but to two ideas contained in it, they felt themselves bound in honor to withhold it from public notice, till they received permission from those to whom it was addressed. This permission was never given. The Society, on the contrary, deemed it ad visable to make these differences the subject of private and amicable adjustment, which has happily been accomplished, and a harmonious co-operation again established between the Society at home and the Serampore Missionaries. They beg leave therefore to assure their friends in England and America, where this statement will be re-published, that its exhibition to public view has not proceeded from them in any way whatever.

The effect of the Editor's thus reviewing a private letter written seven years ago, (which he acknowledges never to have seen till within the last six months,) while ignorant of preceding and subsequent circumstances, is visible throughout the review. Having in page 82 said, "The missionaries aşk their brethren at home how any of them who were pastors of congregations and had realized a thousand pounds sterling by business, would relish seeing these thousand pounds seized by the deacons of the church?" he himself replies, "there can be little doubt but the brethren would one and all of them stoutly withstand such a claim except they had bound themselves that the fruits of their labor, however acquired, should be at the disposal of the deacons." Here he acknowledges that supposing the Serampore Missionaries not to have bound themselves to place at the disposal of a Committee in England, the fruit of their la bor, however acquired, there can be little doubt that as upright men they would one and all stoutly withstand such a claim. As the Serampore Missionaries never thus bound themselves in any way whatever, the Reviewer himself confesses, that his attack on their moral character has originated wholly in his igno rance of the circumstances preceding the letter.

Had he even known the circumstances which have taken place in the seven years since it was penned, he would scarcely have acted as he has done. In December 1821, they wrote

to the Society to say that "so little were they desirous of the exclusive Trusteeship even of the premises on which they reside, that if such an alteration be in their power, they will at any time vest them in the same eleven Trustees as the College premises." That after all differences, therefore, had been adjusted, and the Society had particularly requested that this letter should not be published, and that the most perfect harmony and love should in fature be cultivated, a stranger should attempt to revive and perpetuate discord among bre thren, is so contrary to propriety and reason, that the Serampore Missionaries cannot believe the Reviewer capable of so unworthy a deed, had he been in possession of these circumstances. His ignorance of them is not culpable, since the negotiations were necessarily of a private character; but it is somewhat strange, that while ignorant of them, he should thus attempt to destroy the reputation of individuals whom he characterizes as "unrivalled for piety, zeal, and disinterestedness" and still more singular that after having done this, he should ascribe to himself the praise of "honesty and impartiality."

To follow the Reviewer through all the sinuosities of misstatement into which his ignorance of the subject has led him, is quite a needless task. A simple statement of facts and figures will be sufficient to refute the three charges into which the whole attack may be resolved. He has charged thém with having violated solemn engagements with the Baptist Missionary Society in England, by claiming a right over the product of their own labor; with having from the contributions of the religious world at home and abroad for the propagation of Christianity in the East, realized in part a substantial real property at Serampore; and with having transferred over to themselves in fee simple the real property which they had thus purchased and greatly increased from the donations of the Christian world.

To the first of these charges, which in fact runs through the whole article, viz. that they have violated a compact with the Society in England by which they bound themselves that the

pecuniary result of their labor however acquired, should be the Society's property and at the disposal of the Committee in England, it is sufficient to reply, as has been already hinted, that no such compact ever existed.

In

In 1788 Dr. Carey published an enquiry into the "obligations of Christians to seek the salvation of the Heathen" in which he maintained that Missionaries should if possible support themselves, that the first expense might be the last. Oct. 1792 he together with the Rev. Messrs. Fuller, Sutcliffe, Ryland, and others, formed at Kettering in Northamptonshire the present Baptist Missionary Society. In 1793, he himself came out with the Rev. Mr. Thomas, and the next year exemplifying his own principle, both he and his colleague, accepted the superintendance of an Indigo factory and relinquished their salaries from England.

The product of their labor they deemed their own as much as though they had never sustained the character of Missionaries; and the Society at home also, deeming it the same, ne ver interfered either with their incomes or their debts. The Secretary writes them; "We are glad that you are disposed to lay out YOUR money so profitably as in Schools and Translations, but you must not deny us the pleasure of sharing the expense of these with you." See PERIODICAL ACCOUNTS, Vol. 1st.

In 1799, Messrs. Ward and Marshman arrived in India with the same views of missions as Dr. Carey. The Society having moreover informed them that their funds would not permit them to guarantee more than 360£ annually for four families, the necessity of their applying to their own support was apparent. Not the least hint, however, was in any way given them that the product of their labor should be considered as the Society's, nor did they enter into any engagement of this nature with the Society, either written or verbal.

Dr. Carey having quitted Mudnabatty on their arrival, he form. ed a union at Serampore with Messrs. Ward and Marshman to support themselves and families independently of the funds of the Society and to promote the progress of Christianity and

knowledge in India.

To this union the Society was no party, and no account of its income or expenditure was ever requested by the Society, or ever transmitted to England.

II. In the years 1800, 1801, and 1805 they purchased three parcels of ground, with houses, for the sum of 30,520 Rupees, and which after all the money expended in repairs, and in keeping them out of the river, instead of being worth "some lacs of Rupees" as the Reviewer suspects, would at the present moment fetch at the hammer little beyond their original price.

They purchased these premises without receiving either directions or funds for this purpose from the Society in England, partly with their own private funds and partly with funds borrowed on their own responsibility. The 1500 rupees borrowed from the funds sent out by the Society to print the Bengalee New Testament, they first repaid. And they embrace this opportunity of saying, that they have never borrow ed a single Rupee during the twenty-five years of their resi dence at Serampore on the credit or responsibility of the Bap tist Missionary Society. That they might secure the occupancy of these premises to themselves and their missionary successors, and at the same time prevent their being sold or becoming here. ditary property, they vested the right of property in the Society, and the Trusteeship in themselves. This they did as doknowledge of the So

nors, without the request or even the ciety. The right of property in them still remains vested in the Society and will continue so until the premises be swallowed up by the river Hoogly. The explanatory Declaration only bars the Trusteeship from being hereditary in their families, and declares it to have been their "will, design, meaning, and intention," in the purchase of these premises, that they should be occupied by themselves and their successors in trust for the object for which they were purchased. Whether this explana tory declaration was legally efficient or not, is irrelevant to the question of the guilt or integrity of the Serampore Missionaries, which it is the object of the Reviewer to discuss. The deed was declared efficient by the members of the Serampore

Comt in whose jurisdiction the premises are; and on the cre dibility of their declaration it was signed and sealed.

III. With reference to the disbursement of the funds collect ed in England and sent to India for the propagation of Christianity, it is proper to state, that from 1801 to 1815 the Baptist Missionary Society sent to India eleven Missionaries with their families, and requested that Dr. Carey's two elder sons might be received under their patronage. The funds for the support of these Missionaries were from time to time remitted to the Serampore Missionaries as the agents of the Society, till the year 1818, when at their earnest and repeated request, this agency was transferred to Messrs. Alexander and Co. Of the receipt and disbursement of these funds accounts were duly transmitted to the Society.

The sum of Twenty-Two Thousand Pounds mentioned by the Reviewer, was the amount thus received at Serampore, from 1801 to 1816, and was expended in the support of the aforesaid Missionaries, viz. in 1305 and 1806 in the support of six Missionaries and their families; in 1807, of seven; from 1808 to 1813, of eight; in 1814 of nine; and in 1815, and 16, of ten Missionaries and their families. Here it is scarcely necessary to assume that these Missionaries and their families, numbering on the average, eight in each year, as they did not support themselves, must have received support either from the aforesaid sum of 22,000£ or from the Serampore Missionaries, or have starved.

In their support, in their journies on the continent of India, and voyages to Rangoon, Java, and Ceylon, and in providing them habitations, the whole of this sum, amounting in round figures to 22,000£ w 1s absorbed ; regular accounts were transmitted to the Society of the details of the expenditure; and against the accuracy of even the minutest sum, they have never heard a syllable from that body. What then does the Reviewer intend by saying that they SHEW an expenditure of all the 22,000£ remitted to them and more, to escape from the claim of the Society? He must either mean to insinuate that the entries on the side of disbursements, were false, or his words are