himself moved by his reverence for Christianity and its author to vindicate it from the charge of Polytheism, for he regards Trinitarianism as essentially polytheism. He has little difficulty in disposing of Dr. Marshman’s endeavours to prove the doctrine of Trinity from the Old Testament. On the new Testament he resorts to exegetical methods familiar to Unitarians, in order to establish the impersonality of the Holy Spirit. On the baptismal formula he avers that “it is proper that those who receive” the Christian religion, “should be baptized in the name of the Father, who is the object of worship ; of the Son, who is the Mediator ; and of that influence by which spiritual blessings are conveyed to mankind, designated in the Scriptures as the Comforter, Spirit of Truth, or Holy Spirit.” He makes an excursion into pre-Nicene history and recalls how “in the first and purest ages of Christianity, the followers of Christ entertained” very “different opinions on the subject of the distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit” without being excommunicated. The precepts of Jesus, which no other religion can equal much less surpass, do not, he insists, depend on the metaphysical arguments and mysteries with which they have been associated.] † By this time the controversy had, it will be seen, concentrated itself on two main points, which he thus defines in an “Advertisement” to the “Second Appeal.” “First, that the ‘Precepts of Jesus’ which teach that love to God is manifested in beneficence towards our fellow-creatures, are a sufficient Guide to Peace and Happiness ; and secondly, that omnipresent God, who is the only proper object of religious veneration, is one and undivided in person.” Naturally the last-named point soon became the main question at issue ; and as the Unity of God was the main passion of Rammohun’s life, he soon threw himself with his whole heart into the contest which was thus so strangely brought home to him from a quite unexpected quarter. At this point—the beginning of the year 1821,—we must stop to record a singular event which accentuated the controversy in no small degree. [Rammohun’s studies in the Scriptures and interest in the Christian religion had led him into frequent intercourse with English missionaries. He appears in close co-operation with two members of the Baptist Mission at Serampore, Rev. William Yates and Rev. William Adam, both according to Rammohun’s testimony “well reputed for their Oriental and classic acquirements.” How this came about is related by Mr. Adam in a letter to the Committee of the Baptist Missionary Society dated June 11, 1821 :— I have for some time past been engaged with Rammohun Roy and Mr. Yates in translating the four Gospels into Bengali. The two translations of Dr. Carey and Mr. Ellerton are declared by Rammohun Roy to abound in the most flagrant violations of native idiom, and he accordingly applied to Mr. Yates and myself for our assistance in translating them anew from the original. This we readily have given. Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount is printed separately at the expense of the B——A——S——. On September 30, 1822, Mr. Adam writes to Mr. Edward Poole :— I am at present just finishing a careful revisal of a new translation of the Gospel of St. Matthew in Bengali, originally executed by Rammohun Roy, the Rev. Mr. Yates, and myself, Mr. Yates has since declined his assistance so that it now entirely rests with Rammohun Roy and myself. The difficulty with Mr. Yates arose when the Revisers began with the fourth Gospel. They got as far as the third verse in safety, but there they struck on the Greek preposition dia and the Revision was wrecked. At first Mr. Yates agreed to translate “All things were made through him,” but by the next session of the Committee he had discovered in the substitution of through for by a suggestion of Arianism and on the following day withdrew from the enterprise altogether on account of the tendency towards heresy which had transpired. During these discussions, Mr. Adam tells us. Rammohun “sat, pen in hand, in dignified reticence, looking on listening, observing all, but saying nothing.” This project and the manner of its termination naturally drew “heretic” and “heathen” into an intimacy more frequent and confidential, with the result that Mr. Adam finally renounced his belief in the doctrine of Trinity and avowed himself a Unitarian. The arguments advanced in Rammohun’s Second Appeal published about this time may be taken to indicate the kind of considerations which decided Mr. Adam. This singular event was made public in the latter half of 1821.] † The story of Mr. Adam’s conversion has been told so often and with such frequent inaccuracies that I am glad to be able to produce the following letter in which he communicates the fact to an English friend. Mr. William Adam to Mr. N. Wright. Calcutta, May 7, 1821. It is now several months since I began to entertain some doubts respecting the Supreme Deity of Jesus Christ, suggested by frequent discussions with Rammohun Roy, whom I was endeavouring to bring over to the belief of that Doctrine, and in which I was joined by Mr. Yates, who also professed to experience difficulties on the subject. Since then I have been diligently engaged in studying afresh the Scriptures with a view to this subject, humbly seeking divine guidance and illumination, and I do not hesitate to confess that I am unable to remove the weighty objections which present themselves against this doctrine. I do not mean to say that there are no difficulties in rejecting it, but the objections against it compared with the arguments for it, appear to me like a mountain compared with a molehill.† We cannot wonder at the profound impression which this occurrence produced. At any time the fact of a Christian missionary being converted by “an intelligent heathen” would be sure to excite widespread remark. But in the days when Evangelical orthodoxy enjoyed an almost undisputed ascendancy, and in quarters like those of the Baptist Mission where the tradition of Calvinism stamped the dominant Evangelicalism with its own rigidity, the shock must have been startling in the extreme. The convert was half-humorously, half-savagely, called “The second fallen Adam.”⁸ The animosity usually harboured by the orthodox against a renegade was rendered doubly bitter by the fact that the conversion was apparently due to the dispassionate examination of the Scriptures by an open-minded Hindu, missionary ardour and Protestant devotion to the Bible being both wounded in their tenderest place. The Unitarians in England and America naturally accepted the intelligence as of a veritable Daniel come to judgment and were shaken, as we shall see by and by, into new missionary enthusiasm. But the news was not made public property until the latter part of 1821, and before then Rammohun’s literary and polemical activity had assumed certain fresh phases. Some explanation of the turn it took is suggested by an incident which occurred about this time. Of this Mr. Adam is our informant. According to his narrative,— “One day in the hot season, about mid-day, I was engaged in my usual studies, when I was informed that a native gentleman was at the gate of my compound and desired to see me. This was an unusual hour for a call. I went to the gate and found that it was Rammohun Roy, whom I instantly requested to alight from his carriage and enter the house. The unusualness of the hour was fully justified by the explanation he gave me. On invitation he had been to see Dr. Middleton, the Bishop of Calcutta. Rammohun Roy’s house was probably about two miles from the Bishop’s palace and my dwelling was intermediate between the two. He called on me both for refreshment to his body and sympathy in his mental trouble. His first request was that he should be permitted to remove his turban, which was of course granted, and the second that he should have some refreshment, but that before it was brought and he partook of it, my servants should be sent away, since if they had seen him eat under my roof they would have bruited abroad that he had lost caste. This was promptly and quietly attended to, and when he felt cool and refreshed, he proceeded to state what had disturbed his mind.

        With much indignation he informed Mr. Adam that the Bishop had sent for him, had entered into a long argument to persuade him to accept of Christianity, and, not content with this singular stretch of the laws of hospitality, had wound up by expatiating on “the grand career which would open to him by a change of faith.” “He would be honoured in life and lamented in death,—honoured in England as well as in India ;—his name would descend to posterity as that of the modern Apostle of India.” The Bishop’s meaning was doubtless innocent enough, but the keen truth-loving Hindu seemed to feel it as a modern version of the Tempter’s “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” “The sting of the offence was this,” reports Mr. Adam : “he was asked to profess the Christian religion, not on the force of evidence, or for the love of truth, or for the satisfaction of his conscience, or for the benefit of his fellow-men, but for the sake of the honour and glory and fame it might bring him. This was utterly abhorrent to Rammohun’s mind. It alienated, repelled, and disgusted him.” He never met the Bishop again.*

        As may readily be imagined, and as the foregoing incident shows, a very warm friendship was springing up between Rammohun and Mr. Adam. The latter, fortunately for us, left on record a great many of their mutual communications in letter and manuscript, which have been placed at the disposal of the writer of this work. His testimony to the impression made upon him by Rammohun’s character may be here most properly cited :— I was never more thoroughly, deeply, and constantly impressed than when in the presence of Rammohun Roy and in friendly and confidential converse with him, that I was in the presence of a man of natural and inherent genius, of powerful understanding, and of determined will, a will determined with singular energy and uncontrollable self-direction, to lofty and generous purposes. He seemed to feel, to think, to speak, to act, as if he could not but do all this, and that he must and could do it only in and from and through himself, and that the application of any external influence, distinct from his own strong will, would be the annihilation of his being and identity. He would be free or not be at all. . . .Love of freedom was perhaps the strongest passion of his soul,—freedom not of action merely, but of thought . . . . . .This tenacity of personal independence, this sensitive jealousy of the slightest approach to an encroachment on his mental freedom was accompanied with a very nice perception of the equal rights of others, even of those who differed most widely from him.* The effect on such a nature of the attitude assumed to him by organized Christianity in India can be readily conceived. A Brahman by birth, he had commended to his own countrymen the Precepts of Jesus as surpassing those of any other religion as a guide to peace and happiness, and he had undertaken to help in translating the whole of the four Gospels into Bengali. As a result he had been assailed by the Baptist editor, he had been forsaken by one of his Baptist co-translators whose orthodoxy deterred him from making a correct version ; and by the Anglican Bishop, he had been, as he understood, offered the bribe of world-wide fame, to induce him to accept Christianity. Such an experience of English Christianity in its Established and Nonconforming phases was not likely to conciliate Rammohun Roy. We can scarcely wonder that the latter half of 1821 witnessed a vigorous polemic on his part against the tactics of Christian missionaries. The Samachar Darpan, a periodical issued from the Mission Press at Serampore, came out on the 14th of July with an onslaught on the pantheism of the Vedānta Śāstra, arguing that while inconsistent with polytheism, it logically destroyed the reality of the universe and the responsibility of the human soul, as well as the perfectness of God. It also invited replies.⁹ But on Rammohun taking the missionaries at their word and sending a reply, they, with a lack of fairness and indeed with a stupidity which was simply fatuous, refused to insert it.¹⁰ Rammohun accordingly brought out under the name of his pandit, Sivaprasad Sarma, The Brahmanical Magazine, as “a vindication of the Hindu religion against the attacks of Christian missionaries.” The first two numbers contain the provocative article reprinted from the Samachar Darpan and the suppressed reply. Rammohun is at great pains to represent the Vedantic system as more of a monotheism than a pantheism. He firmly avers that God is the creator of the world, but grants that matter is eternal. “We find the phrases “God is all and in all,” in the Christian books ; and I suppose they do not mean by such words that pots, mats, &c. are gods. I am inclined to believe that by these terms they mean the omnipresence of God.” Similar language in the Vedanta could be similarly explained. Polytheism he represents as only an accommodation to the ignorance of the unenlightened, and he cites by way of retort the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament and the human experiences of the Eternal Son. Does not the New Testament tell us, he asks in effect, of one God begetting another, and of the former taking the shape of a Dove, the latter appearing as Man ? Similar stories in their own religion Hindu philosophers regard as fictions meant only “to engage the minds of persons of weak understanding.” But the missionaries insist that the incarnations in Dove and Man are real. A reply in the Friend of India, No. 38,¹¹ led to a vigorous rejoinder in the third number of the Brahmanical Magazine. Rammohun here directs his attack on the doctrine of Trinity. He discards Trinity in Unity as an inconceivable idea, and charging Trinitarians with Tritheism he pronounces them polytheists. In answer to aspersions on Hindu morals, he suggests that the domestic life of Europeans might not compare favourably with that of Hindus. He concludes with a pious dignity which admirably contrasts with the tone of his opponent. The Editor had had the impious effrontery to declare that Hinduism evidently owed its origin to the Father of Lies alone. “Śivaprasad Śarma” makes answer, “We must recollect that we have engaged in solemn religious controversy and not in retorting abuse against each other.” In these pseudonymous articles, Rammohun writes, it will be observed, as a devout and aggrieved adherent of Hinduism. His preface to the first number of the Magazine makes complaint of Christian missions in India as constituting a departure from the promise of the British authorities not to interfere with the religion of their subjects and as taking an undue advantage of the fact that Christianity is the religion of the conqueror. He suggests, in effect, that “the superiority of the Christian religion” should not be advocated “by means of abuse and insult, or by affording the hope of worldly gain,” but “by force of argument alone.” His protest against the religious insolence which proclaimed the whole of the wonderful development of Indian faith, from the Rig Veda down to Rammohun Roy himself, as solely of Satanic origin, was timely and well-deserved ; and his hostility to Christianity as then instituted in India was quite compatible with his previously expressed reverence for its Founder and for his real religion. It is refreshing to turn for a moment from these theological wranglings to get a glimpse of Rammohun’s cosmopolitan sympathies in the political sphere. When the intelligence reached India that the people of Naples after extorting a Constitution from their despotic King were crushed back into servitude by the Austrian troops, in obedience to the joint mandate of the crowned heads of Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sardinia and Naples, Rammohun felt it keenly. In a letter to Mr. Buckingham, of date August 11, 1821, he declares himself much “depressed by the late news from Europe.” “From the late unhappy news” he goes on, I am obliged to conclude that I shall not live to see liberty universally restored to the nations of Europe, and Asiatic nations, especially those that are European Colonies, possessed of a greater degree of the same blessing than what they now enjoy.

        Under these circumstances I consider the cause of the Neapolitans as my own, and their enemies as ours. Enemies to liberty and friends of despotism have never been, and never will be ultimately successful.¹² These noble words reveal how profoundly Rammohun felt with the late Russell Lowell that “In the gain or loss of one race all the rest have equal claim” ; and that Wherever wrong is done To the humblest and the weakest, ’neath the all-beholding Sun That wrong is also done to us. In September, 1821, the Calcutta Unitarian Committee was originated. * It was composed of a few native gentlemen among whom Rammohun was leader, and several Europeans, civilians and others, including Mr. Adam, whose conversion had just been announced. “Proselytism,” Mr. Adam explains, “is not our immediate object. We aim to remove ignorance and superstition, and to furnish information respecting the evidences, the duties, and the doctrines of the religion of Christ.” The methods chosen were “education, rational discussion, and the publication of books both in English and in the native languages.” † In January, 1822, Mr. Adam writes that he has with the assistance of a few friends rented a house in which Christian worship is regularly conducted.¹³ “Rammohun Roy is one of the warmest of our supporters.” As we shall see presently, the Anglo-Hindu school, commenced under the auspices of this Committee, was almost exclusively supported by Rammohun. The “Unitarian Press” was entirely his property. Mr. Adam, in his new role of Unitarian minister, seems to have depended for his financial support chiefly on Rammohun’s bounty. So that the whole organization was principally in Rammohun’s hands. We may regard the formation of this Unitarian Committee as a distinct and an important stage in his career as founder. This avowed and organized connection with Unitarian Christianity led Rammohun into correspondence with several of its votaries in England and America. On October 27, 1822, we find him writing to “a gentleman of Baltimore,” I have now every reason to hope that the truths of Christianity will not be much longer kept hidden under the veil of heathen doctrines and practices, gradually introduced among the followers of Christ, since many lovers of truth are zealously engaged in rendering the religion of Jesus free from corruptions……

        It is……a great satisfaction to my conscience to find that the doctrines inculcated by Jesus and his Apostles are quite different from those human inventions which the missionaries are persuaded to profess, and entirely consistent with reason and the revelation delivered by Moses and the prophets. I am, therefore, anxious to support them, even at the risk of my own life. I rely much on the force of truth, which will, I am sure, ultimately prevail. Our number is comparatively small, but I am glad to inform you that none of them can be justly charged with the want of zeal and prudence.

        I wish to add, in order that you may set me right, if you find me mistaken,—my view of Christianity is that in representing all mankind as the children of one eternal Father, it enjoins them to love one another, without making any distinction of country, caste, colour, or creed ; notwithstanding they may be justified in the sight of the Creator in manifesting their respect towards each other, according to the propriety of their actions and the reasonableness of their religious opinions and differences. Writing to the same gentleman a few months later,—on December 9, 1822,—he declares, Although our adversaries are both numerous and zealous, as the adversaries of truth always have been, yet our prospects are by no means discouraging, if we only have the means of following up what has already been done.

        We confidently hope that, through these various means, the period will be accelerated, when the belief in the Divine Unity and in the mission of Christ will universally prevail. These avowals, of readiness to support the doctrines of Christ even at the risk of his life, and of hope in the ultimate universality of faith in the mission of Christ, naturally led to the impression that Rammohun was to all intents and purposes a Unitarian Christian. Despite his hopefulness of its eventual success, the Unitarian movement seems to have very speedily received a decided rebuff. For, six months later,—July 2, 1823,—Rammohun writes to Mr. Samuel Smith, “From the disappointment which we have met in our endeavour to promote the cause of Unitarianism, I scarcely entertain any hope of success.” On the 4th of August following, Mr. Buckingham writes of Rammohun’s exertions, “He has done all this to the great detriment of his private interests, being rewarded by the coldness and jealousy of all the great functionaries of Church and State in India, and supporting the Unitarian Chapel, the Unitarian Press, and the expense of his own publications . . . out of a private fortune of which he devotes more than one-third to acts of the purest philanthropy and benevolence.” His controversy with the missionaries was kindled afresh in the quarterly Friend of India which appeared in December,¹⁴ 1821. The editor, Rev. Dr. Marshman, devoted 128 closely printed pages to an attempted refutation of Rammohun’s Second Appeal to the Christian Public. His arguments are directed to the defence of the old Evangelical doctrines of the Atonement and of the Deity of Christ with the consequent doctrine of Trinity. He lays the whole of the Scriptures, Old as well as New Testament, under contribution for proof texts of those dogmas, with a disregard of the laws of historical exegesis which even to the orthodoxy of to-day is bewildering. Dogmas which did not actually emerge until, at the earliest, in the beginning of the Christian era, are proved by passages in the Pentateuch, in the Psalms and in the Prophets. One example may suffice : “In Psalm xlv.,” avers the learned Editor, “we have the Eternal Deity of the Son fully revealed.” Evangelical religion has its answer to Rammohun’s objections, but its exponents in India were not then aware how much must be conceded to the modern critical spirit before that answer can be effectively made. But Dr. Marshman sinned against higher than merely critical canons. Because the reverent Hindu impugns the validity of the Baptist’s conception of the Supreme Being whom they both adore, Dr. Marshman accuses him of “arraigning his Maker of gross injustice”, and of “charging Him with having founded all the religion of the patriarchs and prophets, of the apostles and primitive saints, of the blessed in Heaven throughout eternity, on an act of palpable iniquity.” And of this Hindu Theist he dares to ejaculate, “May his eyes be opened ere it be for ever too late !” On the 30th of January, 1823, Rammohun issued his rejoinder. The Final Appeal to the Christian Public in Defence of the Precepts of Jesus is a voluminous document. His four pages of mild and inoffensive preface to The Precepts of Jesus had evoked such extensive criticism as to draw from him a first “Appeal in Defence” of 20 pages, a “Second Appeal” of 150 pages, and now a “Third and Final Appeal” of 256 octavo pages.* The last work bears evidence of the unfortunate change of attitude into which the missionaries suffered themselves to be betrayed by the progress of this polemic. It announces that while all the previous works of the author on the subject of Christianity had been printed at the Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta, the acting proprietor had, after the Second Appeal appeared, declined—“although in the politest manner possible”—to print any other production of Rammohun on the same subject. Rammohun was therefore obliged to purchase his own type and to rely on native superintendence. The title page declares the work “Printed at the Unitarian Press, Dhurmtollah, Calcutta."† “I am well aware,” says Rammohun in his preface, “that this difference of sentiment has already occasioned much coolness towards me in the demeanour of some whose friendship I hold very dear.” But his devotion to the truth of Monotheism which he held to be not less imperilled by Christian Trinitarianism than by Hindu polytheism, left him no option but to pursue the controversy. The “Final Appeal” controverts Dr. Marshman’s arguments and Scriptural “proofs” step by step ; first as dealing with the Atonement, and next with the Trinity. Into the windings of this devious disputation we need not wander. Suffice it to say that, while the methods of exposition of the Hindu are more modern than those of his Christian opponent, many of his exegetical expedients are more apt to amuse than to convince a theologian of the present day. Yet the acquaintance which he shows with Hebrew and Greek and with expository literature is, considering his antecedents, little less than marvellous. It is interesting to observe that he rebuts Dr. Marshman’s appeal to the authority of interpretative tradition by a reminder of the position of the first Protestants in face of the unbroken Catholic tradition ; and the charge of imputing iniquity to his Maker he courteously and even with a sense of pain retorts upon his critic. It is also interesting to place beside his anonymous or pseudonymous defence of Hinduism, this question which appears in the preface above his own proper signature :— Could Hinduism continue after the present generation, or bear the studious examination of a single year, if the belief of their idols being endued with animation were not carefully impressed on the young before they come to years of understanding ?¹⁵ His objection to Dr. Marshman “condemning those whose sentiments as to the person of Jesus Christ are precisely the same” as Newton’s and Locke’s, is significant, for he goes on to describe these “sentiments”—which we may perhaps infer that he himself holds¹⁶—thus, “that He is the anointed Lord and King promised and sent from God” and “is worthy of worship for his mediation and meritorious death, but by no means . . perfect God and perfect Man.” Not content with his bulky “Final Appeal,” Rammohun proposed in the preface to start in the following April a monthly magazine “to be devoted to Biblical criticism and to subject Unitarian as well as Trinitarian doctrines to the test of fair argument.” “If any one of the missionary gentlemen, for himself and in behalf of his fellow-labourers,” would send an essay in defence of their distinctive tenets, Rammohun would publish the same at his own expense. This proffer led to a curious controversy. A certain fiery doctor of medicine, R. Tytler by name, considered it “a general challenge to all Christians who profess a belief in the divinity of Christ,” and accordingly he offered to meet Rammohun in either public or private disputation. Rammohun replied pointing out that what he had asked for was literary discussion, and declaring his willingness to examine any arguments which Dr. Tytler might commit to writing on behalf of the doctrine of Trinity, provided they were sent “by a missionary gentleman under his signature.” The sagacious Hindu was not going to be drawn from his quest after sober and temperate theological controversy by the truculent polemic of an irresponsible layman. The layman thereupon writes to the Bengal Hurkaru, April 30, 1823, in a towering passion, charging this Unitarian Goliath with shrinking from the conflict to which he had challenged the hosts of Israel, so soon as the first layman appeared against him. He is especially indignant at the idea of his being required to secure the warrant of a missionary’s signature to his lucubrations, as if he were going to turn Anabaptist. Whence it appears that the irate doctor did not love the Baptist persuasion. Rammohun Roy replied under date May 1st, quoting the precise words of his challenge and indicating the doctor’s non-compliance with the specified terms. To a more courteous proffer of literary battle from an anonymous correspondent, Rammohun, on May 3rd, answered, reasonably enough, that he did not engage to encounter all professors of the Trinity “of whatever rank or situation, character or peculiar state of mind,” but with accredited theologians only. But for dealing with amateur theologians of the minatory order, he had methods of his own. He would answer a fool according to his folly. In the Hurkaru of May 3rd Dr. Tytler explodes with indignation at Rammohun’s informing him of his entire indifference whether a man professed belief as a Christian in the divinity of Christ or of “any other mortal man,” or as a Hindu in the divinity of Thakur Trata Ram or Manu. The idea of putting Christian theology on a level with Hindu mythology drove the doctor into a frenzy of italics, capitals, large capitals and notes of exclamation. Rammohun adopted in reply an artifice as innocent in its transparency as it was pungent in its satire. He wrote under the assumed name of Ram Doss and under the assured profession of Hindu orthodoxy, to propose to Dr. Tytler a joint crusade against “the abominable notion of a single God” advocated by Rammohun Roy and others. He argues that Christian and Hindu orthodoxy rested on the common basis, the manifestation of God in the flesh, and drew a parallel between the incarnations of Ram and of Christ. Trinity in Unity on the one side and on the other the 330,000,000 of persons in the Hindu Godhead were equally matters of faith, inscrutable to reason. This covert satire stung the pugnacious doctor into styling Ram Doss “the wretched tool” of “the damnable heresy of Unitarianism” which was the same as Hindu idolatry and like it proceeded from the Devil. He signed this effusion characteristically “Your inveterate and determined toe in the Lord.” Dr. Tytler’s qualifications for controversy may be further seen in his assertion that “there is no book at present in possession of Hindus of higher antiquity than the entrance of the Mussulmans into India,” and that “the histories of Buddha, Salavahana and Krishna comprise nothing more than perverted copies of Christianity.” The correspondence which went on for the most of the month of May was published in pamphlet form under the title : “A Vindication of the Incarnation of Deity as the common basis of Hinduism and Christianity against the schismatic attacks of R. Tytler, Esq., M. D., by Ram Doss.” Possibly to the same time belongs A Dialogue between a Missionary and Three Chinese Converts, which is published in the English Works of the Rajah.¹⁷ This little tract is written with the desire of making out that the impression produced on Chinese minds by the teaching of three Gods who are One God and One of whom died, is bewildering and ridiculous. On November 15 in the same year appeared the fourth and last number of the Brahmanical Magazine. The cover of the pseudonym Śivaprasad Śarma is further kept up by an opening explanation that in default of reply from Rammohun Roy to the missionary attacks upon the Vedānta system this magazine had been published. This artifice of self-multiplication and self-concealment by aid of pseudonyms certainly savours more of the journalist than of the national religious reformer ; but, however we may explain it, Rammohun seems to have had quite a liking for such tactics. The Magazine is occupied first with a defence of the Vedāntic system and then with an onslaught on the doctrines of the Trinity and Atonement. The writer greatly enjoys himself in putting together ten different versions of the Trinity by English divines, from the Sabellian view of Dr. Wallis to the explanation of the newly-arrived Bishop Heber of Calcutta, that the second and third persons in the Trinity are simply the Angels Michael and Gabriel ! He suggests that so various and contradictory a creed is scarcely likely to make many converts. He concludes by laying down “for the information of the missionary gentlemen” “our religious creed,” which we may probably regard as the faith of the real author :— “In conformity with the precepts of our ancient religion, contained in the Holy Vedānt, though disregarded by the generality of the moderns, we look up to One Being as the animating and regulating principle of the whole collective body of the universe, and as the origin of all individual souls, which in a manner somewhat similar vivify and govern their particular bodies ; and we reject idolatry in every form and under whatsoever veil of sophistry it may be practised, either in adoration of an artificial, a natural, or an imaginary object. The divine homage which we offer consists solely in the practice of Dayā, or benevolence towards each other, and not in a fanciful faith, or in certain motions of the feet, arms, head, tongue, or other bodily organs, in a pulpit or before a temple.” In 1823, and possibly as a sort of practical conclusion to the course of controversy, Rammohun issued a short tract entitled Humble Suggestions to his countrymen who believe in the One True God. It is stated to be “by Prasanna Koomar Thakoor.” As his editor, Jogendra Chandra Ghosh, remarks at this point, “The Raja was fond of writing anonymously and giving the names of others to his own works.” This “advertisement” is prefixed : My object in publishing this tract is to recommend those to whom it is addressed, to avoid using harsh or abusive language in their intercourse with European missionaries, either respecting them or their objects of worship, however much this may be countenanced by the example of some of these gentlemen.¹⁸ This is the tract :— Those who firmly believe on the authority of the Vedas that “God is ONE only, without an equal,” and that “He cannot be known either through the medium of language, thought or vision : how can he be known except as existing, the origin and support of the Universe ?"—and who endeavour to regulate their conduct by the following precept, “He who is desirous of eternal happiness should regard another as he regards himself, and the happiness and misery of another as his own,” ought to manifest the warmest affection towards such of their countrymen as maintain the same faith and practice, even although they have not all studied the Veds for themselves, but have professed a belief in God only through an acquaintance with their general design. Many among the ten classes of Sunnyasees, and all the followers of Gooroo Nanuk, of Dadoo, and Kubeer, as well as of Santa, &c, profess the religious sentiments above mentioned. It is our unquestionable duty invariably to treat them as brethren. No doubt should be entertained of their future salvation, merely because they receive instructions, and practise their sacred music in the Vernacular dialect. For Yajnavalkya, with a reference to those who cannot sing the hymns of the Veds, has said “The divine hymns, Rik, Gatha, Panika and Dakshabihita should be sung ; because by their constant use man attains supreme beatitude”. “He who is skilled in playing on the lute (veena), who is intimately acquainted with the various tones and harmonies and who is able to beat time in music, will enter without difficulty upon the road of salvation.” Again the Śiva Dharma as quoted by Raghoonandan, says, “He is reputed a Gooroo who according to the capacity of his disciple instructs him in Sanskrit whether pure or corrupt, in the current language of the country, or by any other means.”

        Amongst foreigners, those Europeans who believe God to be in every sense ONE, and worship HIM ALONE in Spirit, and who extend their benevolence to man as the highest service to God, should be regarded by us with affection, on the ground of the object of their worship being the same as ours. We should feel no reluctance to co operate with them in religious matters, merely because they consider Jesus Christ as the Messenger of God and their spiritual teacher ; for oneness in the object of worship and sameness of religious practice should produce attachment between the worshippers.

        Amongst Europeans, those who believe Jesus Christ to be God himself, and conceive him to be possessed of a particular form and maintain Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be one God, should not be treated in an unfriendly manner. On the contrary, we should act towards them in the same manner as we act towards those of our countrymen who without forming any external image meditate upon Ram and other supposed incarnations and believe in their unity.

        Again, those amongst Europeans who believing Jesus Christ to be the Supreme Being, moreover construct various images of him, should not be hated. On the contrary, it becomes us to act towards those Europeans in the same manner as we act towards such as believe Ram, &c., to be incarnations of God and form external images of them. For, the religious principle of the two last mentioned sects of foreigners are one and the same with those of the two similar sects among Hindoos although they are clothed in a different garb.

        When any belonging to the second and third classes of Europeans endeavour to make converts of us, the believers in the only living and true God, even then we should feel no resentment towards them, but rather compassion on account of their blindness to the errors into which they themselves have fallen. Since it is almost impossible, as every day’s experience teaches us, for men when possessed of wealth and power, to perceive their own defects.¹⁹ . So terminated Rammohun’s polemic against the Trinitarian missionaries. But, even while that was in full course, he was involved in repelling attacks from an entirely opposite quarter. A defender of the conventional Hindu faith who styled himself an “Establisher of Religion,” brought out a brochure in Bengali, entitled “Four Questions,” which was manifestly levelled at the reformer and his associates.²⁰ From Rammohun’s reply in the same language, which appeared in 1822 (20th of Magh, 1229, Bengali era), and which was entitled “Answers to Four Questions,”²¹ we gather the chief points at issue between him and his orthodox fellow countrymen. The style of both combatants is indirect, allusive, sinuous ; with many covert personal references which are now scarcely intelligible, but all wrapped round the main point, which was—Had the reformers put themselves outside the pale of Hinduism ? The first question ran thus— Do these professors of knowledge and their childish followers, having examined the mysteries of the Śāstras, wish to give up their own religion and adopt that of foreigners ? Is it proper, according to the Śāstras, for gentlemen to associate with such good-intentioned people ? In other words, ought not Rammohun and his accomplices to be boycotted as renegades ? Rammohun retorts with a tu quoque. The “practiser of religion,” as he calls his pragmatic rite-observing opponent, failed just as much as “the inquirer into religion” to practise a millionth part of what the minute rules of Hinduism required. “The practiser,” with his father and grandfather had served men of an alien faith, had used Mahomedan tooth-powder and perfumes, had studied Mahomedan lore with Mahomedans, had instructed men of an alien faith in his own Śastras. These things were as much violations of strict Hindu law as any ritual offence charged to “the inquirer.” The second question inquires whether the religion of those who oppose native manners and customs, who ignorantly claim to know God, and who wear the Sacred Thread without affection, is not as the religion of the tiger and the cat ? Reply is made by enquiring whether “the establisher” observes the native customs of the Vaiṣṇavas, who eat no fish. Does he follow all the usages of his own sect ? If not, does he perform the requisite penance ? An effective contrast is drawn between the man who outwardly appears to fulfil the strictest prescriptions of his religion, but at home, eats fish and abuses everyone ; and the man who makes no pretences but holds to the saying of Maha Nirban,²² “the eternal religion consists in the knowledge of God and the performance of those practices most beneficial to man.” The third question asks what religion sanctions the taking of life by a Brahman, and scornfully enquires as to the fate in this and in the next world of “merciful searchers into knowledge,” who daily cause kids to be killed for their table. The answer affirms that according to the Śāstras “it is not a sin to eat flesh that has been offered to Gods and to ancestors.” But if the eating of animal food incur the punishment of hell, does not the Establisher himself eat fish ? The fourth question asks what must be done with “certain well-known persons” who “throw off fear of religion and of public opinion, cut their hair, drink wine and consort with infidels.”²³ It is answered that the Śāstras forbid only “vain cutting of the hair,” and enjoin the drinking of consecrated wine. Critics are significantly reminded that Brahmans who consort with the Mahomedan wives of their own servants and with Chandal courtezans ought properly to forfeit their Brahmanhood. These pungent replies called forth a rejoinder of more than two hundred pages from “the Establisher of Religion.”²⁴ This brought Rammohun again into the field. In 1823 (12th of Pous, 1230, Bengali era) he published his Pathya Pradana (“Medicine for the Sick”). Its preface describes the last work of his opponent—whom he calls henceforth not the establisher but “the destroyer of religion”—as merely one long tirade of abuse. Rammohun declines to retaliate, remarking that in giving medicine to boys that are sick the physician does not lose his temper over their kicks and screams. The “Medicine” he administers is compounded from the Śastras. In giving it, he rebuts false interpretations put upon his former answers. The controversy was thus, it appears, analogous to that between the “tithing of mint and anise and cumin,” and “the weightier matters of the law.” Against the Rabbinism of the Hindu religion, Rammohun appealed to its Prophetism. On the 16th of June in this year (1823), Rammohun who had emerged successfully from the proceedings instituted against him by his nephew some three years previously, was drawn once more into the law courts. The Rajah of Burdwan sued him for Rs, 15,002, being principal and interest on a bond for Rs. 7,501, which was given by Rammohun’s father for arrears of land revenue, and which fell due so far back as 1797. Rammohun’s defence was (1) that having been disinherited by his father he could not be held to have inherited his father’s debts ; (2) that no demand for payment has been made during his father’s life-time or since until now and (3) that a debt not claimed for twelve years ceased to be legally binding. He argued that the action was brought, out of malice, with a desire to ruin him, because Rammohun’s son-in-law²⁵, Dewan to the plaintiff’s son lately deceased, had acted as vakeel for the widowed Ranees and extorted from the Rajah what was legally, though not customarily, their due. For this exacting vindication of the widows’ rights, the Rajah naturally blamed Rammohun, and relying on his immense wealth was bent on breaking him. The proceedings now begun, lasted over more than eight years. Defeated in the Provincial Court of Calcutta, the Rajah appealed to the higher tribunal—the Sudder Dewanee Adalat—and the judicial decision which finally worsted him was not pronounced until Nov. 10, 1831²⁶. It is a remarkable commentary on the many-sidedness and elastic sympathy of Rammohun’s character that just at the time when he was anonymously satirizing or loftily compassionating the propaganda of Trinitarian Christians, we find him avowing attendance on a Presbyterian Church and giving his name and countenance to a petition for the despatch of Presbyterian missionaries to India. To Rammohun we may trace some share in the origination of Alexander Duff’s great missionary work.* Dr. Bryce, Church of Scotland Chaplain in Calcutta, declared himself disabused by Rammohun Roy of Abbé Dubois’ opinion that no Hindu could be made a true Christian ; and, to quote Dr. Bryce’s own words. “Encouraged by the approbation of Rammohun I presented to the General Assembly of 1824 the petition and memorial which first directed the attention of the Church of Scotland to British India as a field for missionary exertions, on the plan that is now so successfully following out, and to which this eminently gifted scholar, himself a Brahmin of high caste, had specially annexed his sanction.” On the 8th December 1823—within less than a month of the appearence of the Brahmanical Magazine, No. IV—Rammohun added this written testimony to the minute of St. Andrew’s Kirk Session on the proposal mentioned by Dr. Bryce :— As I have the honour of being a member of the Congregation meeting in St. Andrew’s Church (although not fully concurring in every article of the Westminster Confession of Faith), I feel happy to have an opportunity of expressing my opinion that, if the prayer of the memorial is complied with there is a fair and reasonable prospect of this measure proving conducive to the diffusion of religious and moral knowledge in India.” The parenthesis disclaiming complete concurrence with the Presbyterian creed, coming as it does from “Ram Doss,” seems to carry with it a flavour of fine irony ; but its mildness of statement was probably due only to the Rajah’s exceeding urbanity. Rammohun’s active assistance of Duff’s earliest efforts will be noticed later. Scotsmen will doubtless regard it as a compliment to their national type of religion that while this cultured Theist was horrified by the overtures of the Anglican bishop and was antagonized by the Baptist editors, he was induced to beg for the presence in his country of Scottish Presbyterian missionaries. But his sympathies most naturally lay with the suggestion which had been elicited, on his work becoming known in England and America, of starting a Unitarian propaganda in India. In 1823, Rev. Henry Ware, Unitarian minister of Harvard College, Cambridge, United States, addressed a number of questions to Rammohun on “The prospects of Christianity and the means of promoting its reception in India.” Rammohun, in a letter dated February 2, 1824, explains that his delay in replying was due to his engrossing “controversies with polytheists both of the West and East.” Before proceeding to answer seriatim the questions presented, he remarks :— There is one question . . . (to wit “Whether it be desirable that the inhabitants of India should be converted to Christianity” . . . ) which I pause to answer, as I am led to believe, from reason, what is set forth in Scripture, that “In every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him” in whatever form of worship he may have been taught to glorify God. Nevetheless I presume to think that Christianity, if properly inculcated, has a greater tendency to improve the moral, social, and political state of mankind than any other known religious system. He expresses his delight that so great a body of the American people “have engaged in purifying the religion of Christ from those absurd idolatrous doctrines and practices, with which the Greek, Roman, and Barbarian converts to Christianity have mingled it from time to time.” Able friends of truth, he adds, have made similar efforts in England, but there they have against them the power and revenues of the Established Church. In America they had to fight “only prejudice unarmed with wealth or power.” He concludes with a reference to the political future of the United States which reveals the wide outlook and sympathy of the man. He was writing shortly after the Missouri compromise (1821) had relaxed the first great tension between the “free” North and the slave-holding South ; and these are his words :— I presume to say that no native of these States can be more fervent than myself in praying for the uninterrupted happiness of your country and for what I cannot but deem essential to its prosperity—the perpetual union of all the States under one general government. He goes on to amplify his desire for the maintenance of Federal unity. He then deals with the string of questions propounded. On the number and quality of converts he speaks guardedly, but leaves the impression that there are no converts save a very few of low caste or none, ignorant, and influenced by mercenary motives. He quotes Abbé Dubois as a greater authority than himself, who said that it was impossible to convert a Hindu to Christianity. The chief causes assigned by him for the slow advance of Christianity in India are reliance of the natives on their sacred books, their early prejudices, their dread of losing caste, and the fact that “the doctrines which the missionaries maintain and preach are less conformable with reason than those professed by Moosalmans and in several points are equally absurd with the popular Hindu creed.” From this last drawback alone was the promulgation of Unitarian Christianity exempt. The sincere conversion of the few enlightened Hindus to Trinitarian Christianity is “morally impossible,” but “they would not scruple to embrace or at least to encourage, the Unitarian system of Christianity, were it inculcated on them in an intelligible manner.” To the question whether and if so how Unitarians could aid the cause of Christianity in India, Rammohun returns the reply. Everyone who interests himself in behalf of his fellow creatures, would confidently anticipate the approaching triumph of true religion should philanthropy induce you and your friends to send to Bengal as many serious and able teachers of European learning and science and Christian morality unmingled with religious doctrines, as your circumstances may admit, to spread knowledge gratuitously among the native community, in connection with the Rev. Mr. Adam. . . . Unitarian missionary schools giving instruction in the rudiments of a European education in the English language and in Christian morality, mingling with it very little instructions relative to the doctrines of Christianity, would, he held, be of great use,—“the only way,” in fact, “of improving their understanding and ultimately meliorating their hearts.” “I may be fully justified in saying that two-thirds of the native population of Bengal would be exceedingly glad to see their children educated in English learning.” “To the best of my knowledge, no benefit has hitherto arisen from the translation of the Scriptures into the languages of the East, nor can any advantage be expected from the translations in circulation.” To the question whether any important impression will ever be made “except by the conversion and through the influence of persons of education,” Rammohun answers characteristically, “Christianity, when represented in its genuine sense in any language whatever, must make a strong impression on every intelligent mind, especially when introduced by persons of education and respectability.” As the place most likely for successful propaganda he recommends Calcutta. As a result of prospects thus advanced and of anticipated support from English-speaking lands, Mr. Adam, aided by Rammohun and the Unitarian Committee, proceeded to organize a Unitarian Mission in Calcutta. To its growing fund we find that Rammohun subscribed Rs. 5,000, Dwarkanath Thakoor Rs. 2,500, and Prasanna Coomar Thakoor Rs. 2,500. Writing on June 4th, 1824, to Dr. T. Rees, of the Unitarian Committee in London, Rammohun reports :— As to the state of the Unitarian Society in Calcutta, our Committee have not yet been able to purchase a suitable piece of ground for a chapel and school. They will, I hope, soon succeed in their endeavours. We have collected, partly by purchase and partly by gift, a great number of works and established a pretty respectable library in Calcutta. From this letter we learn that Mr. Adam is now styled “the Unitarian Missionary in Bengal.” Rammohun prefaces the report with expressions of lively delight that the London Unitarians had reprinted his Precepts of Jesus and the two Appeals in its defence. He goes on naively to declare his grief and disappointment that George IV.,—whom he generously describes as “the most accomplished person of his time, of most enlightened acquirements and most liberal sentiments”—should not have used his royal influence to relieve the members of the Established Church from “the fetter” of the Thirty-nine Articles and from the repetition of the damnatory clauses of the “Athanasian Creed.” It is interesting to note that six days after Bishop Heber arrived in Calcutta (he came October 10th, 1823, and wrote the letter on the 16th) he informs the Dean of St. Asaph, “Our chief hindrances are some Deistical Brahmins who have left their old religion and desire to found a sect of their own, and some of those who are professedly engaged in the same work with ourselves, the Dissenters”.²⁷

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I The following list of publications covers the entire field of controversy between Rammohun Roy and the Baptist Missionaries of Bengal :— 1820 : Rammohun Roy published the Precepts of Jesus. 1820 : The Precepts of Jesus was criticised in the Friend of India (Monthly Series) Vol, III No. 20 (February 1820), pp. 23—31. The criticism is divided into two parts, the actual review of the text by “A Christian Missionary” pp. 23—29 ; and some comments added to it by the editor, Dr. Joshua Marshman, pp. 29—31. The “Christian Missionary” who wrote the review, has been rightly identified by our author with Rev. Deocar Schmidt. (See above p. 115.) This point is clearly established by the open letter of Rev. William Adam to Rev. William Yates, one of the Calcutta Baptist Missionaries, originally published in the Unitarian Repository and Christian Miscellany for May, 1824, and quoted in the India Gazette May 17, 1824 ( J. K. Majumdar Raja Rammohun Roy and Progressive Movements in India No. 28, p. 59). The Precepts of Jesus was criticised once again in the Friend of India (Quarterly Series) Vol. I. No. 1 (September 1820) pp. 88—119. The reviewer this time was Dr. Marshman who had previously made the following announcement in course of his editorial remarks on Rev. Deocar Schmidt’s previous article (Friend of India Monthly Series, Vol. III, No. 20, pp. 30—31) : “…as it is impossible to do justice to the enquiry in our present Number, we intend to take up the subject more fully in the first Number of the Quarterly Series which we hope will appear in about two months.” 1820 : Rammohun published his An Appeal to the Christian Public as reply to the above criticisms. 1820 : The Appeal met with hostile criticism from Dr. Marshman in the Friend of India (Monthly Series) Vol. III, No. 23 (May 1820), pp. 133—39. 1821 : Rammohun published his Second Appeal to the Christian Public as reply to Dr. Marshman. 1821 : Dr. Marshman came out with a detailed criticism of the tract in the Friend of India (Quarterly Series) Vol. I, No. 4 (June 1821) pp. 501—628. 1823 : Rammohun published his Final Appeal to the Christian Public as reply to Dr. Marshman. The attitude of the Missionaries increasingly stiffened towards Rammohun as the latter went on with his searching examination of the Christian dogmas in a reverent at the same time non-sectarian spirit. The Precepts and the first two Appeals had been printed at the Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta. The Missionaries now refused to print the Final Appeal in their own press. James Hoby in his Memoir of William Yates of Calcutta (London 1847) p. 167, has summed up the attitude of the Missionaries correctly : “…it was thought in some sort a sanction of error, for the missionaries to have allowed any of the printing for Rammohun Roy to be done at their press…”. So Rammohun had to publish the Final Appeal from his own Unitarian Press at Dharmatala, Calcutta. As far as he was concerned this phase of the controversy was closed with the publication of the Final Appeal. It should however be noted that Dr. Marshman continued to uphold the orthodox position even after the publication of the Final Appeal. He wrote two more articles,—one in the Friend of India (Quarterly Series) Vol. III. No. 9, pp. 89—186 against Rammohun’s criticisms of the Doctrine of Atonement ; and another in the Friend of India (Quarterly Series) Vol. III. No. 11, pp. 393—592 ; against the latter’s assault on the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ. The above articles of Dr. Marshman seems to have made little impression on contemporary public opinion as it would appear from the following remark of the India Gazette May 17, 1824 regarding Baptist Missionary attack on Rammohun : “…we owe it to common sense and the cause of truth, to declare that…the attack on Rammohun…appears to us to have been about as injudicious and weak an effort of officious zeal as we ever heard of. The effect of that attack was to rouse up a most gigantic combatant in the Theological field—a combatant who, we are constrained to say has not met with his match here” (italics ours—Editors.) (J. K. Majumdar Raja Rammohun Roy and Progressive Movements in India No. 27, p. 72). Rammohun did not himself reply any further to Dr. Marshman. The original ground of the Missionary controversy with him were however elaborately discussed by Rev. William Adam who had in 1821 seceded from the Trinitarian fold, in the afore-said letter to Rev. William Yates, written May 1824 ( Ibid No. 28, pp. 56—70. ) His main contention in the letter is that Missionary attack on Rammohun had been absolutely uncalled for. It may be of some interest to us to learn what Dr. Marshman, Rammohun’s orthodox opponent, had himself to say regarding his own part in the controversy. His son records : “In one of his letters during the controversy, he says, ‘these are the only articles on divinity, I have ever written, and some may be apt to think me, from the ‘Friend of India’, more of a politician than a divine ; yet the study of divinity is my highest delight” (J. C. Marshman Life and Times of Carey, Marshman and Ward London 1859, Vol. II p. 239). Apart from its main theme, the controversy is also interesting for some of its side issues. The joint efforts of Rammohun Roy, Rev. William Adam, and Rev. William Yates to translate the four Gospels into Bengali had ended in the withdrawal of Mr. Yates and the conversion of Mr. Adam to Unitarianism ! Mr. Adam’s secession was a hard blow to the Missionary camp as the following official notice would unmistakably indicate : “We mention with deep regret that Mr. William Adam,…has embraced opinions derogatory to the honour of the Saviour—denying the proper Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ; in consequence of which the connexion between him and the Society has been dissolved” (Periodical Accounts Relative to the Baptist Missionary Society, of 1822 London 1822, p. 8). It was at one time feared in Missionary circles that Mr. Yates had also followed the example of Mr. Adam. A strong rumour to that effect became so wide-spread that even Dr. Carey was half-inclined to take it seriously. Mr. Yates had to come out hastily with an open disclaimer ! He later published his Essays in defence of important Scripture doctrines in reply to the two Appeals…which was printed at the Baptist Mission Press in 1822. This book which tried to maintain the orthodox viewpoint against Rammohun’s attacks, contained twelve essays, five by Rev. T. Scott and the rest from the pen of Mr. Yates himself although published in the name of “the Baptist missionaries of Calcutta” (James Hoby Memoir of William Yates of Calcutta, London 1847, pp. 167-68). The publication of the “Essays” has been officially noticed in the Periodical Accounts of the Baptist Missionary Society, for 1823 (London 1823), p. 15, but for some reason or other, the work was able to rouse very little curiosity in circles interested in the main controversy. As Mr. Adam points out in his previously mentioned letter of May, 1824, to Mr. Yates, “….during the whole..period no public notice has been taken of them either by the advocates or opponents of reputed orthodoxy” (Majumdar Op. cit. p. 56). Rammohun does not even mention it in his Final Appeal published in 1823. We should also not forget that Adam, Yates and Rammohun formed a group in order to translate the Gospels afresh into Bengali because the previous translations including that of Dr. Carey, were considered by them (specially by Rammohun), full of “the most flagrant violations of native idiom.” (See above p. 122). Rammohun’s particular contribution in this respect is thus acknowledged by Mr. Yates : “He is one of the most learned men in Sanskrit and Arabic in Calcutta ; and in the idioms of Bengalee, as that is his native tongue, he assists us much.” The biographer of Yates adds. “He not only studied the Holy Scriptures diligently ; but in 1820. afforded Mr. Yates very effectual assistance in the translation of the Gospels into Bengalee. By his aid considerable improvements were made” (both italics ours—Editors) (Hoby Memoir of William Yates p. 166). This is a point for students of Bengali literature to note. The anonymous challenge that opened the second line of dispute by ultimately giving birth to the Brahmanical Magazine (with its Bengali counterpart Brāhmaṇa Sevadhi), appeared in the Samāchār Darpan No. 165 (July 14, 1821) pp. 3-4. The letter and the editorial note inviting replies, have been quoted in full in the first two numbers of the Brāhmaṇa Sevadhi (Rammohun’s Collected Bengali Works—5. Sāhitya Parishad Ed. pp. 5—6, 13—14) and English translations of these have been prefixed serially to the first two numbers of the Brahmanical Magazine (English works of Raja Rammohun Roy edited by Kalidas Nag and Debajyoti Burman Part II Calcutta 1946. pp. 141—43, 151—52). The letters and the editorial note induced Rammohun to send his reply to the Samāchār Darpan under the signature of “Śivaprasad Śārma”, but the Editor refused to publish it on the following plea, inserted in the issue of September 1, 1821 : “শ্রীযুত শিবপ্রসাদ শর্মা প্রেরিত পত্র এখানে পহুছিয়াছে তাহা না ছাপাইবার কারণ এই যে সে পত্রে পূর্ব্বপক্ষের সিদ্ধান্ত ব্যতিরিক্ত অনেক অবিজ্ঞাসিতাভিধান আছে। কিন্তু অবিজ্ঞাসিতাভিধান দোষ বহিষ্কৃত করিয়া কেবল ষড়দর্শনের দোষোদ্ধার পত্র ছাপাইতে অনুমতি দেন তবে ছাপাইতে বাধা নাই, অন্যথা সর্ব্বসমেত অন্যত্র ছাপাইতে বাসনা করেন তাহাতেও হানি নাই।” (See Sambādpatre Sekāler Kathā edited by Brajendranath Banerji vol. I, 3rd ed. p. 326.) The so-called “irrelevant issues” ( অবিজ্ঞাসিতাভিধান ) in the body of the reply, consisted of Rammohun’s strictures on some of the dogmas of Trinitarian Christianity which he had sought to compare with the conclusions of Hindu religious philosophy while defending the latter. The refusal of the Editor of the Samāchār Darpan to publish the reply induced Rammohun to bring out the first two numbers of the Brāhmaṇa Sevadhi in Bengali and the Brahmanical Magazine in English in 1821. The Baptist Missionaries came out with a scathing attack on the publications in the Friend of India (Monthly Series) Vol. IV, No. 38, (August 1821) pp. 243—57. Rammohun replied by publishing the third number of the series in English and Bengali as before, in the same year (1821). A rather patronising notice of Rammohun’s above periodicals appeared next year in the Periodical Accounts of the Baptist Missionary Society for 1822, p. 9, accusing its author no doubt of “much ignorance of the gospel” and dubbing the Magazines as “abounding in misrepresentations of the motives of those whom they attack.” but at the same time hailing its appearance in the hope, that “it will probably help to cherish that spirit of enquiry and investigation, which has been hitherto so foreign to the Hindu character.” Rammohun’s appeal to the Missionaries to use sober aud moderate expressions in religious controversy, in the concluding paragraph of the third number of the Magazine, seems however to have been in vain. From the preface and the first paragraph of the fourth number of the Magazine we come to know that the Missionaries had once again brought out a Bengali tract from the Baptist Mission Press, Serampore, condemning the “Vedānta system of religion” in harsh language. Rammohun in reply issued the fourth and the last number of the Brahmanical Magazine in 1823. This was published only in English. The second chapter of the controversy closes with the appearance of this work.²⁸ II Rammohun’s “cosmopolitan sympathies” in the political sphere is further illustrated by the joyous enthusiasm with which he had welcomed the news of the liberation of the Spanish colonies of South America from the tyranny of Spain. He celebrated the occasion by entertaining a number of his European friends at a dinner party at his Calcutta residence. An account of the party appeared in the Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany for September 1823, pp. 350—57, under the title “Rammohun Roy”, from which we quote the following extract (pp. 351—52) : “But the lively interest he took in the progress of South American emancipation, eminently marks the greatness and benevolence of his mind, and was created, he said, by the perusal of the detestable barbarities inflicted by Spain to subjugate and afterwards continued by the Inquisition to retain in bondage that unhappy country. ‘What !’ replied he, (upon being asked why he had celebrated by illuminations, by an elegant dinner to about sixty Europeans and by a speech composed and delivered by himself, at his house in Calcutta,—the arrival of important news of the success of the Spanish Patriots), ‘What ! ought I to be insensible to the sufferings of my fellow-creatures wherever they are, or howsoever unconnected by interests, religion and language ?’”[^29] In the internal struggles of Spain, Rammohun’s sympathies were definitely on the side of the liberals. A copy of the famous Spanish Constitution declared at Cadiz in 1812, published by the Philipine Company (in Spanish) and dedicated to the liberalissimo (most liberal), noble, sabio (wise) and virtuoso (virtuous) Bramo (Brāhmana), Rammohun Roy, has recently come to light. (See Plate VI for the facsimile of its title-page.) The fact and also the language of the dedication of this remarkable document which in the words of Bendetto Croce, marked “the beginning of the formation of a new Spanish people”, to Rammohun Roy, certainly point to the conclusion that in the latter the Spanish progressives had a staunch admirer and supporter of their cause in the East. In a letter to Mr. Woodford dated August 22, 1833, Rammohun is found to express his sense of gratification apparently at the victory of the liberal party in the Portuguese Civil War : “The news from Portugal is highly gratifying”, he writes, “though another struggle is still expected” (The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy edited by Kalidas Nag and Debajyoti Burman, Part IV p. 93). The indirect reference is to the struggle then going on in Portugal, between Dom Miguel, the champion of absolutism and Maria da Gloria, supported by the constitutionalists. Rammohun was also a champion of Catholic Emancipation and the author mentions in chapter V below, how as early as in 1822, he had sharply criticised in his Persian weekly Mirat-ul-Akhbar, the narrow and high-handed policy pursued by the British Government towards the Irish Catholics. In some of his letters also he is seen to advocate the cause of Catholic Emancipation in strong and unambiguous language (cf, English Works ed. by Nag and Burman, IV p. 94). Finally we may here make a passing reference to his great admiration for the ideals of the French Revolution as well as to the enthusiastic support he gave to the Reform Agitation in England. Detailed notices of these have been taken by the author (or to be fair, by the continuator) in chapter VIII below III William Roberts, the South Indian Unitarian convert was in his own words “a native of Carnatick [Karnatak], a descendant of Tamul or Malabar heathen parents of very indigent circumstances……” He was converted to Chrstianity, got gradually dissatisfied with Trinitarianism and ultimately embraced the Unitarian faith. Chiefly due to his exertions a small Unitarian Congregation consisting of about ten families besides a number of individuals “most of whom are converts from heathenism and all of them persons from very inferior stations of life,” had been formed and a small place of worship opened at a short distance from Madras, on the 19th December 1813. Roberts himself visited England more than once, aquired a good knowledge of English and was in regular correspondence with the Unitarian Society of London. From time to time, the latter body used to publish his letters in the form of small tracts. The National Library, Calcutta, possesses three such publications bound in one volume. It contains : (i) A Letter to the Unitarian Society of London from William Roberts, dated Madras, December 25, 1816. (Published by the Unitarian Society, London, 1818.) (ii) A Letter from William Roberts to the Rev. Thomas Belsham, dated June 17, 1818 (Published by the Unitarian Society, London, 1819). (iii) Letters from William Roberts to Dr. Thomas Rees, Secretary to the London Unitarian Society and to the Rev. Thomas Belsham (Published by the Unitarian Society, London, 1820). This tract contains three letters : one to Dr. Rees, dated April 20, 1819 ; and two to Rev. Belsham dated August 26, 1819, and September 23, 1819, respectively. It is not definitely known whether the organisers of the Calcutta Unitarian Committee had any contact with the members of the said South Indian Unitarian Congregation. We can however consider it most likely that the two groups had heard of each other at least through the medium of the Unitarian Society of London, with which both were in touch. Rammohun is known also to have corresponded with Dr. Rees and Rev. Thomas Belsham. (For the text of one of his letters to the former, see English Works ed. by Nag and Burman, IV pp. 87—88 ; for his letter to Rev. Belsham, Ibid. pp. 111—12.) In his letter to Rev. Belsham (date unknown, year 1821 ?) he mentions one Mr. Roberts “who is about to leave India for England,” and who “has kindly offered to take charge of any letter or parcel that I might wish to send to Europe.” It is not possible to be definite whether this “Mr. Roberts” is identical with William Roberts, the South Indian Unitarian convert. If however, Mr. Roberts mentioned in Rammohun’s letter to Rev. Belsham is regarded as the same person as “Mr. R.” mentioned in his letter to Dr. Rees, he cannot probably have been William Roberts of South India. For “Mr. R.” is definitely described in Rammohun’s letter as “a member of the firm of M. & Co. of this place” i.e. Calcutta, and is mentioned as having left for Europe from Bengal. The dates of the two letters however do not appear to tally, that to Dr. Rees being timed Calcutta June, 4, 1824, while the one to Rev. Belsham having been written sometime in 1821. If the year of the writing of the letter to Rev. Belsham, as mentioned by Messrs. Nag and Burman, is correct it would be difficult to uphold the identity of “Mr. Roberts” and “Mr R.” as well ! In his letter to Rev, Henry Ware of Cambridge (U. S. A) “on the prospects of Christianity” in India, dated February 2, 1824, Rammohun mentions that he paid a visit to Vellore and Madras in South India “four years ago” i.e. sometime in 1820. (The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, ed. by Nag and Burman, Part IV p. 46). Did he have any contact with William Roberts’ group of Unitarians during his stay in South India ? It is really surprising that he does not refer to them in his letter to Rev. Ware. It should be carefully noted that the members of the South Indian Unitarian Congregation and the Indian supporters of the Calcutta Unitarian Committee differed in important respects. First, the former usually came from the poorer and often uneducated classes of Indians and even William Roberts inspite of his excellent knowledge of the English language, had no pretension to learning. The Calcutta group however consisted invariably of high-caste Hindus well-known for their wealth, and social position and sometimes as in the case of Rammohun, distinguished for scholarship. Secondly, the former were all regular converts to Unitarian Christianity ; whereas Rammohun and his Indian associates in the Calcutta Unitarian Committee, though warm supporters of the Unitarian cause, were resolutely opposed to any idea of conversion. They remained throughout the period of their association with the Committee, good Hindus. Rammohun makes his position clear in his tract Humble Suggestions, where he says with regard to the Unitarians : “We should feel no reluctance to co-operate with them in religious matters, merely because they consider Jesus Christ as the Messenger of God and their Spiritual Teacher ; for oneness in the object of worship and sameness of religious practice should produce attachment between the worshippers.” (See above p. 144.) In another tract, Answer of a Hindoo to the question : why do you frequent a Unitarian Place of Worship… ?, he sets forth the reasons of his attending Unitarian Churches more clearly : “Because Unitarians believe, profess and inculcate the doctrine of divine unity—a doctrine which I find firmly maintained both by Christian Scriptures and by our most ancient writings commonly called the Vedas.” (The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy ed. by Nag and Burman, Part II p. 194). To Rev. Henry Ware’s question “Whether if it be desirable that the inhabitants of India should be converted to Christianity”, Rammohun had written back “In every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is acceped with him in whatever form of worship he may have been taught to glorify God” (third italics ours—Editors.) (See above p. 151.) He is here found definitely not to favour the idea of Indians being converted to any form of Christianity. VI Nagendranath Chatterjee (Mahatma Raja Rammohun Rāyer Jiban-Charit 5th Ed. p. 229 note) accuses Miss Collet of giving an incorrect summary of the contents of the Four Questions (Chāripraśna) as well as those of the Answer to the Four Questions (Chripraśner Uttar) for which he makes her imperfect acquaintance with Bengali, responsible. While it may be conceded that the summaries and the English renderings of the texts as inserted in Chapter IV, are sometimes a little too free, the extract which he quotes as an example, cannot be found in the context mentioned, in the Sahitya Parishad Edition of Rammohun’s Collected Bengali Works. The portion of the narrative we are discussing, though written by the continuator, was revised by Miss Collet. The reader would be well-advised to compare the English summary of the Chāripraśna and the Chāriprāśner Uttar as given in the text with the Bengali original, in the Sahitya Parishad Edition of Rammohun’s Collected Bengali Works—6. pp. 3—20.

• “By me and by numerous other followers of Christ.” The author further speaks of “himself or any other person labouring in the promulgation of Christianity.”

† At this point Miss Collet ceased writing. The rest of the work is from the hand of the Continuator. The point at which her revision of his manuscript ended is indicated later.

• Bishop Middleton died July 8, 1822. His overtures to Rammohun Roy would most probably take place after The Precepts of Jesus came out, which was in the beginning of 1820. The incident occurred, Mr. Adam informs us, during “the hot season.” Mr. Adam’s statement that “he never afterwards visited the Bishop”, implies that a considerable interval elapsed before the Bishop’s death. Hence we are safe in concluding that the time of the incident fell in hot season of 1820 or 1821.

• “A Lecture on the Life and Labours of Rammohun Roy,” by W. Adam, Calcutta : Roy & Co., 1879. pp. 22-25.

• “The Committee was formed in September, 1821,” says Mr. William Adam in a letter under date of June 26, 1827, to Mr. R. Dutton, “and its present members are Theodore Dickens, a barrister of the Supreme Court, George James Gordon, a merchant of the firm of Mackintosh & Co., William Tate, an attorney, B. W. Macleod, a surgeon in the Company’s service, Norman Kerr, an uncovenanted servant of the Company, Rammohun Roy, Dwarkanath Thakoor, Prusunnu Coomar Thakoor, Radhaprusad Roy, and myself.” It will be observed that nearly all the European names are Scottish.

† Adam’s letter to R. Dutton, June 26, 1827.

*For following incidents see Dr. George Smith’s Life of Alexander Duff, Vol. I, pp. 39, 40.