Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/baptistsbiblesocOOunse 
 
THE BAPTISTS AND THE BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 MEMORIAL, 
 
 RELATING TO THE 
 
 BENGALI AND OTHER VERSIONS OF THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT, 
 
 MADE BY BAPTIST MISSIONARIES IN INDIA. 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE 
 
 RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD BEXLEY, 
 
 PRESIDENT, 
 
 THE VICE-PRESIDENTS, THE COMMITTEE, AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS 
 
 OP THE 
 
 asriti@t) att& .dFomgtt ISifile J&ofteti?, 
 
 January 6, 1840, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 COMMITTEE OF THE BAPTIST UNION. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 G. WIGHTMAN, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 

 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■T. HADDON, PRIMER, CASTLE STREET, FINSBURY. 
 
AT A SPECIAL MEETING 
 
 OF THE 
 
 COMMITTEE OF THE BAPTIST UNION, 
 Held Dec. 17, 1839, 
 
 Thomas Pewtress, Esq., in the Chair. 
 
 Resolved Unanimously, 
 
 That the cordial thanks of this Committee be 
 presented to the Rev. Edward Steane, for the highly 
 valuable Memorial to the Committee of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society, which he has drawn up 
 by the desire of this Committee, and now read. 
 
 Resolved Unanimously, 
 
 That the Document now read be adopted as 
 the Memorial of this Committee, and be presented as 
 such to the Committee of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, at their next meeting, by the Rev. 
 Edward Steane, the Rev. John Dyer, and the Rev. 
 J. H. Hinton, A.M. 
 

 
 
 . 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TO THE COMMITTEE 
 
 BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 The following Memorial, relating to the Bengali and other 
 Versions of the New Testament, made by Baptist Mission- 
 aries in India, is presented with respect and Christian 
 courtesy , 
 
 BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE BAPTIST UNION. 
 
 In the document now submitted to the Committee 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society, it is intended 
 to make another, and final effort, to induce a reversal of 
 the measure by which translations of the New Testa- 
 ment executed by Baptist missionaries in India have 
 been denied the support of that institution. 
 
 In attempting this object, the Memorialists are im- 
 pelled by a solemn conviction of the duty they owe to 
 the truth, to the heathen, and to the Bible Society 
 itself. 
 
 The question at issue is one affecting not simply 
 their own denomination. It involves principles of 
 common concern to all who are engaged in giving the 
 Sacred Scriptures to the nations, the recognition of 
 which alone can, in their opinion, relieve the Bible 
 Society from embarrassment, and enable it with an 
 equal hand to extend its encouragement to all faithful 
 versions. Nothing, they conceive, is more to be depre- 
 cated by those who love it most, than that it should 
 persist in a line of conduct which lays it open to the 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 charge of suppressing any portion of God’s truth. If 
 such an allegation can be sustained against the Society, 
 the warmest friends it has must condemn its policy, 
 and all good men will approve the effort to recover it 
 from so perilous a position. 
 
 Until the adoption of those proceedings which form 
 the subject of complaint, the Baptist body took an equal 
 interest in the Society’s labours with all other denomina- 
 tions, and they are still most earnestly desirous to be 
 permitted to continue among its supporters. They 
 will regard it as a calamity to be separated in such a 
 cause from their fellow Christians ; nor will they be 
 the parties to sever the bond. If they must adopt an 
 independent course of action it shall be because they 
 are compelled. If they can no longer be fellow- 
 labourers in the foreign field of Bible distribution, it 
 shall be because they are thrust out. 
 
 Should they, on the one hand, be able to show that 
 the terms proposed by the Committee of the Bible So- 
 ciety in order to the Baptist body receiving support to 
 its versions are such as cannot be complied with, both 
 because, as a general rule, they are impracticable, 
 and, where practicable, morally subversive of the 
 authority of conscience, and of the primary and impe- 
 rative obligations of a translator of the inspired volume ; 
 and, on the other hand, that the proper course for the 
 Bible Society to pursue is that for which the Baptist 
 body pleads, the just conclusion will be obvious to 
 every impartial mind ; and the memorialists, having 
 discharged their duty, will quietly leave the result to 
 their brethren and to God. 
 
 The terms proposed to the Baptists by the Com- 
 mittee of the British and Foreign Bible Society are 
 
3 
 
 communicated in their resolution of the 1st of July, 
 1833, which is expressed in the following words : — 
 
 “ That this Committee would cheerfully afford as- 
 sistance to the missionaries connected with the Baptist 
 Missionary Society in their translation of the Bengali 
 New Testament, provided the Greek terms relating to 
 baptism be rendered, either, according to the principle 
 adopted by the translators of the authorized English 
 version, by a word derived from the original, or by 
 such terms as may be considered unobjectionable by 
 other denominations of Christians composing the 
 Bible Society.”* 
 
 This resolution gives the translator the alternative of 
 rendering the Greek terms relating to baptism, either 
 by a word derived from the original, as is done in the 
 English version, or by such terms as may be considered 
 unobjectionable by the other denominations of Chris- 
 tians composing the Bible Society. It is alleged b}^ 
 the Memorialists that neither of these alternatives can 
 be acted upon as a general rule. 
 
 They begin with the latter, and restrict themselves 
 first to its application to their own case. And they 
 respectfully ask, what terms they are which would de- 
 scribe baptism in a manner unobjectionable to all de- 
 nominations of Christians composing the Bible Society? 
 Where in any language can such terms be found ? 
 Until immersion, and sprinkling, and pouring, mean 
 the same thing, or until there ceases to be a difference 
 of opinion as to which of these modes is exclusively 
 right, it is clear that no such terms are likely to be 
 discovered. Moreover, if it be laid down as the rule, 
 that Baptists, in their versions, must employ terms 
 
 * Appendix A. ' 
 
 B 2 
 
4 
 
 “ unobjectionable” to non-immersionists, of course it 
 must be the rule also, that non-immersionists must, in 
 versions made by them, employ terms “ unobjection- 
 able” to Baptists, since they are one of the denomina- 
 tions of Christians composing the Bible Society. But 
 the Baptist members of the Bible Society contend that 
 the Greek words employed to describe the Christian 
 rite have one meaning, and one only, and consequently, 
 until that meaning, and that alone, were given, they 
 could not cease to object. 
 
 There is, moreover, a fallacy involved in this part of 
 the resolution of the Committee, the exposure of which 
 deprives it of much of its apparent reasonableness, 
 while it confirms what has just been said of its imprac- 
 ticability as a rule. By “ the other denominations of 
 Christians composing the Bible Society,” are of course 
 meant all who belong to it besides the Baptists. But 
 it is overlooked, in this mode of putting the case, that, 
 in relation to the question in hand, all these denomi- 
 nations merge into one. For all the purposes of this 
 controversy, the Bible Society consists but of two sec- 
 tions, immersionists and non-immersionists, and it has 
 the appearance at least of disingenuousness (though 
 the memorialists do not impute it to the Committee) 
 that it should be otherwise represented. As between 
 these two parties then, and there are no other within the 
 view of the subject, so long as one of them shall con- 
 sider immersion, not an accident, but entering into 
 the essential nature of the ordinance of baptism, while 
 the other, professing to regard the mode as an indif- 
 ferent circumstance, in practice altogether discards 
 immersion, the rule must of necessity be perfectly 
 inoperative. Ever to have conceived of it as laying a 
 
ground of union between them, was but a subtile delu- 
 sion, and for the Bible Society now to persist in it 
 must inevitably lead to separation. 
 
 But the spirit of this rule extends far beyond the 
 particular case of the Baptists ; and, impracticable as 
 it is in reference to them, it is even more so when taken 
 in .that extent of application to which impartiality 
 requires it should be carried. Did it not occur to the 
 Committee, when assigning as a reason for laying 
 down this rule, that the Bible Society is “ composed 
 of persons holding on this subject widely different 
 opinions,”* that its members hold “ widely different 
 opinions” on other subjects also, subjects moreover 
 affecting, some of them, not the ceremonial, but the 
 vital doctrines of Christianity, and quite as likely to 
 occasion embarrassment in the translation of the Scrip- 
 tures ? The episcopalian, the presbyterian, and the 
 eongregationalist, entertain views widely diverse from 
 one another of the rendering of the terms hrianonoc 
 (bishop), StaKovoc (deacon), TrpsafSvrspog (presbyter), 
 iKK Xrjaia (church). And besides these, as already inti- 
 mated, there are disputed words relating to doctrines, 
 such for example as wpoytvwaKw (to foreknow), irponpl^u, 
 (to predestinate), reraypevoc (ordained), kAoyrj (election), 
 kXwiq (calling), pe Tcivoia (repentance), Kai w tc (justifi- 
 cation), aTroXvTpwinQ (redemption). Of course these 
 words must be subjected to the same process; nor 
 these only, but every other respecting the signification 
 of which denominations differ ; a process which shall 
 either convey them in an untranslated form into other 
 languages, or translate them, not with scrupulous phi- 
 lological accuracy, but so as to unite die suffrages of 
 * Resolutions, confirmed April 4, 18-30. Appendix B. 
 
6 
 
 controversialists. The Bible Society includes among 
 its members, to say nothing of minor, or, in a theolo- 
 gical point of view, less important sects, Protestants 
 and Roman Catholics, members of the Greek church, 
 Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians. Is deference 
 to be paid to the conflicting sentiments of these several 
 parties ? Is a translation of the word of God to speak 
 nothing at variance with their peculiar and distinctive 
 dogmas? Or, lest it should, are all words in debate 
 among them to be left untranslated ? It may be con- 
 fidently put to every considerate person, if the former 
 of these alternatives be not absolutely impossible ; 
 while, if the latter be adopted, the Scriptures might as 
 well be withholden altogether, for they must thus be- 
 come an unintelligible jargon. 
 
 The improbability of finding terms which shall ex- 
 press two or more meanings essentially differing from 
 each other, as must be done if versions are to contain 
 no words objectionable to the different denominations 
 of Christians composing the Bible Society, is so ob- 
 vious, that another sentence need not be written to 
 expose the futility of the rule that requires it ; but if 
 it be thought that disputed terms may be transferred, 
 let the experiment be made upon some of those already 
 mentioned. In the following passages these Greek 
 terms are expressed in words derived from the original, 
 “ And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he 
 saw his wife’s mother laid and sick of a fever ; and he 
 touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she arose 
 and diaconized them,” Matt. viii. 14, 15. “ This is a 
 
 true saying, if a man desire episcopy, he desireth a 
 good work,” ^ Tim. iii. 1. “ Feed the flock of God 
 
 which is among you, episcopising not by constraint, 
 
7 
 
 but willingly,” 1 Pet. v. 2. “ For the gifts and clesis 
 
 of God are without repentance,” Rom. xi. 29. 
 “ Wherefore the rather brethren give diligence to make 
 your clesis and ekology sure,” 2 Pet. i. 10. “ Even 
 
 so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon 
 all men unto dicaosis of life,” Rom. v. 18. “ In whom 
 
 we have apolutrosis through his blood,” Eph. i. 7. Is 
 any thing farther needed to demonstrate the absurdity 
 of such a practice ? 
 
 Nor is the difficulty thus stated an hypothetical case, 
 suggested merely for the sake of illustration. It 
 already presses in a practical form. “ As was to be 
 expected (says the Rev. W. H. Pearce, in a letter dated 
 Calcutta, September 10, 1836), since the Bible Society 
 interfered about baptism, the words above referred to* 
 are become the subject of difficulty ; and brethren in 
 India, instead of translating the original terms for all 
 of them, are at this moment about to introduce the 
 Greek words into the native languages. Calling, 
 Election, Justification, Redemption, &c., must in time 
 follow : and the Christian church, in giving the New 
 Testament, will then present to a heathen a work, 
 although in his own language, perfectly unintelligible 
 to the best informed of his countrymen.”']' 
 
 This other alternative allowed by the resolution, of 
 rendering the Greek terms relating to baptism by a 
 word derived from the original, as is done in the Eng- 
 lish Version, is no less incapable of general adoption 
 on another ground. In the English version these words 
 are left untranslated, the Greek terms themselves being 
 
 * “ Church, Congregation, Bishop, Bishoprick, Presbyter, Deacon, 
 Deaconness,” See. 
 
 t Bap. Mag. 1837, p- 307. Appendix C. 
 
8 
 
 used with an English termination ; but there are some lan- 
 guages, perhaps many, into which itig impossible to trans- 
 fer foreign words. The Chinese language is in point, 
 which being written, not with alphabetic letters, but in 
 monosyllabic characters, does not admit of the intro- 
 duction of exotic terms in the manner prescribed. Not 
 only, therefore, has Dr. Marshman translated the words 
 in question, but Dr. Morrison also. Of the former in- 
 deed it might have been expected, agreeably with the 
 uniform practice of the Baptists ; but, in fact, neither 
 of them was left to his option. They might select the 
 words by which to translate — but translate they must, 
 since to transfer is impossible. The Cherokee, as the 
 memorialists have learned from competent authority, is 
 another language into which, from the peculiarity of 
 its construction, translators are compelled to give ver- 
 nacular renderings. The paedobaptist missionaries 
 accordingly, by whom a translation of the New Testa- 
 ment has been made for the use of that people, 
 have not transferred the terms relating to bap- 
 tism, but have translated them — and translated them 
 by words signifying to immerse, and immersion.* Since 
 in these instances the impracticability of the rule has 
 been already ascertained, it is surely no improbable 
 presumption, that there may be others ; at all events 
 these are sufficient to show that it must of necessity be 
 of partial application. 
 
 But the Memorialists feel it to be their duty to pre- 
 sent this objectionable resolution before the Com- 
 mittee of the Bible Society in another light; showing 
 that, if it be impracticable as a general rule, it is 
 * Christian Review, No. 1, p. 133. 
 
9 
 
 equally to be condemned as subversive of the integrity 
 of translators. 
 
 Granting that, in the particular case of the Baptists, 
 the rule might be complied with in the Bengali Ver- 
 sion, and in all instances where the genius of the lan- 
 guage allowed it, if not by translating the words in 
 question into unobjectionable terms, yet by leaving 
 them untranslated ; this could be done only by putting 
 human requirements in the place of conscience, and 
 sacrificing truth and inspiration to expediency. 
 
 The Memorialists would most respectfully beg the 
 Committee to reflect upon the imperative obligations 
 and solemn responsibility of a translator of the Sacred 
 Scriptures, and then to consider if it would be right 
 before God to bind him in the shackles imposed by 
 their rule. He who undertakes to convey Divine reve- 
 lation into a new tongue, assumes an office with which 
 scarcely another can be compared whose duties are 
 equally momentous or responsible. By no quality of 
 a moral kind ought he to be so eminently distinguished 
 as by scrupulous conscientiousness. Unyielding in- 
 tegrity must be combined with literary ability, or he 
 can never be deemed competent to his task. And as 
 these qualities should be the guarantee, as far as his 
 own character is concerned, that his work will be done 
 faithfully, so ought he to be most jealously sheltered 
 from every influence coming from without which might 
 interfere with his judgment. His first, and last, and 
 all-absorbing solicitude must be, to give the exact 
 contents of the document, without suppression, with- 
 out addition, and without alteration. If the meaning 
 of a passage, or of a word, be hid under an unintelli- 
 gible phrase, it might as well be omitted, since that 
 
10 
 
 part of divine revelation is lost to the reader. The 
 translator, in fact, defrauds him of so much of the 
 truth. How, with the fear of God before his eyes, can 
 he do this ? How could the Committee of the Bible 
 Society require him to do it? And yet this is what 
 their rule demands. There are certain terms which, 
 under peril of losing their support, he is not to trans- 
 late. Though professedly occupied in giving to the 
 heathen <c all the words of this life,” and bound to do 
 so by obligations the most imperative and awful, as 
 exactly and completely as his ability enables him, there 
 are some words the meaning of which he must syste- 
 matically withhold. And why ? Because in them- 
 selves they are unintelligible ? No such thing. Be- 
 cause the rendering he would give is unfaithful ? 
 Nothing of the kind ; but because such rendering is 
 considered objectionable by some of his fellow-chris- 
 tians who are members of the Bible Society. The 
 question then comes to this, Are human opinions to 
 control the Bible, or is the Bible to control human 
 opinions ? The Committee of the Bible Society say in 
 effect the former ; for their rule determines that, since 
 the New Testament will not speak in a certain manner, 
 it shall not speak at all. They insist that the meaning 
 shall be pushed aside, blinked, studiously suppressed, 
 where it does not harmonize with the creed of all the 
 parties composing that institution. Who, it may be asked, 
 that makes any claim to moral independence, would 
 put his neck under such a yoke ? What conscientious 
 man could do it? With him it must be no question 
 in what degree the meaning of the text may coincide 
 with or differ from the sentiments or the practice of 
 any section of the Christian Church. His duty is 
 
11 
 
 plain and imperative. If he knows “the mind of the 
 Spirit,” he is bound to express it. Should he wilfully 
 falsify the record by mistranslation, or should he “ add 
 to,” or “ take away from the words of the book,” he 
 would be held by common consent to have perpetrated 
 a crime of the darkest hue. But the Memorialists de- 
 sire it may be seriously weighed, how far he falls short 
 of the same censure who, in deference to the opinions 
 of others, imposes a doubtful, or a double sense on the 
 Scriptures, instead of scrupulously adhering to their 
 exact grammatical interpretation ; or who, by studious 
 concealment, keeps back part of the counsel of God. 
 For themselves, they dare not risk the consequences of 
 such a course, nor recommend it to their honoured 
 missionaries. To act in this manner would, in their 
 view, be to violate a solemn trust, to betray the truth, 
 to endanger souls, and to hazard at least the tremen- 
 dous judgments denounced in the closing sentences of 
 the inspired canon. If the support of their fellow- 
 christians in the work of Biblical translation can be 
 procured only at such a price, by them it cannot be 
 procured at all. They must persist in urging upon 
 their translators still to pursue the course marked out 
 by the noble-minded Tyndal, who, in reference to his 
 translation, says, “ I call God to recorde as against the 
 aaye we shall appeare before oure Lorde Jesus Christ, 
 to give reckonynge of our doinges, that I never altered 
 one syllable of Godes word agaynst my conscyence, 
 nor wolde do thys day, yf all that is in earthe, whether 
 it be honoure, pleasure, or ryches, myght be geven me.”* 
 
 It avails nothing, the Memorialists submit, against 
 the force of this argument, that what is required of 
 
 * Letter to John Fr\ 7 th. 
 
12 
 
 the Baptist translators is sanctioned by the English 
 Version; for the plea of precedent can never make 
 that right which is in itself essentially wrong. 
 
 Besides which, waiving for the present their par- 
 ticular case, they entertain on many grounds the most 
 serious objections against erecting that version into a 
 standard for other translations. 1. It is well known 
 under what circumstances the English Authorised 
 Version was made. The translators were compelled 
 by royal mandate to retain the old ecclesiastical words.* 
 But he who imposes such a condition, and he who 
 submits to it, are alike guilty of infringing the liberty 
 of conscience, and of laying violent hands on the truth 
 itself. Does the Bible Society wish to perpetuate the 
 odious despotism of the Stuarts, by still putting fetters 
 on the translators of the Bible? 2. Moreover, if the 
 English Version is to be followed in one instance, 
 by analogy of reasoning it must be followed in all 
 similar instances ; and this would lead, in cases 
 where a difference of opinion obtains, to that transfer- 
 ring of terms, the absurdity and impracticability of 
 which have been already shown. 3. How, again, is 
 it possible for a conscientious translator to conform to 
 this standard ? The difficulties of translating, it might 
 be supposed, are great and numerous enough without 
 the aggravation which such a necessity implies. In- 
 stead of constructing his Version, as an erudite phi- 
 lologist, according to sound canons of interpreta- 
 tion, he must recur at every step to the work of his 
 English predecessors. His inquiry must be, not what 
 is the true meaning of a passage, and how may it be 
 
 * Historical Account of the several English Translations of the Bible, 
 by Anthony Johnson, A. M., nv Bishop Watson’s Theological Tracts, 
 Vol. iii. p. no. 
 
13 
 
 rendered with fidelity — but what is the sense put upon 
 it by the English Version. Not what the uncorrupted 
 originals may dictate must he follow, but the originals 
 modified by the party views of polemical ecclesiastics, 
 and the caprice of a semi-papistical monarch. A man 
 who should translate on this principle, the Memorial- 
 ists hesitate not to say, would be totally unworthy of 
 the office he had assumed ; nor would it be safe to 
 trust the conveyance of the words of life to the nations 
 to his hands. 4. Still further, they would ask wherein 
 the virtue consists of introducing the faults of the 
 English Version into new translations. Admitting, 
 that under the circumstances of its production, it is an 
 admirable work, and even better executed in the main 
 than might have been apprehended, no admirers of it 
 have yet been so enthusiastic as to pronounce it imma- 
 culate. On all hands it is confessed to betray the 
 marks of human imperfection. The Committee them- 
 selves say of it, “ Errors are to be found in it which 
 the humblest scholar could not only point out but cor- 
 rect. Errors too there are which obscure the sense in 
 some important instances.”* Why should these er- 
 rors be propagated ? If there be thought to be a ne- 
 cessity for leaving them uncorrected, at least, let them 
 remain where they are. If we must have them at home, 
 let us not send them abroad. What benevolence is 
 there in afflicting the heathen with our calamities ? 
 Every Christian would surely say, give them the un- 
 adulterated word, whatever you choose in regard to 
 yourselves. If it be said the resolution of the Bible 
 Society does not contemplate this, but refers only to 
 certain words in which it requires the English Version 
 to be followed ; the reply is obvious and conclusive — 
 * Ann. Report, 1839, p. cxxi. 
 
J4 
 
 those very words constitute one of its most glaring 
 faults. They are words, to all but Greek scholars, 
 without a meaning; and the Bible Society determines 
 that these same words in their unintelligibleness shall 
 be transferred into foreign tongues, thus for ever with- 
 holding from the heathen part of the Word of God. 
 5. And lastly, the Memorialists cannot refrain from 
 expressing both their surprise and deep regret that the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society should seem in any 
 way to give its sanction to the Popish practice of sub- 
 stituting a translation of the inspired volume as the 
 standard of truth, in the room of the original scriptures. 
 If Protestants are right in setting up one version as a 
 model, how will it be shown that Romanists are wrong 
 in putting that honour upon another ? The decree of 
 the Council of Trent and the resolution of the Com- 
 mittee in Earl Street are in their principle exactly 
 similar, and alike unsound and dangerous. The one 
 confers infallibility on the Vulgate, the other makes 
 the English Version the judge, from whose decision 
 there lies no appeal. For all the ordinary purposes of 
 translation, indeed, the Greek New Testament may be 
 used ; but, where Christian denominations hold con- 
 flicting sentiments, it shall be instantly laid aside, or, 
 w'hat is the same thing, shall not be deemed of autho- 
 rity, nor he taken as the rule. Precisely in that crisis 
 where the importance of having access to the original 
 is chiefly felt, the Committee of the Bible Society 
 takes it out of the translator’s hand. Such a procedure, 
 it is submitted, cannot be justified on Protestant prin- 
 ciples. If it is to be defended, it must take shelter 
 under the obnoxious plea that there resides an autho- 
 rity somewhere, and no matter where, whether in a 
 general council of the Church of Rome, or in the Com- 
 
15 
 
 mittee of the Bible Society, which has a right to mo- 
 dify the Word of God. 
 
 The Memorialists venture to hope, that the Committee 
 of the British and Foreign Bible Society will now see 
 that their resolution of July 1, 1833, has placed that 
 great institution in an unfortunate and unsafe position—— 
 a position of inextricable embarassment, and inconsis- 
 tent both with the claims of conscience, and with the 
 deference due to that Volume which it is its honour 
 and duty to give to all people in their mother tongue. 
 
 The consistent course for the Bible Society to pur- 
 sue would be, they conceive, to give aid to all versions 
 into new languages which, upon the authority of com- 
 petent scholars, are ascertained to be faithful. They 
 beg to trespass upon the continued attention of the 
 Committee while they endeavour to show the reason- 
 ableness of the course they recommend. 
 
 It is obvious to remark, that such a principle of ac- 
 tion is impartial. It favours no denomination at the 
 expense of the rest, and it excludes none from its pro- 
 per share of patronage through the jealousy of the 
 rest. It gives credit to missionaries and translators of 
 all sections of the Christian Church for equal sincerity 
 in their desires to communicate the tidings of “ the 
 common salvation.” It leaves them to pursue their 
 great work free from human embarrassment, and solely 
 under the influence of their responsibility to God. 
 The Baptist body, standing as they do on this plea of 
 liberty, would be the last to deny it to their fellow- 
 servants. If a Paedobaptist translator conscientiously 
 believes that sprinkling or pouring is the meaning of 
 fiairTiZu), let him thus render the word. As an honest 
 
16 
 
 man he is bound to do so ; and if, upon the authority 
 of competent scholarship his version be certified to be 
 faithful, let the Bible Society support it. 
 
 To act on this principle of supporting versions sim- 
 ply on the ground of their fidelity, would relieve the 
 Bible Society from the irksome necessity of listening 
 to denominational complaints, and of adjudicating in 
 matters so much beside their province as differences in 
 sentiment existing among them. By their present rule 
 the Committee of the Bible Society erect themselves 
 into a tribunal, before which the various denomina- 
 tions composing it may severally bring their complaint, 
 whenever words are used in a version which they con- 
 sider objectionable. If Episcopalians render i7rtcn<o7roe 
 bishop, the Congregationalist complains ; and if Con- 
 gregationalists translate eKKX^ala congregation, the 
 Episcopalian is aggrieved. The Committee having, 
 by the rule laid down, invited the appeal, are bound 
 to hear the allegations of both parties, and to settle the 
 difference ; and the differences of all parties among 
 the members of the Bible Society who may conceive 
 their peculiar views to be in a similar manner endan- 
 gered. The Committee have done this in the case of 
 the Pmdobaptist complaint against Baptist versions, 
 and of course equity demands that they should not 
 shrink from doing it in other instances. If it be re- 
 plied, that, so far from taking upon themselves to 
 settle the difference in the case of the Baptists, they 
 declared* it to be “no part of the duty of the Com- 
 mittees or Sub-Committees to adjust such differences 
 of opinion,” and have therefore fallen back upon the 
 practice resorted to in the English Version, this is the 
 very thing which settles it. The moment it is deter- 
 
 * Resolutions of April 4, 1836.— Appendix B. 
 
17 
 
 mined, in reference to any given word, that the trans- 
 lator shall conform to a particular model, or forfeit the 
 Society’s patronage, the whole question is closed : the 
 difference is adjusted, and adjusted by the Committee. 
 Nothing can be more satisfactory than the manner in 
 which the Committee express themselves in part of the 
 words just recited. Aware that it would impose upon 
 them a most invidious and a perfectly hopeless task, 
 were they required to mediate between contending 
 denominations, and knowing that it forms no part of 
 their duty as the executive of the Bible Society to 
 attempt it, with great reason they may decline to 
 undertake any such office. All the Memorialists regret 
 is that they did not do so at first, and all they ask is 
 that they will retrace their steps, and always decline it 
 in future. Would the Bible Society adopt the rule 
 they recommend, a simple, uniform, and satisfactory 
 answer would be given in every such case of complaint. 
 The Committee, rising above all sectarian partialities, 
 and standing on that Catholic ground which was ever 
 wont to be the foundation of the Society, would say, 
 “ Of denominational differences we take no cognizance 
 here. We ask not, and we decline to know, in what 
 respects versions may favour the views of any section 
 of the Christian Church, or be inimical to them. We 
 patronize none but versions duly accredited for fidelity, 
 and we patronize these alike.” 
 
 Another advantage of this rule is, that it disencum- 
 bers the Committee of the Bible Society of the respon- 
 sibility which belongs to the translators who make the 
 versions, and the scholars who attest them. It is no 
 reflection on the Committee to say, that this is a spe- 
 cies of responsibility which they are altogether incom- 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 petent to assume. Nor could it have been supposed 
 that it is a responsibility they were likely to covet. 
 Who ever imagined that to them belonged the func- 
 tions of philologists and critics ? By the resolution, 
 however, of requiring translations to conform to the 
 authorised English Version in the words relating to 
 baptism, they have imposed upon themselves this 
 burden. It will surely provide them enough of diffi- 
 cult and unaccustomed labour to examine all the ver- 
 sions they take under their patronage, in order to 
 ascertain that there be in none of them an infraction of 
 the rule. The practice, moreover, of transferring 
 words, if once adopted for the reason they assign, can 
 never be restricted to those words. Many more, as 
 the Memorialists have shown, are in a precisely similar 
 predicament. Either they must be transferred, or 
 translated in a way against which no members of the 
 Bible Society can object ; and the Committee make 
 themselves responsible to all the denominations that in 
 every case this is done. It must be evident that no 
 committee can discharge such a trust. They them- 
 selves tell us in their last report * that they know it to 
 be impossible. “ They are not ashamed to confess 
 (they say) that the magnitude of the attempt to form 
 new versions, or to revise existing ones is such, that 
 they are compelled to shrink from it.” How much is 
 it to be regretted that they did not perceive this before 
 they adopted a resolution which pledges them to un- 
 dertake it ! It is clear, however, that the resolution is 
 now a mere nullity, and translators may expect that 
 the undivided responsibility of versions will henceforth 
 remain with them 
 
 p. cxx. 
 
19 
 
 To adopt this plan, lastly, is the only way in which 
 the Bible Society can discharge its duty as the dis- 
 penser of God’s word to the nations. Any other will 
 involve its conductors in the serious charge of tam- 
 pering with the Scriptures. Once to take up the 
 ground that fidelity is not the one great and paramount 
 property which shall recommend translations to their 
 assistance, is to quit the rock for the quicksand. It 
 little matters then, whether the circumstance com- 
 mending them be their conformity to a previously 
 existing version, or the absence of terms unobjectionable 
 to antagonist denominations, or any other circumstance 
 upon which the Committee of the Bible Society may 
 resolve to insist : the only safe position is abandoned. 
 No security is thenceforth possessed against a thousand 
 influences which, through the medium of the Bible 
 Society itself, may mutilate and corrupt the Bible. 
 The object of that institution should no doubt be, 
 above all things else and at all hazards, to give the 
 contents of the inspired canon to foreign nations in the 
 most perspicuous and perfect manner in its power; 
 not a part of its contents, but the whole ; not its con- 
 tents modified or obscured, but as near as possible to 
 their exact import, and written so plain that “ he may 
 run that reads.” To the fact of the western nations 
 not possessing the Scriptures in a complete form in 
 their vernacular tongues is mainly to be attributed the 
 prevalence of the grand apostacy. So at least the 
 Bible Society believes, as a writer informs us, who it 
 is understood is well known and in high estimation 
 with the Committee, and the Memorialists agree with 
 him. “ You believed (he says, addressing their senior 
 secretary) that the chief success of the Romish priests 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 in twisting to their own purpose certain doubtful or 
 erroneous renderings, arose from their not giving to the 
 people the entire word of God in a language which 
 they could understand.*” If this really be the opinion 
 held in Earl Street, it is in point of principle all the 
 Memorialists can desire, since it must make the Com- 
 mittee supremely anxious to give to the people of the 
 East the “entire” New Testament, without conceal- 
 ment of a single word. They will only add, that the 
 Christian community at large cannot but rejoice to 
 know that the views of the Committee in relation to it 
 are so definite and so just, and that, warned by the 
 dreadful mischief that has ensued in Europe through 
 leaving parts of the sacred record untranslated, they 
 will vigilantly guard against any approach to that 
 popish practice in the versions of Asia, and of all the 
 rest of the world. 
 
 Will the Committee now allow the Memorialists to 
 recur to the rejected Baptist translations, and especially 
 to the Bengali ? Of this translation the most ample 
 and unquestionable testimonials, vouching its faithful- 
 ness, were laid before the Committee of the Bible 
 Society, when they were solicited to aid its publication.'!' 
 No imputation affecting its fidelity is indeed cast upon 
 it either in India or in England. The Auxiliary Com- 
 mittee in Calcutta, at a full meeting, assembled for 
 the purpose of deciding which they should adopt, 
 
 * Remarks on a pamphlet recently circulated, &c., in two Letters, to 
 'the Rev. A. Brandram, M. A. By T. H., understood to be from the pen 
 of the Rev. Joseph Jowett, M. A., Superintendent of the Translating and 
 Editorial Department. 
 
 t Letter from Baptist Missionaries, May 25, 1832. Appendix A. 
 
21 
 
 were unanimous in giving it the preference ;* and the 
 Bible Society has accordingly printed a large edition 
 of it in Calcutta, by consent of the Baptist Mission- 
 aries and subsequently, without their consent, under 
 the supervision of Dr. Hceberlin, another edition, in 
 the Roman character, with the English in opposite 
 pages, ^ in London, substituting on their own respon- 
 sibility the Greek words relating to baptism for those 
 Bengali words which the translators had used. With 
 this exception the Memorialists believe they are correct 
 in stating the translation as printed by the Bible So- 
 ciety to be in all respects what it was when it came out 
 of the translator’s hands : if there be any other differ- 
 ence they have not heard of it, nor have they any 
 reason to suppose such a liberty would be taken. For 
 though the Auxiliary Committee in Calcutta expressed 
 a wish to make a “ few other such alterations as a 
 Sub-Committee of Bengali scholars should recom- 
 mend,” this proposal was declined by the Missionaries, 
 and does not appear to have been persisted in.§ Why 
 the alteration was made in the words relating to bap- 
 tism appears from the resolutions of the Committee, 
 and that reason is, not because they were translated 
 unfaithfully, but simply because they were translated. 
 
 Here then is a translation of the New Testament, 
 acknowledged on all hands to be the best which has 
 hitherto been made into the Bengali language, which 
 the Bible Society might give to the millions of hea- 
 then, for whom, with so much diligence and careful- 
 ness, it has been prepared, but which they will not 
 
 * Letter from Rev. W. Yates, Aug. 1, 1835. Appendix B. 
 
 t Ibid. Appendix B. X Bible Society’s Report, 1839. p. lvii. 
 
 § Letter from Rev. W. Yates, Aug. 1,1835. Appendix B. 
 
22 
 
 give, solely because the words relating to baptism are 
 translated by terms signifying immersion. 
 
 It will strike every considerate person, the Memo- 
 rialists conceive, that the Committee would not refuse 
 to circulate such a translation for the reason assigned, 
 unless that reason itself involved some strong ground 
 for their decision, or were supported by extrinsic con- 
 siderations of great moment. Either it will be sup- 
 posed that the translation in question is unfaithful, 
 though the version in general be not so, or that it is an 
 innovation, or contrary to the past usage of the Society, 
 to circulate versions having these words so translated, 
 or to its constitution, or else that it is sectarian. The 
 Memorialists think it due, therefore, to all parties con- 
 cerned to inquire how the matter stands in each of 
 these particulars. 
 
 Is it then an unfaithful rendering which the Bengali 
 version gives of these words ? It is but justice to the 
 Committee to acknowledge that they have never 
 alleged any such objection. The utmost they have 
 said of it is, not that immersion is an inaccurate trans- 
 lation, but that psedobaptists do not like it. On the 
 contrary, its fidelity is tacitly admitted ; for, if not, 
 why is not its unfaithfulness exposed, and the whole 
 dispute terminated at once? 
 
 Is the rendering then a novelty? Have the Baptists 
 forsaken ancient and trustworthy guides, and introduced 
 an innovation ? Let this question be determined 
 when the following facts have been considered. 
 Of all existing versions of the New Testament 
 the Peshito Syriac is the oldest. “ Michaelis 
 pronounces it to be the very best translation of the 
 Greek Testament which he ever read, for the general 
 
23 
 
 ease, elegance, and fidelity with which it has been 
 executed. It is confessedly of the highest antiquity, 
 and there is every reason to believe that it was made, 
 if not in the first century, at least in the beginning of 
 the second.”* Michaelis, after Father Simon, f shows 
 also that it was made immediately from the original. £ 
 In this version the words in question are uniformly 
 rendered as the Baptists translate them. Next in 
 point of antiquity come the Coptic and Ethiopic ver- 
 sions, referred to the third or fourth centuries ;§ about 
 the middle of the fourth we have also the Gothic 
 of Ulphilas.|| These all translate the words in the 
 same way, and so also does the ancient Arabic. 
 Among modern versions which translate by immersion 
 are the Arabic of the Propaganda, of Sabat, and others 
 in the same language, the German of Luther, the 
 Dutch, the Danish, and the Swedish. Some modern 
 versions render the terms by washing or ablution. 
 This is done in the Persian of Martyn ; but he some- 
 times employs a phrase which can only mean ablution 
 by dipping. The only other mode that has been 
 adopted is that of retaining the Greek word. If, there- 
 fore, it be wrong to translate these words as the Bap- 
 tist missionaries have done, it is at least a very ancient 
 and a very general offence among translators. So far 
 are they from standing alone, that, to use the words of 
 the late lamented and learned Superintendent of the 
 editorial department of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, in his masterly defence of the Serampore 
 Mahratta version, *f[ “ it may be safely affirmed, that 
 
 * Horne, vol. ii. p. 208. f Critical History, vol. ii. p. 119. 
 
 f Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. ii. c. vii. sec. iv. § Ibid. c. xiii. and xviL 
 
 |j Ibid. vol. ii. c. vii. sec. xxxi. See Appendix B. 
 
24 
 
 many of the most accurate and valuable versions, both 
 ancient and modern, are involved in the same accusa- 
 tion ; and that there is not one which is directly hostile 
 to it.” Let it now therefore be determined who are 
 the innovators, the Baptists, who translate these words, 
 or those who would keep them untranslated. 
 
 The Vulgate, it is true, and such of the Western 
 versions as in this respect have been framed upon its 
 model, among which is our authorized English version, 
 retain the Greek terms. But, though they thus for- 
 sake the track of the Oriental versions, it is not, as is 
 well known, because the translators understood the 
 terms in another sense. To say nothing of continental 
 scholars, whether Romanists or Protestants, the fathers 
 of the Anglican church, Wicliff, Tyndale, Cranmer, 
 and others, speak plainly on the subject, and so to this 
 day does the Book of Common Prayer. But these 
 were consecrated words ; and superstition, church 
 authority, and the command of a pedantic king, com- 
 bined to hold them in their places, notwithstanding 
 the manifest absurdity and criminality of thus muffling 
 up the ordinance of Christ, till its fair but dishonoured 
 countenance is no longer known. And will the Bible 
 Society lend itself to this truth-suppressing practice ? 
 Will they not only sanction it, but resolve to sanction 
 nothing else? Implicitly condemning the best and 
 most ancient versions, and discountenancing those 
 which, like them., speak, as the original Scriptures 
 speak, in plain and intelligible terms, will they put a 
 premium upon such as study to be obscure? The Me- 
 morialists would ask, in the pertinent language of Dr. 
 Campbell, “ Does that deserve to be called a version, 
 which conveys neither the matter nor the manner of 
 
25 
 
 the author ? Not the matter, because an unintelligible 
 word conveys no meaning ; not the manner, because 
 what the author said simply and familiarly, the trans- 
 lator says scholastically and pedantically. And if 
 former translators have from superstition, from fear of 
 giving offence, or from any other motive been induced 
 to adopt so absurd a method, shall we think ourselves 
 obliged to imitate them ? If (the church) herself has 
 been any how induced to adopt a style that is not well 
 calculated for conveying the mind of the Lord, nay, 
 which in many things darkens, and in some misrepre- 
 sents it, shall we make less account of communicating 
 clearly the truths revealed by the Spirit, than of perpe- 
 tuating a phraseology which contributes to the ad- 
 vancement of ignorance, and of an implicit deference 
 in spiritual matters to human authority ?” “ On the con- 
 trary, (with him they would go on to affirm) if the 
 church has in process of time contracted somewhat of 
 a Babylonish dialect, and thereby lost a great deal of 
 her primitive simplicity, purity, and plainness of man- 
 ner, her language cannot be too soon cleared of the 
 unnatural mixture, and we cannot too soon restore her 
 native idiom. To act thus is so far from being im- 
 putable to the love of novelty, that it results from that 
 veneration of antiquity which leads men to ask for the 
 old paths, and makes the votaries of the true religion 
 desirous to return to the undisguised sentiments, man 
 ner, and style of holy writ, which are evidently more 
 ancient than the oldest of these canonized corrup- 
 tions.”* 
 
 As it is no innovation of the Baptist Missionaries to 
 translate these words, so neither is it a novel thing for 
 
 * Dissertation xi. 
 
26 
 
 the Bible Society to circulate versions in which they 
 are so translated. The Society has done this from the 
 time it commenced the foreign distribution of the 
 Scriptures, it has done it in every quarter of the globe, 
 and it does it at the present time. The resolution of 
 the Committee therefore comes too late, to derive any 
 sanction from usage. It would have formed an intel- 
 ligible reason, at least, whatever might have been 
 thought of its value, if they could have said, “We 
 have never given aid to such versions, and cannot now 
 begin.” But they have no such plea. To say nothing 
 of the various versions, both oriental and western, 
 already mentioned, it appears from the last Report,* 
 that the Bible Society has assisted in circulating up- 
 wards of 440,000 copies of the Scriptures in India 
 alone — 240,000 issued by the Calcutta Auxiliary, and 
 200,000 by the missionaries of Serampore ; now as 
 these versions were principally made by Baptists, the 
 vast majority of the copies contain the words in a 
 translated form. They cannot therefore even say that 
 it is a new thing in Bengal. 
 
 The Memorialists have however heard it replied 
 that it was done in ignorance. How far this is borne 
 out by facts the following statement will show. So far 
 back as the year 1813, there is a letter from the Rev. 
 A. Fuller, Secretary to the Baptist Mission, to the 
 Rev. J. Hughes, in which the writer says, “ In a letter 
 which I lately received from Dr. Carey, he mentions 
 having received one from you, inquiring in what way 
 certain words were rendered in their translations. He 
 wished me to inform you that they had rendered 
 fianriZio by a word that signifies to immerse, and brtoico- 
 41 Appendix, p. 40. 
 
27 
 
 7 roe, by a word that signifies an overseer.” Mr. Hughes 
 replied, “ I thank you for the information respecting 
 Dr. Carey. The rendering which concerns baptism I 
 might deem it proper to exchange for the undefined 
 one adopted in our version, especially considering the 
 circumstances under which oriental versions are pro- 
 ceeding. This, however, is submitted with deference, 
 as an opinion from which I am sensible wiser and bet- 
 ter men decisively differ.”* Here then is evidence 
 that, twenty-six years ago, one of the secretaries of the 
 Bible Society was in correspondence on the subject, 
 both with the Serampore translators, and with the 
 principal officer of that Society by which they were 
 sent out. Is it to be supposed, even though this were 
 an unofficial correspondence, that it was profoundly 
 kept in the breast of Mr. Hughes ? Did he never 
 mention it to either of his colleagues ? Or, even 
 beyond these individuals, was it never talked of among 
 the members of the Committee, especially such as took 
 a lead ? If there were this total silence in doors on 
 the subject, it is certain there was none out. This 
 very correspondence was, as is remembered, the topic 
 of free conversation in other circles ; and even of de- 
 bate at least at one, if not at more associations of mi- 
 nisters and churches. It must be well known to those 
 who have any experience in public societies, how often 
 it happens that their functionaries or committee-men 
 undertake, and are even desired, to make inquiries in 
 an unofficial manner, which are nevertheless intended 
 for the information of their conductors. But besides 
 this, it will be seen by a reference to the early pro- 
 ceedings of the Bible Society, that the Baptist Mis- 
 
 * Baptist Magazine, 1838, p. 65. 
 
28 
 
 sionaries were from the first in habitual confidential 
 communication with the Rev. D. Brown, and the 
 Rev. Dr. Buchanan, through whom, until an Auxiliary 
 Committee was organized in Calcutta, the correspond- 
 ence with the Bible Society relating to their versions was 
 principally conducted. That organization took place 
 in 1809 and they were then officially associated with 
 other gentlemen, and with the Parent Committee itself. 
 Through this medium the missionaries received in the 
 same year the first grant paid to them by the Bible 
 Society, amounting to £1000. From their coadjutors 
 with whom by office they were now connected, it is 
 not pretended that there was any concealment, as from 
 Mr. Brown and Dr. Buchanan there had been none ; 
 and they must have had opportunity enough to have 
 possessed themselves of the secret, if there had. The 
 versions, moreover, as soon as published, were open to 
 the inspection of all the world, and criticisms upon 
 them were invited by public advertisement.'!' Very 
 possible, indeed, it is, that the gentlemen composing 
 the Committee when the grants were suspended 
 were not acquainted with the facts of the case. 
 It is possible, also, that those gentlemen might 
 not know that so many other versions, to which they 
 were giving, and to which their successors still continue 
 to give their countenance, translate the words in the 
 same obnoxious way, until it was brought before them 
 by the present controversy. The Committee of the 
 Bible Society, however, is elected every ‘year ; and it 
 is not to be concluded, because the individuals com- 
 
 * Owen Hist. British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. i. 99, 277, 288 ; 
 vol. ii. p. 14. 
 
 t Owen vol. iii. p. 466. • 
 
29 
 
 posing it in 1833 may have been ignorant of a particu- 
 lar fact, that it was therefore unknown to their prede- 
 cessors in office twenty years before. But what entirely 
 destroys the little remaining force which this plea of 
 ignorance may yet perhaps be thought to retain, is the 
 circumstance that, after the Committee were informed 
 of the fact, they were still willing to exhibit their 
 accustomed aid. For when application was first made 
 to them for help in printing this Bengali Version, 
 though they had received a letter some time before 
 from three Paedobaptist Missionaries in Calcutta, re- 
 questing them on the very ground of these words being 
 translated to withhold their grants from the Baptists, 
 the Secretary of the Bible Society wrote to the Auxiliary 
 in that city, stating that, if the Version were a good 
 one, it was the wish of the Committee to afford assist- 
 ance.* 
 
 The Memorialists would in this place add, that since 
 the circulation of immersionist versions has been the 
 practice of the Society from its first foreign operations 
 up to the present time, and is its practice still ; since this 
 practice was commenced by the founders of the Institu- 
 tion, who framed its constitution, and enacted its laws; 
 and since the first and only deviation from it is that 
 which gives occasion to the present complaint ; that 
 deviation cannot have been made to vindicate its vio- 
 lated constitution, but is itself a violation of it. 
 
 But if neither of the preceding reasons can justify 
 the Committee, there is yet another which may per- 
 haps serve the purpose. The Baptist versions are 
 “ sectarian;” they uphold a party instead of subserving 
 the general cause of Christian truth ; the tincture of 
 bigotry poisons their catholicity, and renders them un- 
 * Letter of Baptist Missionary, May 25, 18.32. Appendix A. 
 
30 
 
 deserving of the common support. If they are open 
 to this charge, the Memorialists themselves say, let 
 them perish ; the church and the world cannot be too 
 soon freed from every trace of their existence. But, 
 only asking how fidelity to the original can consist 
 with sectarianism, unless the New Testament itself be 
 sectarian, they are content to leave the defence of their 
 translators in the hands of that late eminently gifted 
 servant of the Bible Society, to whom they have before 
 referred. “ Bigotry,” (says Mr. Greenfield) “ that is, 
 blind zeal and prejudice, they cannot justly be accused 
 of, while they have the primitive sense of the term, 
 and the rendering of so many ancient and modern 
 translations, as the foundation upon which they have 
 grounded their version ; nor can they consistently be 
 charged with sectarianism, while they are found in 
 company with the churches of Syria, Arabia, Ethiopia, 
 Egypt, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, and 
 others, together with the Church of England itself 
 If they be bigots, I know not what name the advocates 
 for pouring or sprinkling, who have no such basis to 
 rest on, merit ; and if theirs be a sect, it must be con- 
 fessed to be a very ancient, and a very extensive 
 one. 
 
 “ But there is another point of view,” he continues, 
 (and while he writes these memorable words, he says, 
 as a preface to them, ‘ I wish it to be distinctly under- 
 stood, that I am neither a Baptist, nor the son of a 
 Baptist’) “ there is another point of view in which the 
 opponents of the Serampore Missionaries should con- 
 sider the subject ; and one which involves the most 
 important consequences. Before they arraign the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society as guilty of a gross 
 and unpardonable dereliction of duty in aiding the 
 
31 
 
 Serampore translators, and prefer a recommendation 
 for them to withdraw that aid, they should be fully 
 prepared to carry their censure, as well as their recom- 
 mendation, to a much greater extent. In consistency, 
 if that aid be withdrawn from the Serampore Mission- 
 aries because they have rendered flair to immerse , 
 then must it also be withdrawn from the churches of 
 Syria, of Arabia, of Abyssinia, of Egypt, of Germany, 
 of Holland, of Denmark, & c. ; and the venerable 
 Peshito- Syriac Version, the Arabic Versions of the 
 Propaganda, of Sabat, Sec. ; the Ethiopic, the Coptic, 
 and other Versions must all be suppressed. If, how- 
 ever, they are not thus prepared to carry their recom- 
 mendation to its fullest extent, then must they close 
 their mouths for ever against their Baptist brethren. 
 But should a faction so far prevail over the good sense 
 of the Committee, and the sound and catholic princi- 
 ples upon which the Society is founded, and which 
 have ever been its boast and glory, as well as the most 
 powerful means of its extraordinary success, then its 
 ‘ honour will be laid in the dust and from a splendid 
 temple, in the service of which the whole Christian 
 world could cordially unite, it will dwindle into a 
 contemptible edifice, dedicated to party feelings, mo- 
 tives, and views. The broad basis upon which it is 
 founded is its strength and security ; contract this 
 within narrower limits, and it falls into ruins.”* 
 
 Such, in its general merits, is the case of the Baptist 
 versions ; and on the grounds thus laid the Memorial- 
 ists, with great respect, renew their application for aid. 
 They are induced to this measure principally by two 
 
 * Appendix E. 
 
32 
 
 considerations ; — first, because they know that in some 
 quarters among their Peedobaptist friends their claim 
 on the Bible Society is acknowledged to be just ; 
 while the Committee, in their last Annual Report, 
 concede, when vindicating their own conduct in refer- 
 ence to certain other versions, all that the Memorialists 
 plead for in relation to their own : and next, because 
 they are most unwilling to proceed in any steps of 
 separate organization for raising funds to print and 
 circulate them, until the Committee shall have told 
 them again, if indeed they will tell them so, that the 
 Bible Society determines to cast them off. 
 
 It will be in the recollection of the Committee, that 
 the Baptist Missionary Society applied for aid towards 
 the Bengali version first in the autumn of 1832,* and 
 again in February, 1836-t The second application, 
 however, was not a repetition of the first ; it differed 
 materially in its character. Though the Baptist body 
 felt deeply aggrieved that, for the first time in the 
 history of the Bible Society, its Committee had frowned 
 upon the efforts of their missionaries in the field of 
 Bible translation, where they had acquired so just a 
 celebrity, they still loved the Institution ; and for the 
 sake of preserving the harmonious co-operation in 
 which, through so many years, they had been joint 
 labourers in giving to the millions of India the word 
 of life, they were willing to accept a grant simply for 
 the use of their own churches. Instead, therefore, of 
 standing upon the ancient ground of asking that they 
 might be enabled to put the version into general circu- 
 lation, they requested only “a small supply" for them- 
 selves; and this they conceived might have been the 
 
 * Appendix A. + Appendix B. 
 
33 
 
 more readily complied with, as their missionaries were 
 about to print a large edition for the general purposes 
 of the Bible Society, with the words relating to bap- 
 tism altered. This second application, however, 
 shared the fate of the first. 
 
 It may not be improper to mention, that this appli- 
 cation was preceded, at the instance of the Committee 
 of the Baptist Mission, by a personal conference be- 
 tween the noble President of the Bible Society, at- 
 tended by its principal officers, and a deputation from 
 them; so desirous were they of leaving no method 
 untried by which they could hope to preserve the 
 friendly understanding that had always hitherto sub- 
 sisted between the two institutions. 
 
 Again repulsed, it became a matter of anxious delibe- 
 ration whether now the Baptist body ought not to take 
 immediate steps to originate that support which the 
 Bible Society denied. But they yielded to mild 
 counsels. Reluctant to the last degree to resort to a 
 course which should separate them in any measure 
 from the Bible Society, they resolved to make another 
 effort to bring things back into their old channel. A 
 document was accordingly prepared, setting forth in 
 the form of a protest* the principal reasons sustaining 
 their cause ; and, having received the signatures of 
 considerably more than 500 of their ministers, it was 
 presented to the Committee in March of the following 
 year. But this also failed. At this stage of the busi- 
 ness, the whole case was reviewed and argued from 
 the press by one of their ministers, standing deservedly 
 high in the esteem of his brethren, in a letter to Lord 
 Bexley ; but though this pamphlet was extensively 
 
 * Appendix C. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 circulated, remains unanswered, and is known to have 
 had considerable influence upon individual minds, it 
 has effected no change in the Committee. And thus 
 the matter at present stands. 
 
 This brief recapitulation of circumstances the Me- 
 morialists conceive, must show that the Baptist body 
 has not been hasty to redress its wrongs ; that it has 
 evinced a scrupulous and tender regard to the charac- 
 ter of the Bible Society, using all proper means to 
 prevent a rupture, and to induce the Committee to 
 retrace their steps ; and that, if, making still one 
 pacific movement more, it should unhappily be foiled 
 in that, there remains no other course for it to adopt 
 than, trusting in God, and seeking aid wherever it 
 may be found, to enter upon that department of Scrip- 
 ture distribution from which, amidst its deepest regrets, 
 the Bible Society retires. 
 
 This final overture for a restoration of concord is 
 now made. The Memorialists have the means of 
 knowing that, in the document they now place before 
 the Committee, they represent the sentiments of their 
 denomination throughout the United Kingdom. Once 
 more, therefore, they entreat the Committee to rectify 
 the cause of their complaint, and not to force from the 
 bosom of the Bible Society a whole denomination of 
 Christians who were amongst its earliest and most 
 useful friends. They confess themselves not without 
 hope of a favourable issue, from certain indications of 
 altered views which have much cheered their minds. 
 To individuals it would not be decorous more ex- 
 plicitly to refer ; leaving, therefore, those highly- 
 respected ministers not of their body, who nevertheless 
 coincide with them in opinion as to the duty of the 
 
35 
 
 Society, to use their influence in whatever manner 
 they may prefer, the Memorialists would call the at- 
 tention of the Committee to their own language in the 
 conclusion of their last Report. 
 
 In that Report the Committee enter upon the vindi- 
 cation of their conduct, in answer to the charge of 
 another society, in circulating certain versions on the 
 continent of Europe which are alleged not to be 
 “ genuine versions of the Word of God.” In the 
 course of their exculpatory observations, the following 
 passages occur : — 
 
 “ They would begin (they say) with remarking that 
 they have always been aware that these versions are 
 justly open to much exception.” 
 
 “They would also beg to state that, taking the 
 calmest view of all the passages objected to, they do 
 not find that any thing essential is involved.” 
 
 “ They are aware of their many and serious defects; 
 but they are not ashamed to confess, that the magni- 
 tude of the attempt to form new versions, or to revise 
 existing ones, is such that they are compelled to shrink 
 from it. They bid God speed to all who may make 
 attempts of this kind, and shall rejoice unfeignedly if 
 they succeed ; but they know that success must be a 
 work of time ; and, in the meanwhile, they feel them- 
 selves justified in using imperfect versions — versions 
 which bear many marks of the infirmities, not always 
 excusable, of the translators*” 
 
 “Your Committee now turn to the real question 
 which the Society has to consider — Does the amount 
 of erroneous translation,' or of even corrupt translation, 
 to use the stronger term, justify the condemnation and 
 consequent abandonment of the versions referred to, as 
 
 d 2 
 
36 
 
 unworthy to be called the Word of God? Your Com- 
 mittee think a satisfactory conclusion in the negative 
 may be arrived at, by the following considerations — 
 
 The Memorialists quote the first. 
 
 “ No version is perfect — no version is to be found 
 but what contains acknowledged error, and, in a great 
 many instances, error that might be corrected. Your 
 Committee are persuaded that if even the English 
 authorized version were dealt with in the same man- 
 ner as the Portuguese, an amount of individual mis- 
 translations might be presented, which would, with 
 equal justice,* give rise to the question, Can such a 
 version be called the Word of God ? Errors are to be 
 found in it, which the humblest scholar could not only 
 point out, but correct. Errors, too, there are which 
 obscure the sense, in some important instances.” 
 
 In still further vindication of themselves, they add 
 that, “ In giving such versions to the people in their 
 respective countries, it has been regarded as a duty to 
 give them as they are, and not to attempt to alter and 
 improve them. They have been given, with all their 
 faults, for what they are, with the name of the transla- 
 tor on the title page : and your Committee have ever 
 deemed it of importance to be able to say, through 
 their distributors, to the people, ‘ This is the book 
 known and recognized by your own church.’” 
 
 “ Great as may be the variations between the 
 English and the Portuguese, or any other version cir- 
 
 * “ Tbe Committee are surprised to find that this expression has been 
 misapprehended. “ With equal justice"— that is, if justly in one case, 
 justly also in the other. According to the view taken by the Committee, 
 they might have said, “With equal injustice;” and that this was their 
 meaning sufficiently appears from the sentence which occurs towards the 
 conclusion of this paragraph.’’ 
 
37 
 
 culated by the Society, they all teach substantially one 
 and the same truth : — they set forth the grace of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the commu- 
 nion of the Holy Ghost. They all proclaim who and 
 what the Saviour is, — his proper Deity — his one great 
 sacrifice for sin — his intercession with the Father — his 
 coming again to judgment — man’s guilt, condemnation, 
 and helplessness — the Holy Spirit’s grace, power, and 
 work. They are all, your Committee solemnly be- 
 lieve, able to save the souls of men ; ‘ to make men 
 wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ 
 Jesus.’ They all say, ‘Search the Scriptures, for in 
 them ye think ye have eternal life ; and they are they 
 which testify of me.” 
 
 And they ask, “Are there not individuals in considera- 
 ble numbers — are there not congregations to which the 
 Society might point, and with reference to which they 
 might, accommodating the words of the apostle, say, 
 ‘Ye are the seal of our apostleship ?’ Are there not, in 
 other words, many now ‘ the children of light,’ and walk- 
 ing as such, who gratefully acknowledge that they owe 
 their all to some of these very condemned versions ? — 
 who confess that the light which they have, beamed 
 upon them from these very pages ? — who, now rejoicing 
 in the Lord as their Righteousness, have learned the 
 sacred truth from these translations ? ” 
 
 And they conclude in a paragraph which commences 
 with the following sentence: 
 
 “ Your Committee have thus simply stated the prin- 
 ciple upon which, with regard to their versions, they 
 have acted in years that are past ; together with the 
 reasons which seem to justify their adherence to that 
 principle in vears to come.” 
 
38 
 
 On these passages the Memorialists beg to submit 
 to the consideration of the Committee the following 
 remarks. 
 
 These European versions, it is said, the Committee 
 have always known to be “justly open to much excep- 
 tion, - ’ and “ they are aware of their many and serious 
 defects.” Still they circulate them, and circulate them 
 not with hesitation, as though it were a thing of doubt- 
 ful propriety; but they say, “they feel themselves 
 justified in using imperfect versions — versions which 
 bear many marks of the infirmities, not always excus- 
 able, of the translators.” 
 
 Let it then be conceded that the Bengali and other 
 Baptist versions are “ imperfect versions” — imperfect, 
 that is, of course, not in general execution ; for it was 
 never pretended they were exempt from the characte- 
 ristic of all human performances — but imperfect in the 
 rendering of the particular words ; let it even be con- 
 ceded that in this rendering they betray the inexcusable 
 infirmities of the translators ; still, by the Committee’s 
 own showing, they ought not on this account to have 
 been rejected. When this charge is brought against 
 the Portuguese version, the Committee say, “ We know 
 it is a just charge, but we shall continue to circulate 
 notwithstanding.” When it is brought against the 
 Baptist versions, the Committee say, “ Whether it be 
 a just charge or not we give no opinion, but we shall 
 withdraw our support.” Is this treatment of the diffe- 
 rent versions equal ? Is it right ? 
 
 But perhaps the reasons by which the Committee 
 vindicate themselves in the case of the European ver- 
 sions are such as justify the distinction. What then are 
 they ? As the Memorialists gather them from the Re- 
 port, they are the following : 
 
39 
 
 1. “ Taking- the calmest view of all the passages 
 objected to, the Committee do not find that any thing 
 essential is involved.” These passages no doubt might 
 have suppressed fundamental truth, or have inculcated 
 fatal error. It appears they do neither; for thus it is 
 imagined the Committee must mean their words to be 
 understood when they say, “ they do not find that any 
 thing essential is involved and they consequently 
 deem them worthy of support. But will the Com- 
 mittee show what fundamental truth is suppressed, or 
 what fatal error is inculcated, when / 3 « 7 m£w is trans- 
 lated to immerse ? Baptists are accused of attaching 
 an undue importance to their mode of administering 
 the Christian rite ; but where will the accusation lie 
 now ? Though they have the concurrent testimony of 
 antiquity, of versions, and of criticism on their side, 
 they never insisted upon immersion as a fundamental 
 truth ; but the Committee of the Bible Society do 
 what is equivalent to this — they proscribe it as though 
 it were a fatal error. 
 
 2. The next reason assigned by the Committee is, 
 that, as they can neither make versions nor revise 
 them, they thankfully avail themselves of the labours 
 of those who can, even though much imperfection may 
 blend with them. “ They are not ashamed to confess 
 (they tell us) that the magnitude of the attempt to form 
 new versions, or to revise existing ones, is such that 
 they are compelled to shrink from it. They bid God 
 speed to all who may make attempts of this kind, and 
 will rejoice unfeignedly if they succeed.” 
 
 Attempts of this kind the Baptist missionaries have 
 made, with what success the former records of the 
 Bible Society sufficiently declare. 
 
40 
 
 It might well be deemed superfluous to eulogize the 
 biblical labours of Dr. Carey and his colleagues. Their 
 reputation in this important department of Christian 
 philanthropy is too well founded, and too universally 
 acknowledged by learned men of all communities, to 
 be called in question now. Of the competency of Dr. 
 Yates and the brethren associated with him to succeed 
 to the work of translation, the testimonies to the Ben- 
 gali version already laid before the public, and its 
 acknowledged superiority to all preceding versions in 
 that language, are ample proof. Why then, since the 
 Committee affirm that they bid God speed to all who 
 make attempts of this kind, and rejoice unfeignedly if 
 they succeed, do they not “ bid God speed” to them ? 
 Why, instead of bidding them God speed, do they 
 weaken their hands, and use the influence of that great 
 confederation of Christian communities to discredit 
 their versions ? Again the Memorialists have to ask 
 if this is worthy of the Bible Society? if it is just ? if it 
 is in harmony with the professions of the Committee ? 
 
 3. The Committee inquire, as a third reason, “ Does 
 the amount of erroneous translation, or even of corrupt 
 translation, to use the stronger term, justify the con- 
 demnation and consequent abandonment of the versions 
 referred to as unworthy to be called the word of God;” 
 and they “ think a satisfactory conclusion in the nega- 
 tive may be arrived at.” Among the considerations 
 by the help of which they arrive at this conclusion, is 
 the fact, that “ no version is perfect and “that if even 
 the English authorized version were dealt with in the 
 same manner as the Portuguese, an amount of indi- 
 vidual mistranslation might be presented, which would 
 with equal justice (or, as they say in a note, with equal 
 
41 
 
 injustice) give rise to the question, Can such a version 
 be called the word of God ?” 
 
 Here then are versions, of which it is alleged that 
 there is in them “ an amount of corrupt translation,” 
 or, to take the milder term of *' £ erroneous translation,” 
 which gives rise to the question if they can be consi- 
 dered the word of God. The inference drawn from 
 the errors they contain, and insinuated in the question, 
 is indeed denied, but the fact of the existence of these 
 errors or corruptions is admitted. If the Committee 
 of the Bible Society will patronize these versions with 
 their admitted amount of corrupt translation, or of erro- 
 neous translation, a fortiori, they ought to patronize 
 another version, against which no corruption at all, 
 and even no error is alleged ; for its rejection has never 
 been grounded on the charge of corrupt translation, or 
 even of erroneous translation, but only on a translation 
 which peedobaptists disapprove. “ If the English 
 authorized version,” moreover, it is said, “ were dealt 
 with in the same manner as the Portuguese, an amount 
 of individual mistranslation might be presented, which 
 would with equal injustice give rise to the question, 
 Can such a version be called the word of God ?” 
 What injustice then would be done it, if it were dealt 
 with in the same manner as the Bengali ? That ver- 
 sion is condemned as unworthy of the Bible Society’s 
 support. Not simply is it interrogatively insinuated 
 that such a version cannot be the word of God, it is 
 practically treated as though it were not. With all 
 the mistranslations of the English version, and all the 
 erroneous or corrupt translations of the Portuguese 
 version, they are circulated ; but with no alleged mis- 
 translation, no corrupt translation, or even erroneous 
 translation, the Bengali version is abandoned. Again 
 
42 
 
 the Memorialists must ask if this is a consistent pro- 
 ceeding 1 ? 
 
 4. In the fourth place, the Committee say, that “ in 
 giving- such versions to the people in their respective 
 countries, it has been regarded as a duty to give them 
 as they are, and not to attempt to alter and improve 
 them. They have been given, with all their faults, 
 for what they are, with the name of the translator on 
 the title-page ; and your Committee have ever deemed 
 it of importance to be able to say, through their distri- 
 butors, to the people — ‘This is the book known and 
 recognized by your own church.’ ” 
 
 In this remarkable passage, remarkable for its perti- 
 nency to the case in hand, there are at least three dis- 
 tinct admissions, each of which concludes against the 
 decision of the Committee. 
 
 1. In the first place, they say they regard it as a 
 duty not to attempt to alter and improve versions, but 
 to give them as they are. Had the Committee forgot- 
 ten when they penned this sentence, what they did to 
 the 5000 copies of the Bengali version, or did they in 
 that instance intentionally violate their regard to duty? 
 The Memorialists are loath to impute the latter ; they 
 think that upright men would not wilfully do wrong. 
 But if it were forgetfulness of duty, and not intentional 
 violation of it, the Committee will immediately set 
 themselves right. 
 
 2. Versions “ are given with all their faults, for what 
 they are, with the name of the translator on the title- 
 page.” In other words, the Committee do not take 
 upon them the responsibility of translations, but leave 
 that to be borne by the translator. As it is no duty of 
 theirs to attempt to alter and improve what he may 
 have done, so his name on the title-page tells all the 
 
43 
 
 world that the Committee have left the translation 
 untouched. And what besides this have the Baptists 
 ever asked? “ Give our versions (we respectfully say) 
 for what they are.” We have never desired to shift 
 the responsibility, our whole complaint is that we are 
 not suffered to take it. 
 
 3. The “ Committee has ever deemed it of impor- 
 tance to be able to say, through their distributors, to 
 the people — This is the book known and recognized by 
 your own church.” The Memorialists are again com- 
 pelled to recal to the remembrance of the Committee 
 circumstances which they must have forgotten. Not 
 “ ever” have they done this. In one instance, at least, 
 it was thought of no importance. The Baptists were 
 content to have taken “ a small supply” for the use of 
 their own people ; and they would have said to them, 
 as they presented the New Testament in the capacity 
 of the Committee’s distributors — “ The Bible Society 
 gives you this as the book known and recognized by 
 your own church.” But the boon was denied. The 
 Committee, in effect, have said, the Roman Church 
 shall have their version in Portugal, the Episcopalian 
 in England, the Lutheran in Germany, the Psedobap- 
 tists in China ; but the Baptists shall not have theirs. 
 If the Bible Society can accomplish it, not only shall 
 immersion as a mode of baptism, be banished from 
 every other church in India, it shall be suppressed in 
 the Baptist itself. Again, the Memorialists put the 
 question, Is this generous treatment ? Is it worthy of 
 an Institution which is meant to comprehend all 
 churches, and to exclude none ? 
 
 4. The fourth reason by which the Committee de- 
 fend their support of Roman Catholic Versions is, 
 that, great as may be the variations between them and 
 
44 
 
 the English Version, “ they all teach substantially one 
 and the same truth. They set forth (the Committee 
 say) the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of 
 God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost. They 
 all proclaim who, and what the Saviour is, his proper 
 Deity, his one great sacrifice for sin, his intercession 
 with the Father, his coming again to judgment ; man’s 
 guilt, condemnation, and helplessness ; the Holy 
 Spirit’s grace, power, and work. They are all, your 
 Committee solemnly believe, able to save the souls of 
 men ; ‘ to make men wise unto salvation, through faith 
 which is in Christ Jesus.’ They all say, ‘ Search the 
 Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ; 
 and they are they which testify of me.’ ” 
 
 It were needless to spend five words in showing that 
 this reason is alike applicable to the Baptist Versions. 
 
 5. The past usefulness of th'e European versions is 
 assigned as the last reason for their retention. But 
 whatever weight there may be in this argument, it 
 pleads at least with equal, if not with superior force, 
 for the Versions of the Baptists. With what propriety 
 might it not be inquired, in the very language of the 
 Committee, “ Are there not individuals in considerable 
 numbers, are there not congregations, to which the 
 Society might point, and with reference to which they 
 might, accommodating the words of the apostle, say, 
 c Ye are the seal of our Apostleship ?’ Are there not, 
 in other words, many, now ‘the children of light,’ and 
 walking as such, who gratefully acknowledge that they 
 owe their all to some of those very condemned versions? 
 who confess that the light which they have, beamed 
 upon them from these very pages ? who, now rejoicing 
 in the Lord as their righteousness, have learned the 
 sacred truth from these translations ?” Who more ap- 
 
propriately shall be called the apostle of Bengal than 
 William Carey ? By whom have Christian churches 
 been planted in British India, if not by Baptist mis- 
 sionaries ? And by whose labours were the mission- 
 aries throughout that vast territory of every denomina- 
 tion provided with the Scriptures, but by Baptist 
 translators ? By “ these very condemned versions” 
 how many heathens have been led to renounce their 
 “abominable idolatries?” How many triumphs have 
 been achieved over the Shasters and the Koran? How 
 many of the most abject and down-trodden vassals of 
 Satan have been lifted up to a communion with Infinite 
 purity and love ? How many voices once frantic with 
 the yells of demons, are now attuned to “ the song of 
 Moses and the Lainb ?” If past usefulness shall be a plea 
 with the Committee, let them think of the moral change 
 which has taken place, and is still in progress, over the 
 whole extent of our Indian Empire ; let them think of 
 caste broken, suttee extinguished, native schools 
 opened, female education instituted, Christian churches 
 formed, benevolent institutions founded, opposition 
 silenced, and Governments themselves enlisted on the 
 Bible’s side ; let them think of the thousands of con- 
 verts to the Christian faith, of the hundreds of native 
 agents variously employed in its propagation ; of 
 Krishna, Rammohun, Sebukram, Ramprusad, Aratoon, 
 Soojatullee, and numbers more, Hindoos or Mussul- 
 mans once, becoming preachers 6f “the glorious gos- 
 pel of the blessed God let them listen to the recital 
 of facts such as every missionary can tell them coming 
 from the plains of Hindostan, to the alarmed appre- 
 hensions of Brahmins of the downfall of their ancient 
 mythology, and to the glowing hopes of Christians of 
 the approaching universal triumph of Christianity ; 
 
4 G 
 
 and let them remember, that, so far as these effects are 
 to be attributed to the Scriptures at all, they are to be 
 mainly attributed to these condemned and abandoned 
 versions of the Scriptures, for there were no other; and 
 then let them consider, if the plea of usefulness is to 
 prevail, whether these circumstances do not establish 
 an irresistible argument for their re-instatement in the 
 patronage of the Bible Society. 
 
 In conclusion, the Committee tell the public that 
 they have thus “stated the principle upon which, with 
 regard to their versions, they have acted in years that 
 are past, together with the reasons which seem to 
 justify their adherence to that principle in years to 
 come.” 
 
 To the uniformity, however, with which they have 
 acted upon this principle, their conduct towards the 
 Baptists forms an exception. The Memorialists be- 
 lieve, and they rejoice to believe, that it is the solitary 
 exception. They sincerely hope that no other faithful 
 versions of the Scriptures have been treated as theirs 
 have been, or ever will be. It may be enough for any 
 body of Christians to have taken a resolution only in 
 one instance, which, however unintentionally on their 
 part, will not let God speak the whole revelation of 
 his will in a language that can be understood. The 
 Memorialists are aware that this is putting the case 
 plainly and solemnly. Solemnly they wish to put it, 
 and with plain-spoken truthfulness. They impute no 
 evil motives, they believe none existed in the minds of 
 the Committee ; on the contrary, they are persuaded 
 those excellent persons who passed the resolution acted 
 under a conviction that they were doing what duty 
 required at their hands. But that such conviction 
 was founded in error, cannot, they conceive, be a 
 
47 
 
 matter of doubt, now the consequences which their re- 
 solution involves are apparent. Looking at the sub- 
 ject, not in the light simply of a difference of opinion 
 between Baptists and Paedobaptists, but in its whole 
 extent of application to the great work of Bible trans- 
 lation, and at the consequences which must ensue, 
 either as translators shall feel themselves bound to 
 give the entire Scriptures without concealing any part, 
 or at liberty to evade translation, or to translate on a 
 principle of accommodation and compromise ; the 
 Memorialists must confess, that no language they can 
 employ would adequately represent their views of its 
 importance. They have accordingly desired to deal 
 with it, not as a party question, but as a grave matter 
 of Christian morals, in the decision of which the whole 
 Church of Christ is concerned. As a party ques- 
 tion by no fairness of representation can it be ex- 
 hibited. With that volume before them which is their 
 Heavenly Father’s gift to the whole human family, 
 and which they and the rest of the Christian Church 
 hold in trust for all their brethren of mankind, mere 
 party questions sink in their esteem into unutterable 
 insignificance. They plead not for the advantage of 
 their own denomination, but for common principles, 
 in which there ought to be a concurrence amongst all 
 denominations. They plead for the restoration of har- 
 mony, for a return to the ancient paths, the good old 
 ways in which the Bible Society used to walk, and in 
 which, towards all but themselves, its determination is 
 declared to walk in future — in a word, they plead for 
 the consistency and honour of the Bible Society itself. 
 
 Time was, when in concluding one of their Annual 
 Reports,* the Committee could say, 
 
 A. D. 1829. 
 
48 
 
 “ Let it not be forgotten, that the basis of the Society 
 is as ample as ever. There the various communions 
 of Christians have enjoyed communion with each 
 other. There, within the range of the United King- 
 dom, the Episcopalian has delighted to meet and en- 
 courage, and to be met and encouraged by, his brethren 
 of other names. There they have mutually learned, 
 that brethren they are, and there they indulge the 
 hope that brethren they shall remain, and dwell to- 
 gether in unity. There they have mingled their sym- 
 pathies with the brethren of the Lutheran and the 
 Reformed Churches of the Continent. There they 
 have witnessed with delight, the breathings of the 
 pious Roman Catholic, and have hailed the approach 
 of the Greek and Armenian, the Syrian, the Copt, and 
 the Chaldee Christian. All, of every name, who love 
 the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, have gladly extend- 
 ed to each other the right hand of fellowship.” 
 
 But should the Committee in an evil hour turn a 
 deaf ear to the pleadings of the Memorialists, the time 
 they describe in these glowing terms is gone. One 
 denomination of Christians who trust they may, never- 
 theless, humbly aver that they “ love the Lord Jesus 
 Christ in sincerity,” is expelled from the fraternal 
 union ; or, if they still retain a place as contributors — 
 which numbers of them will — and, if one or two of their 
 body are continued on the Committee — as probably 
 they may — their translations are discarded, their 
 churches are aggrieved, and they no longer unite on 
 terms of equality. Christians of every other name, 
 and in their distinctive names, may still extend to 
 each other the right hand of unbroken friendship ; but 
 henceforth, though still extended, the right hand of a 
 Baptist none may take. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE TRANSLATION OF THE NEW 
 
 TESTAMENT INTO BENGALI, BY MESSRS. YATES AND 
 
 PEARCE. 
 
 From the Calcutta Missionaries to the Committee of the Baptist 
 
 Mission. 
 
 Calcutta , May 25, 1832. 
 
 Dear Brethren, 
 
 In addressing you upon any subject connected 'with the spi- 
 ritual and eternal interests of our fellow-men, we feel the weighty 
 responsibility that rests both upon you and ourselves in the decisions 
 we form, and the conduct we pursue ; but on the present occasion, 
 when the translation of the word of God, by which those interests 
 are deeply affected, is the great question for consideration, we feel the 
 anxiety arising from our united responsibilities raised to its highest 
 pitch. From the efforts we have lately made in this department, you 
 will he necessarily led to conclude that we cannot be indifferent to its 
 results. W e have pressed forward through many discouragements, and, 
 through the mercy of our heavenly Father, have been permitted 
 to witness so much success, as convinces us that we have not laboured 
 in vain, and spent our strength for nought. 
 
 When the Gospel of Matthew was through the press, we forwarded 
 copies of it, as a specimen of a New Version, to individuals well ac- 
 quainted with the Bengali language, requesting their remarks upon 
 it ; and the following are the sentiments which they expressed, and 
 which, from the absence of all incentives to partiality,* we think may 
 he regarded as unbiassed testimony : — 
 
 I. From Tariniechurn Mitr, late Head Moonshee, in the College 
 of Fort William. 
 
 “ I take the liberty to represent, that, on examining the new edi- 
 tion of the Gospel of Matthew in Bengali, I find the translation very 
 elegant, all the words and sentences grammatical, and the explanation 
 is very much plainer than what has been already published.” 
 
 * In order to secure this object, whenever we asked an opinion as to the compa- 
 rative merits of the translations in question, we distinguished them by the letters 
 A. B. and C. Dr. Carey’s being marked A ; Mr. Ellerton’s B ; and ours, C. We 
 requested to be informed, if our version was idiomatic and intelligible. 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 II. From Shree Narayan, Pundit, Head Librarian in the College 
 of Fort William. 
 
 “ I cannot but admire the correctness and accuracy of your version 
 of the Gospel of Matthew, and when I see such composition in the 
 Bengali language, executed by foreigners, I am justly delighted, and 
 consider you entitled to high commendation.” (Translated.) 
 
 III. From Bhobanee Churn, Pundit. 
 
 “ The language of this Book is excellent, the idiom correct, the 
 style easy, and such as will, I think, be well understood.” (Trans- 
 lated.) 
 
 IY. From Khetra Mohun Mookeryija, the Translator of Gold- 
 smith’s History of Greece and Rome. 
 
 “ I have the pleasure to send you back the three works, A. B. and 
 C., and beg to say, from the judgment I have been able to form, by 
 a perusal of a few chapters of each, that C* among them has been the 
 best executed, its style being more idiomatical and intelligible, 
 and more suited to please the native literary public than those of the 
 other two.”+ 
 
 V. From Baboo Russomoy Dutt, a Member of the Calcutta 
 School Society Committee. 
 
 “ I think that the translation is both intelligible and idiomatic, and 
 a far better one than any I have seen before of the kind.” 
 
 YI. From Gopal, Pundit, Dr. Carey’s Assistant in many of his 
 translations. 
 
 “ The language of the Gospel you have sent me is excellent, and 
 will be well understood by the people of this country.” (Trans- 
 lated.) 
 
 VII. From Baboo Kossynath Paul, Merchant, of Calcutta. 
 
 “ I have attentively perused almost the whole of the work, and, on 
 a careful revision, I find that the words therein have been well 
 chosen. The style also, in my opinion, is of such a nature as to be 
 intelligible to the middle class of my countrymen.” 
 
 VIII. From Baboo Oomanundun Thakoor, a Member of the 
 School and School Book Society’s Committee. 
 
 “ I think the translation will in its nature be both intelligible and 
 acceptable to our countrymen.” 
 
 IX. From Baboo Prusuna Coomar Thakoor, an intimate Friend 
 and Associate of Baboo Ram Mohun Roy, and a Manager of 
 the Hindoo College. 
 
 “Considering the difficulty arising from the great disparity in the 
 idioms of the two languages, the translation in question appears to 
 me deserving of high commendation as regards its literary exe- 
 cution.” 
 
 X. From Baboo Kasi Prusad Ghose, a young Gentleman of 
 fortune, educated at the Hindoo College, and Author of a 
 Volume of English Poems. 
 
 * The translation of the C. B. Missionaries. + Dr. Carey’s and Mr. Ellerton’s. 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 51 
 
 OPINION ON THE GENERAL MERITS OF THE TRANSLATION. 
 
 “ I have given the work two attentive perusals, and have the 
 pleasure to find it the best of any Biblical translation that I have 
 hitherto seen in point of intelligibility.” 
 
 OPINION ON ITS MERITS, IN COMPARISON WITH PRECEDING TRANSLA- 
 TIONS. 
 
 “ My opinion is, that the translation marked C, on which I have 
 already offered you my remarks, is a great improvement upon the two 
 former, and that you have been more successful than your predeces- 
 sors were in getting ‘ accuracy of rendering from the original Greek, 
 combined with propriety of idiom, and perspicuity and neatness 
 in Bengali,’ an object , which you, and no doubt they also, had in 
 view. In the two versions marked A. and B., I have met with more 
 foreign and vulgar words, such as V (lame) ^r^TTi (' m P r i son “ 
 
 ment) ( re P air ) ‘YS'Y ( wa y) C^l}v ( wl '°'")^3V' 
 
 (less) &c., and with a greater want of idiom, than in the pre- 
 sent translation of Matthew.” 
 
 XI. From the Rev. J. D. Pearson, Missionary of the London 
 Society. 
 
 “ In reference to the copy of the new version of the Gospel 
 by Matthew, forwarded to me by Mr. W. H. Pearce, I have to say, 
 that I placed it, and a copy of the Serampore version, and one of Mr. 
 Ellerton’s, in the hands of one intelligent native, who is acquainted 
 with the English New Testament, and without saying anything as to 
 the Authors of the three versions, requested that he, with two 
 other Pundits, would give me an opinion as to their comparative 
 merits. 
 
 “ The opinion given was, that your version is decidedly preferable 
 to the other two. Here and there, he thought an expression proba- 
 bly might admit of improvement. At the same time, speaking 
 of the construction generally, they considered it as very correct, and 
 much in accordance with the Bengali idiom.” 
 
 Similar commendations we have received from other Missionary 
 brethren of every denomination in the city. 
 
 After finishing the four Gospels, we sent copies of them to the Bible 
 Society, by our friend Mr. Hill, the Independent Minister. He ex- 
 pressed to Mr. W. H. Pearce a wish to be allowed to state to the Com- 
 mittee, that we would permit them to use the version as their own, 
 with the term “ baptism ’’ untranslated ; and Mr. Pearce saw no ob- 
 jection to his doing so ; it being understood, that we were at liberty 
 to print any portion of the edition for which we paid, with the word 
 translated. When it came under our united consideration, however, 
 we concluded that we were not at liberty to go so far without your 
 consent. We here insert the application, addressed by Mr. Dealtry, 
 the Secretary of the Bible Society, to Mr. W. H. Pearce. 
 
 “ I have great pleasure in being made the medium of conveying to 
 
 e 2 
 
52 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 you the thanks of the Calcutta Auxiliary Committee of the Bible So- 
 ciety, for the grant of twelve copies of the four Gospels in Bengali, 
 presented to them in the name of the Calcutta Baptist Missionaries, 
 by the Rev. Mr. Hill, and more especially for the offer of the privilege 
 of re-printing the edition, if this Committee required it, leaving it at 
 the option of the Committee tb make what alterations they might deem 
 needful, as it respects the words on Baptism.” 
 
 “ A member of your body (Mr. G. Pearce), however, having ex- 
 pressed some doubt as it respected the accuracy of Mr. Hill’s state- 
 ment, the Committee would feel obliged if you would kindly say 
 if Mr. Hill understood you to express the sentiments of the respectable 
 body to which you belong, in your communication with him on the 
 subject. 
 
 “ I feel no doubt that the Committee would gladly avail themselves 
 of the privilege, as the call for copies of the SS. in the Bengali lan- 
 guage is at present so great. Your early answer would greatly oblige 
 the Committee.” 
 
 To this the following answer was returned by Mr. Pearce : — 
 
 “Accept my best thanks for your very obliging note, which I, this 
 evening, laid before my associates, and was in return requested to com- 
 municate to you the following resolution : — 
 
 “That since the version of the Bengali New Testament, now 
 executing by the Calcutta Baptist Missionaries, has been prepared 
 and printed at the expense of funds remitted by the Baptist Mission- 
 ary Society in England, the Missionaries think it their duty to com- 
 municate with that Society ere taking any steps with regard to the 
 transfer of the version. 
 
 “ The intended reference, they conceive, will not cause any eventual 
 delay, as they would not like to enter on a second edition before the 
 present one is completed. This will occupy, at least, twelve months, 
 a time sufficient to allow the receipt of an answer from England. 
 
 “Should a second edition be printed for the Calcutta Auxiliary 
 Bible Society, the delay, it is hoped, will be more than compensated 
 by the advantages derived from the experience of those particularly 
 engaged in the work, together with the further assistance received 
 from other Missionaries.” 
 
 From these notes you will at once perceive that the object of our 
 present communication is to solicit from you advice respecting the 
 course we are to pursue. To enable you to form a judgment, we shall 
 put you in possession of all the information we can. Several circum- 
 stances have transpired which have either a direct or indirect bearing 
 on this subject. Some years since, three of the Paedo-baptist brethren 
 unknown! to us, though on the most friendly terms with us, wrote to 
 the Bible Society in England, requesting them not to give assistance 
 to any Indian version in which the word “ baptize” was translated to 
 “ immerse.” None of these lived to see the reply to their application ; 
 and nothing further of a positive nature was done till last year. 
 When you applied to the Bible Society in England for assistance to 
 our version, the Secretary of the Parent Institution wrote to the Bible 
 Society in Calcutta, stating, without any reference to the subject 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 53 
 
 of baptism, that if the version was considered a good one, it was their 
 wish to afford assistance. The resolution they forwarded was as fol- 
 lows : — “ That the above application respecting an edition of the 
 Bengali New Testament be referred to the Committee of the Cal- 
 cutta Auxiliary Society, with authority to contribute toward the 
 expense of an edition, should they be of opinion that it ought to be 
 encouraged by this Society.” After seeing this resolution, we inquired 
 privately whether they intended to give us aid, but could obtain 
 no answer. A short time afterwards, in their Annual Report, they 
 came forward and boldly declared their sentiments, intimating, too 
 plainly to be misunderstood, that they should encourage no version 
 of the Scriptures, how well soever it might be executed, in which the 
 word baptize was rendered “ to immerse.” Speaking of Mr. Bruck- 
 ner’s version of the Javanese Scriptures, they say, “There is one 
 delightful circumstance connected with this translation, which your 
 Committee cannot omit to notice. The disputed words on baptism 
 have been left, as in the English version, untranslated. Your Com- 
 mittee have the greater pleasure in noticing this, as they feel more 
 than ever convinced of the indispensable necessity of adhering to 
 their decision upon this subject, in not sanctioning any version in 
 which the words are made to signify ‘ immersion ; and most sorry in- 
 deed should they be to lose the services of men whose zeal, and 
 talents, and piety, have been most justly tbe praise and admiration of 
 all Christendom. They cannot but hope that the same course will be 
 pursued in all their future translations.” 
 
 Here the die is cast, and the weight which the Parent Society de- 
 sired to remove from their own shoulders to that of the Auxiliary 
 Society in Calcutta, must now be returned and placed where it was 
 before. Should the Parent Society adopt the sentiments of the 
 Auxiliary in Calcutta, it is for you to determine, whether they do not 
 by that step exclude us as a denomination from their Institution. 
 Should they think it most illiberal, as we do, then from the testi- 
 monials we now forward, they will certainly be willing to render us 
 some pecuniary assistance. 
 
 But whatever may be their determination, the question still re- 
 turns. — What shall we do with the present application? Shall we 
 give up our version, and submit to the alteration proposed, or not ? 
 We shall here state what we conceive the advantages and difficulties 
 which attend this intricate question. Should we give up the version, 
 it is the best thing we could do to make it popular and generally used. 
 It would become the standard version of the Scriptures in the 
 Bengali language, and as such would have a circulation which 
 we alone could never command. While we recollect that the great 
 object we have in view is to spread the knowledge of Christ to 
 the utmost extent in our power, this appears to us a powerful motive. 
 Another advantage that would arise from our consenting to the re- 
 taining of the original term on baptism is, we should please our 
 brethren, and set a troublesome and disputed point at rest. It seems 
 natural to inquire, whether we ought not to give up a non-essential 
 
54 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 point for the sake of the peace of the Church, and of our brethren ; 
 and if we think ourselves strong on this point, whether we ought not 
 to make a little sacrifice for those we deem weak. Is not this a con- 
 cession on our parts which love demands ? 
 
 While our own usefulness, and the happiness of our brethren plead 
 powerfully for our compliance with the Committee’s wishes, there are 
 other considerations which very much neutralize these arguments. 
 No prospects of usefulness, and no stretch of charity, can justify a de- 
 reliction of the truth. Nor have we any right to expect that those 
 measures would tend to ultimate peace and usefulness which are 
 adopted at the expense of truth. It seems to us questionable, 
 whether when we know the true meaning of a word, and conceal it 
 by non- translation, we do not come under the curse of those who “take 
 away from the words of the prophecy of the book.” This, while it 
 applies with all its force to us, does not apply to those who conceive 
 that the word cannot be properly rendered. Would the errors that 
 now prevail in the world have come to such a pitch, if this word had 
 been faithfully translated ? And may not one version of the Scriptures, 
 if generally approved, in which the word is faithfully translated, pre- 
 vent much error in this vast empire, where Christianity is just 
 beginning to spread? Are we not in this particular set for the 
 defence of the truth ? And however painful it may be to our feelings 
 not to agree with others and yield to their wishes, yet is not this 
 a sacrifice which truth requires ? 
 
 This view of the case appears the more important, as the Com- 
 mittee of the Bible Society here, while they will sanction no version 
 in which the word baptize is rendered “ to immerse,” have sanctioned 
 some, and will probably sanction others, in which it is rendered any 
 thing else ; so that, unless we maintain our ground firmly, all the 
 Indian versions of the Scriptures will be against us, either by retain- 
 ing PcnrTiZw, which the natives cannot understand, or by rendering it 
 in such a manner as to lead them to believe that it never meant “ to 
 immerse.” 
 
 Another consideration is, that if you, as a Society, intend to carry 
 on versions of the Scriptures in which the disputed word is translated, 
 it would be an injury to your usefulness for us to give up the version, 
 as you would thenceforward have no ground of appeal to the public 
 except in the light of sectarians. It would be said, — the Bible 
 Society have printed your version, and why should you print it ? Our 
 answer must then be, — because we wish a certain disputed word to 
 be translated. And this answer would be esteemed lighter than 
 vanity, except by the Baptists. Viewing the subject in this light, we 
 are led to conclude, that if you are resolved to support versions of 
 your own, and solicit public contributions towards them, you will not 
 choose to surrender this on the terms proposed ; but if you are de- 
 sirous of removing this burden from yourselves, as a clog to your 
 Missionary operations not experienced by other societies, this will be 
 a favourable opportunity of making a transfer of our version. 
 
 Having thus stated the question, together with what appear to us 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 55 
 
 the advantages and difficulties connected with it, we shall be happy to 
 receive the decision of the Committee by the earliest opportunity. 
 
 W e remain, Dear Brethren, 
 
 Yours, very faithfully and affectionately, 
 
 W. Yates, 
 
 James Penney, 
 W. H. Pearce, 
 Geo. Pearce, 
 
 J. Thomas, 
 
 Jno. D. Ellis. 
 
 P.S. As you may probably like to know the opinion on the subject 
 entertained by our American Baptist brethren, we add it below. One 
 of our members who had applied to the acting Secretary of the Cal- 
 cutta Bible Society, for aid to the Buvman translation of the New 
 Testament, but had been informed that if the word iia-n-riSjo was 
 translated, they could not afford it, communicated this decision to 
 Messrs. Judson and Wade, when the former wrote as follows: — 
 
 “We are sorry that the Society is lending itself to aid a party, and 
 taking ground which the increasing light of a few years will show to 
 be untenable. The only fair and honourable course for them to pur- 
 sue, is to afford impartial aid to all denominations of evangelical 
 Christians, leaving the various translators to their own judgment and 
 conscience.” 
 
 Since then the American Bible Society have liberally patronized 
 their (the Burmese) translation, without any instructions what- 
 ever. 
 
 This letter was read at the Quarterly Committee Meeting, held 
 October 24, 1832, when it was unanimously resolved, 
 
 That this Committee cannot sanction or recommend the mode 
 of translation which has been proposed by the Auxiliary Bible So- 
 ciety in Calcutta, and that therefore application for pecuniary assist- 
 ance be made to the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society.* 
 
 Application was made accordingly, and the subject was discussed 
 at various times in personal interviews with the Committee of 
 the Bible Society. Some delay arose from an expectation on the 
 part of that Committee, of further advices from Calcutta, which might 
 assist them in forming their judgment, but at length the following 
 Resolution was passed by that body on the 1st of July, 1833, con- 
 firmed on the 22nd of that month, and duly forwarded by the 
 Secretary, the Rev. A. Brandram. 
 
 “That this Committee would cheerfully afford assistance to the 
 Missionaries connected with the Baptist Missionary Society in their 
 translation of the Bengali New Testament, provided the Greek terms 
 relating to Baptism be rendered either according to the principle 
 
 * This resolution was formally approved by the open Committee, held 18th of 
 June, 1833. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 SG 
 
 adopted by the translators of the authorised English version by 
 a word derived from the original, or by such terms as may be consi- 
 dered unobjectionable by the other denominations of Christians 
 composing the Bible Society.” 
 
 This communication having been laid before the Mission Com- 
 mittee, July 24th, it was resolved to address to the Committee of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society a statement of the reasons why this 
 Committee deeply regret the decision they have adopted. 
 
 The subject was resumed at the next Quarterly Meeting, held 26th 
 of September, when the following Resolution, and the reasons 
 subjoined, were unanimously approved and adopted. 
 
 That this Committee cannot but express their deep regret at 
 the passing of the above Resolution, since they conceive it involves 
 principles which must operate injuriously on the great cause of 
 Biblical translation throughout the world, and they beg respectfully 
 to specify the following reasons for that opinion. 
 
 I. — Because they apprehend that the Committee of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society have acted wisely hitherto in abstaining from 
 all dictation as to the particular words and phrases which shall 
 be employed or rejected in the translations they patronize ; and they 
 conceive that if such a practice be once introduced, it will be very 
 difficult to set bounds and limits to its operation. 
 
 II. — Because the Resolution evidently implies that the mode 
 of translation adopted hy our Missionaries is of a sectarian or deno- 
 minational character, and such as would be used by Baptists alone, 
 whereas, it is well known, that several of the most eminent Ptedo- 
 baptists maintain that it is incumbent on translators to act as the 
 Calcutta brethren have done, and substitute some equivalent ver- 
 nacular terms for the Greek words in question. 
 
 III. — Because, to require translators of the Holy Scriptures, in the 
 prosecution of their arduous task, not exclusively to aim at transfer- 
 ring the sense of the originals with all possible fidelity into the 
 languages on which they are employed, but also to select “ such terms 
 as may be considered unobjectionable by the various denominations 
 of Christians composing the Bible Society," is to impose a condition 
 most uncertain and embarrassing in its nature, derogatory to mental 
 independence, and which may obviously lead to the sacrifice of con- 
 scientious conviction on the altar of secular expediency. 
 
 IY. — Because this Committee feel, that to obscure the true import 
 of the original by introducing the Greek words in Bengali letters, 
 would be to fail in that strict fidelity which is the first duty of 
 a translator. 
 
 No reason for such a procedure can be alleged from any want 
 of precision in the original terms, for the meaning of which an ap- 
 peal is confidently made to lexicographers, to the Septuagint, to the 
 Hellenist Jewish writers, Josephus and Philo, and to profane Greek 
 authors during a period of more than a thousand years, to say nothing 
 of very numerous testimonies from eminent scholars in modern times, 
 of our own and other countries, and of every variety of religious 
 profession. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 57 
 
 V. — Because, to adopt the words of the late very learned Mr. Green- 
 field, “ Many of the most accurate and valuable versions both ancient 
 and modem are involved in the same accusation, and there is not one 
 which is decidedly hostile to the interpretation objected against.” To 
 he consistent, therefore, if aid be refused on this ground, it must also 
 he withdrawn from the churches of Syria, of Arabia, of Abyssinia, of 
 Egypt, of Germany, of Holland, of Denmark, &c., and the venerable 
 Peshito Syriac version (the oldest existing translation from the ori- 
 ginal Greek), the Arabic versions of the Propaganda, of Sabat, &c., 
 the Ethiopic, the Coptic, and other versions, must all he sup- 
 
 Because the rendering, on account of which our translation 
 is denied pecuniary aid, was adopted by the Fathers of the Anglican 
 Protestant Church, and the corresponding practice is expressly en- 
 joined by her law's, and was, till comparatively a modern period, 
 enforced by general observance within her pale, a departure from 
 which practice has been deplored by some of her most eminent 
 divines, as affording countenance to the flagrant abuses of the Romish 
 Church. 
 
 YII. — Because, although in the western parts of Europe the 
 example of the V ulgate has generally been followed in adopting the 
 Greek w r ord without translation, yet it could easily he shown that the 
 translators clearly understood it in the sense given in the Bengali 
 version. 
 
 VIII. — Because it is apprehended that an attempt to impose on 
 the vast population of Bengal, some of whom can read the Greek 
 Testament for themselves, a word foreign to their language, and 
 to which they can attach no meaning, when the signification of the 
 original has been long currently given in their own tongue, must not 
 only fail of success, hut tend to excite prejudices and suspicions mili- 
 tating against their reception of the Christian faith. 
 
 IX. — Because to impose such a condition on the present translators 
 is an utter departure from the course which has been uniformly pm- 
 sued by the Bible Society from its commencement. All the transla- 
 tions executed by Dr. Carey and others at Serampore were constructed 
 on the same principle ; they received for a long course of years grants 
 of money from the Bible Society ; and this Committee submit that, 
 unless it can be proved that the rendering in question is erroneous 
 or unfaithful, there can be no valid reason for discontinuing the 
 practice. 
 
 X. — Because the necessary effect of such a Resolution must he to 
 deprive all future translators, whose views harmonize with those 
 of this Committee (and it is well known that hitherto the work 
 of translation has been chiefly undertaken by such persons), of 
 all hope of aid from the British and Foreign Bible Society ; when, on 
 the contrary, the necessities of the heathen world, and the difficulty 
 of the task, require that every encouragement should be held 
 out to well- qualified men of all religious communities to engage 
 therein. 
 
 XI. — Because, finally, as members and supporters of the British 
 
 pressed. 
 
 VI.-- 
 
58 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 and Foreign Bible Society, and generally approving the conduct 
 of its Committee, we have cordially rejoiced in the termination 
 of former controversies in which it has been involved, and do most 
 earnestly deprecate the adoption of a measure which may give rise to 
 new discussions, tending to diminish the confidence and weaken the 
 attachment of a large portion of the Christian community, who have 
 ever ranked amongst its firmest adherents. 
 
 The above document having been transmitted to the Committee of 
 the Bible Society, was acknowledged by their Secretary in the 
 following letter. 
 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 
 Oct. 15, 1833. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 The communication which you recently addressed to me, 
 containing the views of the Committee of the Baptist Missionary So- 
 ciety, relative to their recent application for aid in printing an edition 
 of the Bengali New Testament, was laid before the Committee of the 
 Bible Society at their last meeting, on Monday, October 7, and I was 
 directed on their behalf respectfully to acknowledge its receipt, and to 
 express their unfeigned regret that a difference of opinion should 
 exist upon the subject between you and themselves. Under the im- 
 pression that further discussion was in no wise calculated to lessen 
 that difference of opinion, the Committee did not proceed to a parti- 
 cular consideration of the various points advanced by the Committee 
 of the Baptist Missionary Society, or to the preparation of specific re- 
 plies to each particular. 
 
 Trusting that a kindly feeling may still be maintained between your 
 Committee and ours, I remain, 
 
 Dear Sir, yours faithfully, 
 
 A. BRANDRAM, Secretary. 
 
 Rev. J. Dyer, 
 
 Secretary to the Baptist Missionary Society. 
 
 B. 
 
 TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT INTO BENGALI, 
 
 BY THE REV. WILLIAM YATES, D.D. 
 
 Baptist Missionary Society. 
 
 In the Appendix to our Report for 1834, various documents were 
 inserted, relative to the above Translation, and the application for 
 pecuniary aid towards its distribution, made to the Committee of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society. Circumstances having led to 
 renewed intercourse on the subject with that Committee, it is thought 
 due to the friends of the Baptist Mission to make them acquainted 
 with the steps which have been taken. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 59 
 
 Early in the present year~(1836) a letter was received by the Se- 
 cretary from Mr. Yates, dated Calcutta, August 1, 1835, from which 
 the following statement is extracted — 
 
 “ A few months ago, an application was made to us to know 
 whether we would allow the Bible Society to use our version, retain- 
 ing the original word for baptism, and making a few other such 
 alterations as a sub-Committee of Bengali scholars should recom- 
 mend. We replied, that we would print one edition or any number 
 of copies for them on these terms, as their wants were immediate, 
 and they had no Testaments for distribution ; but that we could not 
 surrender our version to a sub-Committee to do w’hat they pleased 
 with it : that we would, till we heard from England, let them in their 
 copies have the words baptism, &c., untranslated ; and would alter 
 any passage to agree with the English in which, through a regard to 
 the original, we had deviated from it : but that beyond this we could 
 not go ; we could allow no alteration in the style unless it appeared 
 to us an improvement. 
 
 “The same application was then made to Serampore, and the 
 [^Committee of the Auxiliary] Bible Society, having the refusal of 
 each of the versions on these terms, appointed at one of their meet- 
 ings a suh-Committee of six persons of all denominations here, ex- 
 cept the Baptists, to take into consideration which was the best ver- 
 sion, ours or Dr. Carey’s. While this sub-Committee were sitting, 
 the Annual Meeting of the Society took place, and the General 
 Committee having occasion to speak on the subject, thus expressed 
 themselves in their Report : — 
 
 “ ‘ The Committee have for some time been anxious to obtain as 
 correct a version as possible of the New Testament in the Bengali 
 language. They hope the object will ere long be attained. The 
 Baptist Missionaries of Serampore, and those of Calcutta, with a 
 liberality which does them honour, have permitted the Committee to 
 consider themselves at liberty to use the version of the Scriptures, 
 published at their respective presses, with such alterations as the 
 Committee may deem needful in the disputed word for baptism. It 
 must be added that, consistent with their views, the Baptist Mission- 
 aries are to be considered in no way parties to such alterations, nor 
 is the version after such alterations to be regarded in any measure as 
 their version. As both these versions are excellent in their kind, the 
 one being considered, comparatively, more close to the original ; the 
 other, more elegant and idiomatic, but in consequence losing some- 
 thing of the closeness of a translation, a sub-Committee has been 
 appointed to consider which, for the present, it may be desirable to 
 take (as there is an urgent necessity for an immediate edition, there 
 being no Testaments in the Depository), until the Committee have 
 an opportunity to unite if possible the excellences of both.’ 
 
 “ The want of closeness here spoken of, is the non-retention of 
 Hebrew and Greek idioms of speech. These idiomatical forms are 
 often put in the margin in the English Bible, and this is the manner 
 we propose to dispose of them when we begin to print the whole 
 Bible. 
 
I 
 
 60 APPENDIX. 
 
 “ Some time after the Annual Meeting, the sub-Committee de- 
 livered in their Report, and on Tuesday last a full Committee was 
 assembled to decide the important subject. The sub-Committee 
 found some fault with both versions, but were unanimous in giving 
 ours the preference. The Committee came to the resolution that 
 5000 copies of our version should be printed at the expense of the 
 Parent Society. We shall now commence the printing of these, and 
 at least 1000 copies for ourselves, with the word for baptism trans- 
 lated. When this is finished, we shall, if preserved, commence 
 printing the Old Testament, whether we get assistance from the 
 Bible Society or not ; i. e. if it meets your approbation.” 
 
 About the same time that this letter from Calcutta reached the 
 Committee, they received information from New York that the 
 Committee of the American Bible Society had manifested a disposi- 
 tion to refuse grants to Scriptural Translations executed on the same 
 principle as Mr. Yates’s — a step which was likely to occasion a sepa- 
 ration of the Baptist denomination throughout the' United States, 
 from that National Institution. Desirous to maintain harmony, if 
 possible, both at home and abroad, among fellow-Christians engaged 
 in the great and necessary work of circulating the word of God 
 among all nations, the Committee of the Baptist Missionary Society, 
 on January the 14th, appointed a deputation of their body, consist- 
 ing of the Treasurer, Secretary, Joseph Gutteridge, Esq., Thomas 
 Bickham, Esq., and the Rev- Eustace Carey, to wait upon Lord 
 Bexley, the President of the British and Foreign Bible Society, to 
 state their views on the subject. An interview accordingly took 
 place, on February the 9th, at the Bible Society House, in Earl- 
 street, between the said deputation, and Lord Bexley, the Secreta- 
 ries, and some other gentlemen connected with the Committee of 
 the Bible Society, at which the business was discussed at consider- 
 able length. It was intimated that the Committee would re-con- 
 sider the matter, and in compliance with the kind invitation of the 
 noble President, the following official application was subsequently 
 forwarded : — ■ 
 
 “ To the Secretaries of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 “ Baptist Mission House, Fen-court, Feb- 12, 1836. 
 
 “ Dear Sirs, 
 
 “ I am instructed, by the Committee of the Baptist Missionary 
 Society, to express their earnest hope, that as our friends at Calcutta 
 have agreed to print for the Auxiliary Bible Society in that city an 
 edition of 5000 copies of the Bengali New Testament, with certain 
 specified alterations, your Committee will make us a grant for the 
 pur-pose of furnishing our Missionaries with a small supply of the 
 same version, as completed by Mr. Yates, for the use of the churches 
 and congregations in connexion with our Society. 
 
 “ I have also to renew my application for pecuniary aid to the 
 new Translation of the Old Testament, now in progress by Mr. 
 Yates, respecting which, I apprehend, the information considered 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 61 
 
 necessary by your Committee, when the application was previously 
 made. Inis now been supplied. 
 
 “ I refrain from adverting to the several considerations which, in 
 our judgment, might be urged in support of these applications, as 
 they have lately been stated in another form. 
 
 “ I am, &c., 
 
 (Signed) “ John Dyer.” 
 
 The Assistant Foreign Secretary at Earl-street has officially com- 
 municated the following extract from the minutes of the British and 
 Foreign Bible Society, as to the subsequent proceedings of the Com- 
 mittee of that Institution : — 
 
 At a Meeting of the General Committee of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, held at the Society’s House, London, March 7? 
 1836, the Right Hon. Lord Bexley, Patron, in the Chair, 
 
 Read a letter ffom the Rev. J. Dyer, dated, Fen Court, Feb. 12, 
 1836, applying on behalf of the Committee of the Baptist Mission- 
 ary Society, for a grant to enable them to furnish their Missionaries 
 with a small supply of Bengali New Testaments, as completed by 
 the Rev. Mr. Yates, and also for pecuniary aid to the new transla- 
 tion of the Bengalee Old Testament, now in progress by Mr. Yates. 
 Resolved, — That the above letter and application be referred to 
 the sub-Committee for general purposes. 
 
 At a Meeting of the sub-Committee for general purposes, held at 
 the House of the British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 
 March 11, 1836, J. Radley, Esq., in the Chair, 
 
 Read a letter from the Rev. J. Dyer, dated, Fen Court, Feb. 12, 
 1836, referred to this sub-Committee, when, after a long conversa- 
 tion, it was 
 
 Resolved, — That the further consideration of the subject be ad- 
 journed to a meeting of this sub-Committee, to be convened 
 for Friday, the 18th instant, and that the Rev. J. Dyer be 
 invited to attend on that occasion. 
 
 At a Meeting of the sub-Committee for general purposes, held at 
 the House of the British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 
 March 18, 1836, P. J. Heisch, Esq., in the Chair. 
 
 This sub-Committee having met by adjournment from the 11th 
 instant, resumed their deliberations on the proposition contained in 
 the Rev. J. Dyer’s letter of Feb. 12, 1836, when, after a lengthened 
 discussion, the Rev. J. Dyer being present, it was 
 
 Resolved, — That the further consideration of the subject be ad- 
 journed to Friday, the 25th instant ; and that the Secretaries 
 be desired to prepare, for the purpose of being laid before this 
 sub-Committee, at their Meeting on that day, a draft of Re- 
 solutions founded on the above application, and also a letter, 
 to be addressed to the Baptist Missionary Society, communi- 
 cating the same. 
 
62 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 At a Meeting of the sub-Committee for general purposes, held at 
 the House of the British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 
 March 25, 1836, P. J. Heisch, Esq., in the Chair, 
 
 This sub-Committee having resumed the consideration of the ap- 
 plication of the Rev. J. Dyer, in his letter dated, Fen Court, Feb. 12, 
 1836, agreeably to Minute No. 2 of Meeting of this sub-Committee 
 of the 18th instant, 
 
 The Rev. A. Brandram read the draft of the following Resolutions, 
 submitting at the same time, that their adoption would render an 
 explanatory letter to the Baptist Missionary Society unnecessary. 
 
 Resolved, — That it he recommended to the General Committee 
 to decline complying with the request for aid, on the part of 
 the Baptist Missionary Society, in printing a separate edition 
 of the Bengali New Testament, in which the words for 
 baptize, &c., are rendered by words signifying immersion. 
 Resolved, — That in giving such recommendation, this sub- 
 Committee would express the sincere regret which they have 
 experienced, in not being able to arrive at any other conclu- 
 sion. 
 
 Resolved, — That while it is rarely expedient to assign reasons 
 for the adoption of particular measures, the present instance 
 may he regarded as an exception ; a special request having 
 been made by the Rev. J. Dyer, on behalf of the Baptist 
 Missionary Society, to be furnished with a statement, em- 
 bodying some of the arguments adduced in the course of the 
 discussion ; and that the following may be selected out of the 
 various considerations on which the Resolution of this Com- 
 mittee is grounded ; viz. : — 
 
 First , While this sub-Committee give full credit to the 
 friends of the Baptist Missionary Society, that they are 
 actuated by conscientious motives, in urging the duty of 
 translating the original terms, and rendering them by 
 terms signifying immersion, this sub-Committee are 
 bound to give credit also to the motives of others, who 
 no less conscientiously and uprightly believe, that the 
 original terms in the Greek do not necessarily and always 
 imply washing by immersion. 
 
 Secondly , That, inasmuch as this Society itself, and its 
 Committees and sub-Committees, are composed of per- 
 sons holding on this subject widely different opinions, 
 and it is no part of the duty of the Committees or sub- 
 committees to adjust such differences of opinion, it 
 seemed most desirable to fall back upon the practice re- 
 sorted to in the English and other V ersions. 
 
 Thirdly , That they feel more encouraged in recommending 
 this course, inasmuch as the practice of not translating 
 the word j8 avrr/^u leaves the matter without prejudice to 
 any ; while the adoption of a contrary course would, 
 at least, wear the appearance of a disposition to favour 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 63 
 
 the views of one body of Christians, at the expense of 
 those of others. 
 
 Fourthly , That in assigning these reasons, it is not meant 
 to convey the idea, that each and all of them were felt 
 alike by such members of this sub-Committee as united 
 in the recommendation to decline the aid requested ; 
 some having been influenced by one consideration, and 
 others by another. 
 
 Resolved, — That it be recommended to the General Committee, 
 to grant the sum of £150 to the Baptist Missionary Society, 
 to cover the expenses incurred in preparing the Bengali 
 Psalter, as it appears that that Version is highly approved by 
 the Committee of the Calcutta Auxiliary. 
 
 Resolved, — That provided the Committee of the Calcutta 
 Auxiliary Bible Society approve of the translation of the 
 Bengali Pentateuch, when presented to them by the Rev. 
 Mr. Yates, they be authorized to pay to the missionaries of 
 the Baptist Missionary Society the sum of £250, with the 
 assurance that this Society will be disposed to render further 
 aid, as other parts of Mr. Yates’s version of the Bengali 
 Old Testament shall be presented to, and approved by, the 
 Committee of the Calcutta Auxiliary. 
 
 Resolved, — That the above Resolutions be approved by the sub- 
 Committee, and recommended to the general Committee for 
 adoption. 
 
 Read and approved at a Meeting of the General Committee, held 
 at the British and Foreign 'Bible Society House, London, April 4, 
 1836, the Right Lion. Lokd Bexley, Patron, in the Chair. 
 
 On the following day, the above resolutions were forwarded to the 
 Secretary of the Baptist Mission, with the following letter : — 
 
 “ Rev. John Dyer, 
 
 “ British and Foreign Bible Society, April 5, 1836. 
 
 “ My dear Sir, 
 
 “ I now send you the resolutions of our sub-Committee, as con- 
 firmed by the Committee yesterday. They have been so framed as 
 to render it unnecessary for me to add any thing in the way of ex- 
 planation. Hoping they may prove satisfactory to the Baptist Mis- 
 sionary Society, 
 
 “ Believe me, dear Sir, 
 
 “ Yours faithfully, 
 
 “ A Brandram, Secretary .” 
 
 And both these documents, having been laid before the Committee 
 of the Baptist Missionary Society at their next sitting, were sub- 
 sequently acknowledged in the following letter, by which the cor- 
 respondence was closed. 
 
64 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 “ To the Secretaries of the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 “ Rev. and dear Sirs, 
 
 “ I beg leave, on behalf of the Committee of the Baptist 
 Missionary Society, gratefully to acknowledge the aid rendered to 
 the Bengali version of the Old Testament, as now in course of 
 preparation by the Rev. W. Yates, of Calcutta. 
 
 “ I am further to express the deep regret of the Committee that 
 their application for aid in circulating the New Testament, as trans- 
 lated by the same individual, should have been declined, especially 
 on the grounds specified in the communication you have kindly 
 sent me. 
 
 “ Sincerely desiring that an abundant blessing may rest on all 
 your efforts to circulate the inspired volume, and that, whatever 
 differences of opinion may exist among us, we may never cease 
 to be influenced by the spirit and principles that volume so power- 
 fully inculcates, 
 
 “ I am, Rev. and dear Sirs, 
 
 “ Very respectfully yours, 
 
 “ John Dyer.” 
 
 c. 
 
 PROTEST 
 
 PRESENTED TO 
 
 THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY, 
 MARCH 6, 1837. 
 
 The undersigned Ministers of the Baptist Denomination, feeling 
 it incumbent upon them, as a solemn matter of conscience and duty, 
 to bear their individual and united testimony against the Resolution 
 of the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, refusing 
 aid to the Bengali translation of the New Testament, executed by 
 the Baptist Missionaries at Calcutta, because “ the words for baptize, 
 &c., are rendered by words signifying immersion and understanding 
 that grants to several of the Versions preparedly the late venerable 
 Dr. Carey have long been suspended on the same ground ; submit 
 the following statement to the members of that Society, and de- 
 liberately publish it to the world as an act to which they are impelled 
 by a faithful regard for the interests of truth. 
 
 In common with their fellow Christians, they have been accus- 
 tomed cheerfully to labour in the ranks of the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, and will yield to none in sincere and ardent attach- 
 ment to its catholic constitution and noble design. They have re- 
 joiced in its prosperity with honest delight ; have sympathised in its 
 difficulties with unaffected sorrow; and with lively gratitude have 
 glorified God, because he has given it the pre-eminence over all 
 kindred institutions, and crowned its efforts with unexampled suc- 
 cess. 
 
 It is, consequently, with deep regret that they feel themselves 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 65 
 
 called upon to express their conviction of the unsoundness of the 
 principles on which, in the present instance, its Committee has 
 acted. They would gladly have continued in quiet and unobtru- 
 sive co-operation with it in their respective circles, each, according 
 to his ability, promoting its object, and all loving its unsectarian 
 spirit. But in the present crisis they cannot be silent. They can 
 he no parties to what appears to them a departure from the original 
 integrity of its proceedings, nor can they witness an attempt to 
 evade translation, and thus to conceal from the heathen a portion of 
 the word of God, without lifting up their solemn remonstrance 
 against it. 
 
 From the correspondence which has passed on this subject be- 
 tween the Baptist Missionary Committee and the Committee of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, they perceive that every pro- 
 per method has been employed by the former, but employed in vain, 
 to prevent the conclusion which has at length been reached ; and no 
 hope being now left of inducing an alteration in this decision, they 
 solemnly enter their protest against it. 
 
 First, Because in their estimation, it is the primary duty of a 
 translator to ascertain the precise meaning of the original text, 
 and then to express that meaning as exactly as the nature of 
 the language into which he translates it will admit. He is not 
 at liberty to leave untranslated any word, the signification of 
 which he knows, and can render by an equivalent term ; and 
 if he should do so, he is thereby guilty of keeping back part of 
 the counsel of God. Two of Archbishop Newcome’s rules for 
 the conduct of a translator support this reason : — 
 
 “ Buie I. The translator should express every word in the 
 original by a literal rendering, where the English idiom 
 admits of it, and where, not only purity, but perspicuity 
 and dignity of expression can be preserved.” 
 
 “ Buie XII. The critical sense of passages should be con- 
 sidered, and not the opinions of any denomination of 
 Christians whatever.” 
 
 “ The translators should be philologists, and not controver- 
 sialists.” 
 
 2. Because it is the province of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society to afford impartial aid to all faithful translations of the 
 Holy Scriptures, not erecting itself into a tribunal of biblical 
 criticism, nor taking upon itself, by the suppression of any part 
 of inspired truth, to attempt a compromise between various de- 
 nominations of Christians. 
 
 3. Because, the question being purely philological, a con- 
 scientious objection cannot be taken against the rendering given 
 by the Missionaries, unless it be alleged that such rendering is 
 unfaithful, which allegation, so far as the undersigned are 
 aware, is not advanced ; but simply that it is “ considered ob- 
 jectionable by other denominations of Christians composing the 
 Bible Society.” 
 
 4. Because, were the principle admitted, that translators are 
 
 F 
 
66 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 not bound to convey into other tongues the true signification of 
 words which may happen to involve controversies existing among 
 different denominations of Christians, but in deference to the 
 prevailing party may leave such words covered with a conve- 
 nient, and, to all but learned men, an impenetrable veil, many 
 other words immediately occur which should be thus treated ; 
 while truth, conscience, and inspiration would be sacrificed at 
 the shrine of secular expediency, or party discussion. 
 
 5. Because the British and Foreign Bible Society circulates 
 on the continent of Europe, and in the eastern parts of the 
 world, several versions of the New Testament, in which the 
 words now proposed to be left untranslated are translated in a 
 similar manner to that adopted by the Baptist Missionaries. 
 
 6. Because the Resolution of the Committee of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society, while it professes to be founded on 
 a general principle, affects only a particular case, the whole 
 Christian church being on the question at issue divided but into 
 two sections, those who do and those who do not baptize by 
 immersion. By adopting the course of which we complain, the 
 Bible Society descends from its high pre-eminence as a Ca- 
 tholic Institution, ceases to be an incorporation of Christians of 
 every community, and becomes essentially sectarian in its prin- 
 ciple and practice. 
 
 7. Because those members of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society who are also members of the Established Church, with 
 singular inconsistency unite in withholding aid for the reason 
 assigned, since their church has expressly enjoined that mode of 
 administering the ordinance of baptism which the terms em- 
 ployed in the Baptist translations describe, and allows no other 
 but as an exception in cases specifically mentioned. 
 
 8. Because the principle,— now it is believed, for the first 
 time laid down — that new versions, in order to obtain the sup- 
 port of the British and Foreign Bible Society, must in disputed 
 points conform “ to the practice resorted to in the English 
 and other Versions,” is fatal to that moral independence and 
 strict fidelity Avhich are among the primary qualifications of a 
 translator of the Scriptures, and cannot, it is confidently pre- 
 sumed, be acted upon in many other instances, however readily 
 it may be adopted in the present case. 
 
 9. Because, although the Vulgate, which is followed in this 
 instance by the English Version and some others in the western 
 parts of Europe, leaves the words in question untranslated, this 
 circumstance is not attributable to any difference of opinion ex- 
 isting at the time in which it first appeared, as to the true 
 meaning of the words themselves, the baptismal rite being then 
 and for many centuries afterwards administered only by immer- 
 sion ; in confirmation of which it may be sufficient here to cite 
 the authority of Bossuet, the Roman Catholic, and of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopalian, Whitby. The words of the former are as 
 follows : “ We are able to make it appear, by the acts of coun- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 67 
 
 oils and by the ancient rituals, that for thirteen hundred 
 years baptism was thus administered throughout the whole 
 church , as far as was possible.” And the following are the words 
 of the latter : “ And this immersion being religiously observed by 
 all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our 
 church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any 
 allowance from the Author of this institution, or any license 
 from any council of the church, being that which the Romanist 
 still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity ; it were 
 to be wished that this custom might be again of general use, 
 and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in case of the clinici, 
 or in present danger of death.” 
 
 In putting forth this protest, the undersigned do not intend to 
 convey the idea that each and all of the foregoing reasons were felt 
 with equal force by every individual, some having been influenced 
 in a greater degree by one, and others by another ; but they all con- 
 cur in expressing unfeigned sorrow that the Committee of the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society has, by this measure, placed that Institu- 
 tion on what they deem an unconstitutional and unscriptural ground, 
 and in bearing their deliberate and public testimony against it. 
 
 In conclusion they state, that they feel, as they trust, in its full 
 weight, the responsibility of the position in which they place them- 
 selves by this public act, yet from that responsibility they do not 
 shrink. Having thus discharged a painful but imperative duty, 
 they are satisfied to leave the cause of truth, for which alone they 
 are concerned, in the hands of Him, to whom it emphatically be- 
 longs, and who so works out the issues of all things as to promote 
 its ultimate triumph, and therein to secure his own glory. 
 
 Acworth, James, A.M. President 
 of Horton College, Bradford, 
 Yorkshire 
 
 Aldis, John, Manchester 
 Ashmead, George, Kingsthorpe 
 Adams, Samuel, Walgrave 
 Aveline, George, Loughborough 
 Arnot, George, Southsea 
 Ayrton, Samuel, Derby 
 Anstie, Peter, Exeter 
 Amery, E., Collumpton 
 Ashman, John, Southwold 
 Alldiss, Robert, Fressingfield 
 Ashford, J., Brettle Lane 
 Applegate, Thomas, Shefford 
 Albrecht, H. Mirfield 
 Amsden, T., Aston Chilton 
 
 Blakeman, John, Evesham, Wor- 
 cestershire 
 
 Brock, William, Norwich 
 Briscoe, John Paul, Folkestone 
 Broad, John, Kensington 
 
 Bowes, W. B-, Blandford Street, 
 London 
 
 Brawn, Samuel, Lough ton. Esses 
 Brand, William, Northampton 
 Beardsall, Francis, Manchester 
 Burns, Jabez, St. Mary-le-bone 
 Bissill, John, Sutterton 
 Butler, William, Heptonstall Slack 
 Bannister, Jno. Thos., Coventry 
 Barker, John, Towcester 
 Brooks, Joseph, Ridgmount 
 Blackburn, James, Walgrave 
 Brooks, Thomas, (occasional 
 preacher) Hinckley 
 Baynes, Joseph, Wellington, So- 
 merset 
 
 Baylis, Willm. H., Wolverhampton 
 Burchell, Willm. F., Falmouth 
 Beddow, B. Grampound 
 Bromwich, Josh,. Sheepshead 
 Burditt, Cheney, Sutton in Elms 
 Burditt, A., Oadby 
 Bottomlev, W. E., Foxton 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 08 
 
 Banks, Robert, Newcastle 
 Briggs, John, Newcastle 
 Bailey, Joseph, Newcastle 
 Birt, C. E., A.M., Portsea 
 Burton, E. H., Lanclport, Portsea 
 Burt, T. B., Beaulieu, Hants 
 Brown, George, South Shields 
 Busby, Charles, Crediton 
 Barnes, William, Prescott 
 Bedding, Edward, Cuddington, 
 Bucks 
 
 Blaekmore, Samuel, Kington 
 Buck, James, Rotherham 
 Breeze, Richard, Lechlade 
 Bane, John, Aylsham, Norfolk 
 Baker, William, Statham, Norfolk 
 Blakely, John Rix, Worstead, Nor- 
 folk 
 
 Belcher, Joseph, Greenwich 
 Billing-ham, J. Cradley 
 Betts, Henry, Yarmouth 
 Bulgin, Samuel, Poole 
 Birt, Isaiah, Hackney 
 Blaekmore, T. W., Upottery 
 Birrell, C. M., Liverpool 
 
 Chin, John, Walworth 
 Clark, John, Folkestone 
 Cramp, J. M., St. Peters, Secretary 
 to the Isle of Tlianet Bible 
 Society 
 
 Cubitt, J., Ilford, Essex 
 Copley, William, Oxford 
 Cox, F.A., D.D., L.L.D., Hackney 
 Cheatle, George, Birmingham 
 Cameron, J., Louth 
 Campbell, John, Abergavenny 
 Clark, James, Guilsborough 
 Crabtree, William, Hinckley 
 Capern, Henry, Long Buckby 
 Cox, J. B. Hatch, Beauchamp 
 Coombs, W. H., Taunton 
 Craps, John, Lincoln 
 Cornford, Samuel, Maidstone 
 Clarke, Edmund, Truro 
 Cooke, Thomas, Oswestry 
 Cramp, Thomas, St. Peters 
 Crambrook, Daniel, Dover 
 Chapman, J. M., Yeovil 
 Cakebread, C., Landport, Portsea 
 Cole, George, Leamington 
 Collins, Samuel, Grandisburgh, Suf- 
 folk 
 
 Cormack, Josiah, Sunderland 
 Clarke, Robert, Bridgnorth 
 Clark, David, Dronfield 
 
 Clowes, Francis, Classical Tutor, 
 Horton College 
 
 Cooper, Joshua, Stoke Ash, Suffolk 
 Catton, W., Chipping Norton 
 Cutcliffe, William, Brayford, Devon 
 Chamberlin, Charles, Norwich 
 Clark, R. A., Fakenham 
 Colcroft, William, Bramley 
 Cousins, James, King Stanley 
 Claypole, Edward A., Ross 
 Clements, W., Halsted 
 Castleden, James, Hampstead 
 Comb, George, Oxford Sireet 
 Carey, Eustace, Camberwell 
 Crisp, Thos. S., Theological Tutor 
 of Baptist College, Bristol 
 Cater, Philip, Bath 
 Crook, John, Hebden Bridge 
 Carre, John, Jersey 
 Cooper, James, Amsterdam 
 Crook, Enoch, Battersea 
 Chapman, J., Stogumber 
 Cooper, W., Chesham 
 
 Davis, Eliel, Regent St, Lambeth 
 Davis, Ebenezer, Deal 
 Davis, Joseph, Church Street, Black- 
 friars 
 
 Davis, Thomas, Chenies, Bucks 
 Dobnev, H. H., Great Missenden, 
 Bucks 
 
 Dyer, John, Secretary to Baptist 
 Mission, Camberwell 
 Douglass, J. J., London 
 Derry, John, Barton 
 Dunkley, John, Towcester 
 Dawson, John, Newark-on-Trent 
 Dyer, John J., Frome 
 Davies, Samuel, Crewkerne 
 Draper, B. H., Southampton 
 Davies, Philip, Whitchurch, Hants 
 Douglas, D., Hamsterley 
 Diprose, Samuel, Ford, Bucks 
 Dodwell, Charles, Long Crendon 
 Dornej r , Thomas, Bastington 
 Dowson, Henry, Bradford 
 De Fraine, Richard, Little Stoneham 
 Dickerson, Philip, Little Ailie Street, 
 London 
 
 Denham, David,' Unicorn Yard, 
 Southwark 
 
 Dore, William, Modbury 
 Dean, James, Chalford 
 Dean, James Stanly, Chalford 
 Dunn, Joseph, Minchinhampton 
 Dovey, William, Bermondsey 
 
appendix. 
 
 69 
 
 Davies, Daniel, Lixum 
 Davies, Joseph, Denbigh 
 Davis, John, Princes Risborough 
 Davies, David, Evesham 
 Dyer, F. W., Lockwood 
 Darkin, Charles, Woodstock 
 Davies, Daniel, Swansea 
 Dossett, Daniel, Little King’s Hill 
 
 Edwards, John, Clapham 
 Eyres, John, Otley, Suffolk 
 Ewen, Thomas, March 
 Everard, Henry, Spalding 
 Edge, James, Sutton-on-Trent 
 Evans, Benjamin, Blab}^ 
 
 Elmer, R , Southampton 
 Edgcombe, J. P., Dockhead, South- 
 wark 
 
 Evans, David, Login 
 Evans, John, Carmarthen 
 Elliott, E. E., Lydney 
 Edward, James, Nottingham 
 Early, William, Wootton, Beds. 
 Evans, B., Scarborough 
 Evans, Edward, Cynwyd 
 Evans, John, Holywell 
 Ellis, Robert, Llanelian 
 Evans, Ellis, Cefnmawr 
 Evans, David, Slack Lane 
 Edmonds, T. C., Cambridge 
 Edwards, William, Bugbrook 
 Edmunds, I., Ilusfaen 
 Evans, D., Lantrisaint 
 Elliot, C., Minehead 
 Edwards, R., Deiras 
 Edmunds, I., Bethesda 
 Evans, Thomas, Beulah 
 Evans, Thomas, Narbeth 
 Edwards, David, Moriah 
 Evans, James, Carleon 
 
 Francies, George, Colchester 
 Felkin, John, Secretary to B. S. 
 
 Ivirton in Lindsey 
 Frearson, Thomas, Tottlebank 
 Foskett George, Blis worth 
 Flood, James, Melbourn 
 Fordham, Samuel, Hail Weston 
 Fuller, William Henry, Penzance 
 Fisher, William, Cold Rowley 
 Franklin, Francis, Coventry 
 Francis, Edward, Hereford 
 Fuller, A. G., Blockley 
 Facey, A. M., Muckworthy, Devon 
 Fawcett, William, Ewood Hall 
 Foster, Jonas, Farsly 
 
 Frearson, R. S., Idle 
 
 Fracer, T. H., Chapelford 
 
 Fry, John, Coleford 
 
 Fuller, I. G., Westbury, near Bristol 
 
 Francis, John, Pontesbury 
 
 Foster, I. H., Uckfield 
 
 Garrington, John, Burnham, Essex 
 Groser, William, Maidstone 
 Green, Samuel, Jun., Walworth 
 Goadby, Joseph, Ashby - de-la-Zouch 
 Goadby, Joseph, Leicester 
 Gough, Thomas T., Clipstone 
 Giles, William, Preston 
 Gray, Joshua, Brixton 
 Godwin, B., Bradford 
 Giles, J. E., Leeds 
 Gooding, W. L, Hadleigh 
 Gowing, John, Halesworth 
 Glanville, William, Wantage 
 Greenway, J. G., Netherton 
 Green, John, Norwich 
 Grace, Robert, Battle 
 Gundry, Jonathan, Hendon 
 Glynn, 0. M., Cairiog 
 Grainger, H. D., Waddesdon Hill 
 Garside, Joseph, Wainsgate 
 Gill, H. V., Parley 
 Green, Joseph, Soharn 
 Gray, William, Northampton 
 Griffiths, Thomas, Jersey 
 Gravelle, W. Cwmfelin 
 Gwynne, W. Carmel 
 
 Hull, Edmund, Watford, Herts 
 Humphrey, Robert, Taunton 
 Hoby, James, D.D., Birmingham 
 Hinton, J. H., M.A., Reading 
 Hunter, Hugh, Nottingham 
 Hiley, Francis, Llanwenarth 
 Hancock, William, Harston 
 Harris, Thomas, St. Austell 
 Hinmers, John, Shrewsbury 
 Hawkins, W,, M.A., Derby 
 Hewn, W., Darlington 
 Hatch, Samuel, S., Honiton 
 Hockin, John, Thoverton 
 Hopcraft, W., Long Crendon 
 Hebditch,W.,BlackDown, Somerset 
 Ham, John, Birmingham 
 Hall, B. C., Burford 
 Hewett, John, Swaffliam 
 Hunt, James, Fakenham 
 Hughes, Samuel, Rawden 
 Hindes, Joseph, Blunham 
 Hawkins, Henry, Stroud 
 
70 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Hewitt, William, Painswick 
 Hopley, Thomas, Hemel Hemp- 
 stead 
 
 Hall, J., Gorsley 
 Hithersay, John, Kilham 
 Hawkins, W., Shrewsbury 
 Hewlett, Samuel, Westminster 
 Huxtable, Edgar, Classical Tutor, 
 Baptist College, Bristol 
 Hughes, Thomas, Dawn 
 Hughes, John, Abergfele 
 Hewlett, J. P., Kingsbridge 
 Harvey, J., Cullingworth 
 Hudson, Thomas, H., Queenshead, 
 Halifax 
 
 Hollinrake, Henry, Birchcliffe 
 Harris, William, Landbeach 
 Haslop, John, Fenstanton 
 Hyde, Robert, Saletidine Nook 
 Holmes, H. W., Polemoor 
 
 Ingham, Richard, Nottingham 
 Jones, John, March 
 Judd, George, Conningsby 
 Jarrorn, Joseph, Wisbeach 
 Jayne, George, Road 
 Jones, William, Frome 
 Jones, George, Sway, Hants 
 Jones, Maurice, Leominster 
 Jordan, John, Stunningly 
 Jones, John A., Mitchell Street, 
 London 
 
 Jones, John, Blakeney 
 Jones, Thomas, Chepstow 
 Jones, Hugh, Cifabychan 
 Jones, Daniel, Liverpool 
 Jones, John, Handweidan 
 James, Benjamin, St. Asaph 
 Jackson, James, Bath 
 Ingham, J., Lane Bottom Heaton 
 Jenkinson, J., Kettering 
 Jenkins, J., Hengoed 
 Jones, A., Merthyr 
 Jones, D., Cardiff 
 James, J., Bridgend 
 Jones, John, Blaeniferm 
 Jones, Evan, Castle Town 
 Jones, D., Newport 
 Jones, T., Rhydvylin 
 Jarvis, Thomas, Jersey 
 Ives, D., Gold Hill 
 
 Kent, M., Shrewsbury 
 Kent, Samuel, Biggleswade 
 Kin?, Thomas, Bedford 
 Knight, J., Little Staughton 
 Keay, William, Wellington, Salop 
 Keene, C. T., Pershore 
 
 Lacey, C., Missionary to India 
 Lewis, James, Llanwenarth 
 Liggings, John (occasional preach- 
 er), Hinckley 
 Leader, W., Maidstone 
 Larwill, Joseph, Kenilworth 
 Long, William, Stockton on Tees 
 Larom, C., {Sheffield 
 Lingley, Isaac, Stowmarket 
 Liddell, William, Westmancote 
 Lewis, Edward, Highgate 
 Lewis, J. P., Diss 
 Lawrence, J., Moleston 
 Loyd, J., Llangloffan 
 
 Millard, James, Lymington, Hants 
 Morris, Thomas, Portsea 
 Mursell, J. P., Leicester 
 May, William, North Curry 
 Medway, G., Creech St. Michael 
 Marriott, Thomas, Milton 
 Manning, Enoch, Gamlingay 
 Miller, R., Braunston 
 Marston, S., Great Grimsby 
 Matthews, W., Canterbury 
 Morgan, Thomas, Birmingham 
 May, Richard, Barnstaple 
 Macpherson, J., Hull 
 Murch, W. H., Theological Tutor 
 of Stepney College 
 Morrell, Daniel, Holy Cross 
 Moulton, G. W., Tenterden 
 Mills, John, Winchcombe 
 Middleditch, Thomas, Ipswich 
 Moore, Timothy, Shadwell, London 
 Munsey, Ellis, Botisham, Lode 
 Miles, William, Newport 
 Morris, Thomas, Penygam, Ponty- 
 pool 
 
 Maurice, James, Walsal 
 Middleditch, C. J., Ashdon 
 May, J. H., Pill 
 Maddeys, George, Morcott 
 Morris, M., Llangloffan 
 
 Kenny, Richard, Macclesfield New, I., Arnsby 
 
 Knight, Joseph, Wolvey Neave, John, Southsea 
 
 Kirkbridge, Daniel, Hawkshead Nunn, James, Ipswich 
 Hill Norris, Joseph, Rattlesden 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 71 
 
 Norton, William, Bow 
 Nicholson, Samuel, Plymouth 
 Normanton, James, Driffield 
 Newman, Thos. F., Shortwood 
 Norgrove, John C., Chipping Sod- 
 bury 
 
 Nicholson, John, Kingsbridge 
 Nicholson, William, Halifax 
 Naunton, D., Ystrad 
 Nichols, A., Keighly 
 
 Overbury, F., Chatham 
 Offord, John, Exeter 
 Owen, William, Madley 
 Oakford, John, Reepliam 
 Overbury, R. W., Eagle St., London 
 Owen, J. J., Monmouth 
 Owen, Thomas, Eastcombes 
 Orchard, G. H , Steventon 
 Oliver, Edward, Penycal 
 Owen, D., Sardis 
 
 Pritchard, George, Keppel Street, 
 London 
 
 Price, Thomas, D.D., Devonshire 
 Square, London 
 Puntis, James, Norwich 
 Poile, W. F., Lynn, Norfolk 
 Peggs, James, Bourne 
 Pike, J. G., Derby 
 Pike, J. B., Boston 
 Pope, George, Collingham 
 Phillips, John, Whitchurch, Salop 
 Peters, Samuel, Great Gransden 
 Pengilley, Richard, Newcastle 
 Paine, William, Ey thorn e 
 Payne, J., Ashford 
 Price, Joseph, Montacute 
 Pyne, Robert, Exeter 
 Piggott, Joseph, Waddesdon, Bucks 
 Parker, John, West Bromwich 
 Pryce, Richard, Coate 
 Pulsford, Thomas, Great Torrington 
 Powell, Alfred, Salehouse, Norfolk 
 Packer, S., Chelsea 
 Payne, William, Chesham 
 Pickering, William, Nottingham 
 Porter, James, Brooke 
 Preece, Joseph, Woodchester 
 Peacock, John, Goswell Road 
 Probert, Evans, Bristol 
 Prichard, John, Llangollen 
 Peechey, W., Bath 
 Price, Joseph, Alcestey 
 Pottinger, Thomas, Swanwick 
 Poock, Thomas, Barnwell 
 
 Peters, Robert, Waterbeach 
 Poole, Henry, Newport 
 Price, Stephen, Aberlychan 
 Phillips, David, Carleon 
 Perrey, A., M. D., Boston 
 Phillip, E., Narbeth 
 Phillips, R , Glenchyd 
 Price, E., Moleston 
 
 Reynolds, Titus Davies, Earls Colne, 
 Essex 
 
 Rees, David, Burton Latimer 
 Roe, Charles Hill, Clapham 
 Room, Charles, Southwark 
 Rogers, Thomas, Fleet 
 Roberts, Thomas, Llanelly 
 Roberts, William, Glascoed 
 Roberts, John, Llansilin 
 Reynolds, William, Sudbury 
 Russell, Hugh, Broughton, Hants 
 Rutter, T., Ashley, Hants 
 Robinson, Robert, Lifton, Devon 
 Robinson, William, Kettering 
 Runacles, John, Charsfield 
 Rogers, William, Dudley 
 Roberts, Thomas, Bristol 
 Roberts, Robert, Llanefydd 
 Roberts, William, Mold 
 Rothery, Joseph, London < 
 Rigby, John, Blackley 
 Roberts, John, Tredegar 
 Roberts, David, Sinhowy 
 Roberts, William, Twyngwyn 
 Roff, Robert, Swansea 
 Rogers, John, Eynsford 
 Rees, John, Southdairy 
 Richards, J., Middlemill 
 
 Saffery, Philip John, Salisbury 
 Statham, John, Amersham, Bucks 
 Steadman, Thomas, Bradford 
 Shirley, Thomas, Sevenoaks, Kent 
 Stovel, Charles, Prescott St., London 
 Steane, Edward, Camberwell 
 Sprigg, James, Ipswich, Secretary 
 to the East Suffolk Bible So- 
 ciety 
 
 Stubbins, I., Missionary to India. 
 Stevenson, John, A. M., Southwark 
 Stocks, Richard, Castle Donnington 
 Stevenson, Thomas, Leicester 
 Stevenson, Edward, Chesham 
 Stembridge, Job, Loughwood, De- 
 von 
 
 Simmons, James, A.M. Leicester 
 Spasshat, Joseph, Redruth 
 
72 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Sample, G., Newcastle-upon-Tyne 
 Sharp, Charles, Bradninch, Devon 
 Stalker, Alexander, Sheffield 
 Stephens, Edward, Campden 
 Swan, Thomas, Birmingham 
 Stonehouse, George, Middleton 
 Cheney 
 
 Spurgeon, William, Neatishead 
 Simmons, John, M. A., Bluntisham 
 Saunders, Moses, Haworth 
 Steadman, William, D. D., Bradford 
 Scott, Peter, Shipley 
 Scarlet, George, Gildersome 
 Scarlet, William, Gildersome. 
 Shenston, J. B. Eldon St., London 
 Smith, James, Shoreditch, London 
 Stephens, J. G., Kidderminster 
 Savage, John, Stourbridge 
 Scott, Thomas, Norwich 
 Sprague, Joseph Lee, Bovey Tracey 
 Stenson, John, Chelsea 
 Sincox, Stephen, Poole 
 Soule, J. M., Lewes 
 Stenson, Elam, Tarporley 
 Shaw, Joseph, Heaton 
 Spooner, John, Barnoldswick 
 Stephen, D. Rhys, Swansea 
 Sutton, S., Watchett 
 
 Tilley, Thomas, Forton, Hants 
 Tunnicliff, Jabez, Longford 
 Thomas, Micah, Abergavenny 
 Taylor, James, Hinckley 
 Tunley, Richard, Northampton 
 Trestrail, Frederick, Newport, Isle 
 of Wight 
 
 Turquand, James, Milford, Hants 
 Tyler, Peter, Haddenham 
 Thorne, Francis, Newton, Devon 
 Taylor, 1 David, Bingley 
 Tottman, James, Laxfield 
 Tomlin, William, Chesham 
 Tay, Thomas, Sou thill 
 Trotman, Daniel, Tewkesbury 
 Thomas, John, Broseley 
 Thomson, Robert, Perth 
 Taylor, S. N., Shipston-on-Stour 
 Thomas, Timothy, Newcastle Em- 
 lyn 
 
 Tvso, Joseph, Wallingford 
 Thomas, Thomas, Meltham 
 Thomas, T., Cwesypork 
 Thomas, E., Cwesypork 
 Thomas, Timothy, Bethesda 
 Thomas, Thomas, Theological Tu- 
 tor of the Baptist College, Pon- 
 typool 
 
 Thomas, William, Newport 
 Talbot, C. B., Wendover 
 Thomas, E., Hansworth Hill 
 Thomas, B., Narbeth 
 Thomas, T. E., Ffynnon 
 Thomas, W., Salem 
 
 Upton, William, St. Albans 
 Upton, Robert, Chelsea 
 Verow, Robert, Shilton, 
 
 Vernon, C. W., Appledore 
 Venimore, James, Ingham 
 Vincent, Samuel, Yarcombej 
 
 Watts, John, Maze Pond, South- 
 wark 
 
 Wallis, Joseph, Commercial Road, 
 London 
 
 Woollacott, Christopher, 
 
 Wigg, Samuel, Leicester 
 Wright, Samuel, Lincoln 
 W aviary] , Abraham, Lyme Regis 
 Williamson, James, North Shirlds 
 Woodcock, Benjamin, Hinckley 
 Williams, Enoch, Thrapstone 
 Wright, Daniel, Coseley 
 Wassell, John, Willenhall 
 Wake, Thomas Washington, Kis- 
 lingbury 
 
 Wheeler, Francis, Moulton 
 Williams, D.M„ Maidstone 
 Wilson, Charles, Helston 
 Watts, Isaac, Andover 
 Wilson, Daniel, Tunstall 
 Waldron, F., Walsingham 
 Wilson, A., Sunderland 
 Williams, Daniel, Fairford 
 Wassell, David, Fairford 
 Wright, George, Beccles 
 Ward, George, Tittleshall 
 Winterbotham, J., Haworth 
 Woodman, C. B., Artillery Street, 
 London 
 
 Williams, William, Grafton Street, 
 London 
 
 Wright, Thomas, Lydbrook 
 Williams, John, Dereham 
 Wilcocks, Thomas, Devonport 
 Webb, James, Stonehouse 
 White, Daniel, Cirencester 
 Webster, R. E., Kingston 
 Wylie, D. S., Liverpool 
 Williams. W., Ryeford 
 Wyke, J. C., Hunmanby 
 Watts, John, Wotton-under-Edge 
 Winter, Thomas, Bristol 
 Williams, Robert, Knthim 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 73 
 
 Williams, Thomas, Llansawn 
 Webb, John, East Knoyle 
 Welsh, Thomas, Newbury 
 Watson, Nathaniel, Cowling Hill 
 Wheeler, Benjamin, Atchlench 
 Webb, Samuel, Langley 
 Wallis, Joseph, Needingworth 
 Wilkinson, William, Earby 
 Whitewood, Samuel, Halifax 
 Williams, J., Wowntrodan 
 
 Williams, R., Lansadvon 
 Williams, John, Trosnant 
 Williams, R., Newport 
 Waters, Thomas, M. A. Worcester 
 
 Young, B. C., South Shields 
 Yeadon, J., Horsforth 
 Yardley, S., Summer Hill 
 Yates, William, Stroud 
 Young, William, Old Kent Road 
 
 D. 
 
 Extracts of a Letter from Rev. Dr. Yates, fyc. to Rev. Dr. 
 
 Sharpe , of Boston. 
 
 Calcutta , Sept. 12, 1836. 
 
 My Dear Brother, 
 
 I received your letter of the 5th of April on the 8th of this 
 month, since which I have had to prepare and preach three sermons, 
 besides other work, so that I may say I am replying to it with the 
 least possible delay. We are very busy just now with our second 
 edition of the Bengali New Testament, wishing to get it through 
 the press before the departure of our brother Pearce for England. 
 
 I am sorry to find that on the points you particularly mention, 
 you have been misinformed. Considering the source of your infor- 
 mation, I do not wonder at your relying upon it, and feeling certain 
 that it must be correct. I shall now reply to your queries, and then 
 give you my views on the subject. 
 
 Your first query is : — Did the Serampore Missionaries from the 
 first in their early translations of the Scriptures translate or transfer 
 the words baptizo, & c. ? They translated them. I have seen their 
 first and their last edition, and in each the word is translated. I 
 have been a reader of their versions now for three and twenty years, 
 and I have never seen one yet in which the word was not translated. 
 
 Next, if they translated, was it by a word which signified exclu- 
 sively to immerse ? It was. The word used by Dr. Carey was doob, 
 which has no other meaning than that of dipping. 
 
 3. Have they never varied from the first to the present time ? I 
 may confidently say, never. Attempts were made by individuals to 
 induce Dr. Carey to alter and transfer the term. To whom he gave 
 place by subjection, no, not for an hour. 
 
 Lastly. Was it a matter of controversy between them and the 
 Episcopalians ? Mrs. Y., having been at Serampore from the com- 
 mencement of the mission there, I have inquired of her, and she in- 
 forms me that previous to my arrival in the country, there were 
 frequent discussions on the subject between them and Mr. Brown, 
 the clergyman at the Mission Church. I am inclined, however, to 
 think that these discussions w'ere rather about translatimr than trans- 
 
74 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ferring the word, for since that time the Episcopalians have translated 
 the word — Thomason in his Arabic, and Martyn in his Hindustani 
 and Persian versions. With the exception of one version made by a 
 gentleman who understood neither Latin nor Greek, it is a well 
 known fact, that every version, by every denomination here, had the 
 word translated. With one solitary exception, therefore, the present 
 resolution of the Bible Society, will be the undoing of all that has 
 been done from the beginning by all parties ! When I was in 
 England, after my visit to America, Mr. Hughes conversed with me 
 on the subject, and wrote also upon it to Dr. Carey. In consequence 
 of complaints sent home from Calcutta, he had come to the conclu- 
 sion that it Avas desirable for the sake of peace to tranfer and not 
 translate the word baptizo; but he could not peisuade either of us 
 that it was our duty to be unfaithful , even for the sake of peace ; 
 Dr. Carey Avould never listen for a moment to any proposals of the 
 kind- 
 
 From Avhat I have said, I think you will see that if the Bible So- 
 ciety at the first had any principle to guide them, that principle was 
 the liberal one of leaving to all translators the same poAver over the 
 Avord baptize, as OA r er the Avord bishop, elder, election, &c. While 
 this Avas done, Ave used each other s versions, making alloAvance for 
 any rendering of a particular word. This appears to me the only 
 principle on Avhich they could act consistently. If they dictate to 
 translators on the Avord baptize, they have the same right to dictate 
 upon every other word — and Avhere Avill this end ? Disputes have 
 already commenced about the term bishop, &c. and they Avill have in 
 a short time to issue an edict that none of these terms shall be trans- 
 lated, and thus the Avord of God Avill be rendered unintelligible to the 
 natives. As Baptists, I think Ave shall be gainers by the plan they 
 have noAv adopted, providing we print Testaments with every Avord 
 translated, and they print Avith the same transferred. But I clearly 
 see that all depends ou these two points : Avill the Baptists be faith- 
 ful to their cause, and print at least the New Testament for them- 
 selves? and Avill the Paedobaptists be faithful in transferring the 
 Avord, and not translating it ? I have some fears on each of these 
 points. My hopes prevail above my fears in regard to the Baptists, 
 and I trust they Avill come forward Avith a noble determination “nei- 
 ther to add to nor take from” the Avords of the book of life, but give 
 every Avord its faithful rendering. I am sure they are Avell capable 
 of supplying the means. You may, perhaps, think it is uncharitable 
 in me to doubt Avhether the Paedobaptists will be faithful in trans- 
 ferring the term baptizo, after having insisted upon it so much. I 
 will state to you a fact, and leave you to judge whether there is not 
 some ground for suspicion, Avithout being uncharitable. You knoAv 
 the pains they have taken to prevail on us to transfer the word ; and 
 to accommodate them in the 5,000 copies printed for them, we 
 agreed to do so. Well, at the very same time tAvo gospels were or- 
 dered by the Committee here to be printed in Hindustani. On 
 account of the delay Avhich had taken place in the first, I was re- 
 quested by the Committee to read the proofs of the second. When I 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 75 
 
 went into their office and asked for a copy of the gospel that had 
 been printed, it was given me ; and I found, to my utter astonish- 
 ment, that the word baptizo had not been transferred, hut translated 
 throughout by tire term ghosal , which signifies to wash. I make no 
 comment on this, but leave the fact to speak for itself. If the Epis- 
 copalians, &c. had let things proceed in the same manner that they 
 had done from the beginning, they would have been no losers. The 
 greater number of missionaries belonging to them, and the greater 
 n amber of translations in extensive use, would have been executed 
 by men of their own views. In other cases, a plan of concession 
 might have been adopted, as in our Bengali version, which would 
 have met the views of all parties — it would only have involved the 
 necessity of printing in a version required by us, a few copies with 
 the word translated ; but the principle now adopted, if fully acted 
 out, will lead to as many Bible Societies as there are denominations. 
 I have no doubt what has transpired will be overruled for good. In 
 every age the church needs something to humble it, and something 
 that will tend to humility in another world. This is the age of 
 Christian liberality, and yet in this age of boasted liberality it has so 
 happened, that two of the largest societies in the Christian world 
 have refused to give their aid to the circulation of the word of God, 
 because one word in it was translated according to the original sense, 
 which the wisest and the best of men of all denominations have at- 
 tached to it. Other serious objections may exist on words of infi- 
 nitely more importance, but these can all be covered with the mantle 
 of forbearance, and the version encouraged, printed, and published : 
 but to translate the word baptizo to immerse, which all acknowledge 
 to be its first, though not only meaning, is a crime of such magnitude 
 even in this liberal and benevolent age, that the Baptists who have 
 been guilty of it, are deemed worthy of excision ? Well may it be 
 said, What is man ? Cease ye from man whose breath is in his 
 nostrils, for wherein is he to be accounted of? 
 
 Yours affectionately, 
 
 W. Yates. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from Rev. W. H. Pearce to a Corres- 
 pondent in America. 
 
 Calcutta, Sept. 10, 1830. 
 
 My Dear Christian Brother, 
 
 I have just -received your letter under date of the 14th May, 
 and as there is a vessel advertised to sail for the United States in a 
 day or two, I lose no time in replying to the query it contains. 
 
 Allow me then distinctly to state, and authorize you, if necessary, 
 on my testimony, to assure the Christian public of America, that 
 in every version of the New Testament which Dr. Carey translated 
 or edited, he translated the Greek word baptizo by a word signifying 
 “ to dip.” He never merely transferred it, I believe, from his oft 
 
76 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 repeated declarations, that he would have felt himself criminal in 
 doing so, with the views which he entertained as to the meaning of 
 the word, founded on its interpretation as given in every Greek 
 Lexicon (except in recent ones, when a natural desire to justify the 
 vresent practice of our Paedobaptist brethren has led to such inter- 
 pretations) on its use by Josephus (like the apostles a Jew writing 
 in the Greek language, and at the same ‘period') on the translation of 
 the word in the early Asiatic versions, and in [many modern Euro- 
 pean ones, on the practice of the Greek church from the earliest 
 period, and on the early practice too of the church of England, and 
 other churches reformed from the church of Rome, — as evidenced 
 by large Fonts for immersing infants, and by the directions of the 
 rubrick, as still preserved in the book of Common Prayer, and on 
 the great cloud of witnesses who, while they practice sprinkling, 
 have admitted that it was a departure, though in their view an 
 allowable one, from the apostolical mode. With views founded on 
 these and other reasons, he was firmly persuaded, that the intention 
 of the Spirit of God was to describe and direct immersion. And 
 if so, why in this, any more than in the words “ church,” “ congre- 
 gation,” “ bishop,” “ bishopric,” “ presbyter,” “ deacon,” “ deacon- 
 ness,” &c., all equally affecting denominational views, and about the 
 proper meaning of which there is far greater diversity of opinion ; 
 should he smother the convictions of his own mind, and what he 
 believed to be the voice of the Spirit of God ? Mr. Chamberlain, 
 our worthy Baptist brother, who translated the New Testament into 
 the Beaj Bhasha dialect, entered into the same views, and translated 
 the word in the same manner. Had either of them not done so, I 
 feel persuaded he would have felt himself exposed to the curse 
 denounced against any man who “ takes away” from the word of 
 God’s prophecy (Rev. xxii. 19), and considered himself an unfaithful 
 and a traitorous translator. 
 
 The same conviction of the right, which, by the constitution of 
 the Bible Society, every one had to translate the Greek terms for 
 baptism, as his conscience dictated, has been entertained by every 
 translator of the Scriptures whom I know in this part of India, most 
 indeed have exercised that right. The excellent Henry Martyn, 
 (whose Hindustani version of the New Testament was the first 
 executed by a minister not of our denomination), translated — not 
 transferred — the word, both in the Hindustani and Persian. So did 
 Mr. Thomason, an Episcopalian clergyman, and Secretary to the 
 Calcutta Bible Society, in his Arabic version ; and so has done Mr. 
 Bowley, a Church of England Missionary, in his Hinduwi version ; 
 yea, strange to say, since the Bible Society here declined all aid to 
 our Bengali version (though otherwise anxious to make use of it), 
 because we felt it our duty to translate the word by “ immerse ,” they 
 have issued a large edition of the Hindustani gospels with the word 
 translated by “wash" according to the views of our Paedobaptist 
 brethren. I mention this, not to blame the whole of the Committee, 
 for many of them were ignorant of it ; but to show the right which 
 Mr. Bowley, who revised the sheets, felt he had, if he chose, to trans- 
 late the word. 
 
APPEN 1) IX. 
 
 77 
 
 The American Bible Society, I have ever understood, was formed 
 on the same principle as the British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 Like it, it has doubtless issued thousands of German and other Tes- 
 taments, with the word translated by “ immerse,” and as in the for- 
 mer case, many of its translators have felt themselves at full liberty 
 to translate the word according to their different views of its mean- 
 ing. I had therefore certainly imagined, that its managers would 
 have most cheerfully allowed the Baptists to express in such copies 
 of the Scriptures, as they required for distribution, their own views 
 of the question, leaving it to Paedobaptist translators, in the versions 
 they required, to give what interpretations of the original word their 
 consciences dictated to be right. But this, I see, is not allowed. A 
 departure from the original course, as understood by many, with 
 regard to foreign distribution, is now 7 determined on by the great 
 majority. Be it so — but surely justice requires that all parties should 
 approve the change, or that w'hen such a principle is established, 
 those who do not approve of it, should be furnished with their full 
 complement of funds that they may be enabled to carry on the work 
 alone. While I would not for a moment imagine the decision of 
 the managers to be dictated by any but the purest motives, yet it is 
 certainly open to severe animadversion. The present is but the 
 commencement of a scene of interferences with the consciences of 
 translators, which will eventually divide this noble specimen of 
 Christian union, into fragments as numerous as there are denomina- 
 tions. This is a cause for deep regret, and on this account I deplore 
 the step now taken. On denominational grounds it gives me not the 
 least anxiety. I fully believe it will be overruled for good. As 
 one of your worthy correspondents states, “ The American Baptists 
 are able to give the heathen the scriptures translated in every lan- 
 guage of the world and I trust, that with the hope hereafter of 
 uniting the English Baptists in the glorious work, they will at once 
 make the attempt. No one feels more delight than myself in union 
 with other denominations, w 7 hen it does not interfere with duty, 
 but when, as in this case, our body is forbidden, unless we pursue 
 also separate measures, to exhibit, in the scriptures translated by our- 
 selves, what we fully believe to be “the truth as it is in Jesus;” W'e 
 have no alternative. Our Paedobaptist friends themselves must ex- 
 pect from us, as conscientious men, that we should act in accordance 
 with our principles ; and will venerate the self-denial and zeal so 
 consonant with our character as faithful servants of Christ, which 
 distinct exertions will elicit. I trust, therefore, you will all unite in 
 making the effort, and may great success attend it. 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 William H. Pearce. 
 
78 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 E 
 
 ON THE DUTY OF TRANSLATORS OF THE NEW TES- 
 TAMENT IN REGARD TO THE WORD BAPTIZO. 
 
 BY THE LATE MR. W. GREENFIELD, M.R.A.S., 
 
 Superintendent of the Translating and Editing Department of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 “ If the motives of the writer were not so apparent, it might occa- 
 sion no little surprise, that a clergyman of the church of England 
 should accuse others of sectarian principles for rendering jdatrri^u in 
 the sense of immersion ; a sense which is thus fully recognised in 
 the rubrick of that church : — ‘And then naming it after them (if they 
 shall certify him that the child may well endure it) he shall dip it in 
 the water discreetly and warily,’ &c. ‘ But if they certify that the 
 
 child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it,’ &c. To the 
 same purpose in the rubrick for adult baptism, it is directed that the 
 priest ‘ shall dip him in the water, or pour water upon him.’ With 
 this agree, not only the size of every font which has any pretensions 
 to antiquity, and ancient sculptures and paintings representing bap- 
 tism, but also the first liturgy of King Edward VI., which required 
 baptism to be administered by trine immersion ; and a catechism set 
 forth in the same year (1548), by Abp. Cranmer, in which not only 
 the language he employs, but also a cut prefixed to the Sermon of 
 Baptisms, fully expresses the meaning of the writer. William Tyn- 
 dale, also, (in his Obedience of a Christian man , &c.,) speaks of ‘the 
 plungynge into the water as signyfying that we dye and are buryed 
 with Chryste as concernynge the olde lyfe of Synne which is Adam ; 
 and the pallynge out again as sygnyfying that we ryse agayn with 
 Chryste in a new lyfe.’ It would therefore appear that an exception 
 has been converted into a general rule , and that even pouring has been 
 changed into sprinkling. But I wish it to be distinctly understood, 
 that I am neither a baptist, nor the son of a baptist ; nor is it here 
 my business to undertake a defence of their cause. The quantity of 
 water employed, or the specific mode of administering the rite, is, in 
 my opinion, of little or no consequence. In adducing the above evi- 
 dence, therefore, it was simply with the view of evincing, how utterly 
 inconsistent it was for a clergyman to accuse the Serampore Mission- 
 aries of sectarianism, in employing the term immersion for baptism ; 
 while that sense was so fully recognised, though not now acted upon, 
 by the established church. Indeed, were this charge to be held valid, 
 it would be difficult to assign the limits to which it should extend. 
 It may be safely affirmed, that many of the most accurate and valu- 
 able versions, both ancient and modern, are involved in the same 
 accusation ; and that there is not one which is directly hostile to that 
 interpretation. As it will place this subject upon a proper basis, I 
 beg leave to exhibit a statement of some of the more important of 
 these versions ; and, in order that I may be exonerated from the 
 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 79 
 
 charge of partiality, or an unfair colouring, to adduce the definitions 
 of the various words employed from the most unexceptionable sources. 
 
 “ Thus, then, the ancient Peshito Syriac version uniformly renders 
 fiacrrigu by ycss . which is thus defined by Schaaf : 
 
 “ ‘ Abluit se, ablutus, intinctus, immersus in aquam, baptizatus est 
 Hebr. 173}> Stetit. Arab, lay Re altiore, columna, palo susti- 
 nuit, fulsit, stabilivit, erexit. Tinxit, baptizavit. Conjug. ii. Fulsit. 
 sustinuit columna, palove. Baptizavit. Conj. v. Baptizatus fuit. 
 Ethpeel , LI Idem quod Peal. Aphel. AA.N I Immersit, (Num. 31. 
 
 23,) Baptizavit.’ 
 
 “ Our learned countryman Castell explains it in a similar manner ; 
 upon which Michaelis observes, 
 
 “ ‘ In hac baptizandi significatione conferunt baud pauci cum He- 
 braico stetit, ita ut stare sit , stare in flumine , illoque mergi. Mihi 
 verisimilius, diversum plane ab TQ^, literumque aliqua permutatione 
 ortum ex t f submergere 
 
 “ But whatever may be its derivation, it is perfectly clear that its 
 proper signification is to immerse. 
 
 “ Thus also the Arabic in Walton’s Polyglott, the Arabic of the 
 Propaganda, of Sabat, &c., employ the word ,v t c ; which we have 
 seen is perfectly identical with the Syriac A2tX 
 
 “ In the Ethiopic version, also, the word fTiAYb is employed, 
 which Ludolf thus explains : 
 
 “Conj. YI. r j YTyAld', ‘Immersus fuit, in genere , Jos. 3. in specie 
 Baptizatus fuit. Lu. 3. 21. Inf. ’jvTW^fj : Cum baptizatus esset. 
 Matt. 3. 16. : Baptizavit. Matt. 3. 11. Acts 1. 5. (2) 
 
 Ad religionem Christianam converlit. Christianum effecit. Hinc 
 inepta Metaph. Pharisaeis tribuitur , Proselytum etfecit ; quasi v. Mud 
 mediante baptismo factum fecissent. Matt. 23. 16. Mark 7- 4. Re- 
 spcndet Grceco f3a.irri'^ei.v, Immergere , abluere ; sed improprie videntur 
 accepisse.’ 
 
 “ The words employed in the ancient Coptic version as correspon- 
 dent to /3 uKriZw, fiacrneghg, &c., also convey precisely the same idea 
 of immersion; as will be perfectly evident from the following defini- 
 tions taken from the Coptic Lexicon of Le Croze, edited by W oide : 
 
 * There is another Syriac word for baptism, which is employed by the Syrian 
 Baptists, and which I long since proved, in opposition to the statement of the late 
 Editor of Calmet, also meant to dip. The word alluded to is which is 
 
 applied in the Syriac Peshito version of the Old Testament to the dipping of hyssop 
 in blood, Exod. xii. 22 ; the dipping of the foot in oil, Deut. xxxiii. 24, or in water, 
 Jos. iii. 15, or in blood, Psal. lxviii. 24 ; and in the New Testament, to the dipping 
 of the hand in a dish, Matt. xxvi. 23, of the finger in water, Luke vii. 33, 44, &c. 
 I observe, that the last Editor of Calmet has had the fairness and candour to append 
 these observations to the original remarks of the former Editor. See Fragments, 
 No. 615. 
 
80 
 
 APPEN DIX. 
 
 44 ‘ CJD£jLC,ll\, xura.'TroniGiJjbi, Vulg. prsecipitatio, Ps. liv. 4. fia-rr- 
 •no/ubs, baptismus, Matt. iii. 7, et alibi. 
 
 Item, mergere, submergere, xaTunovrigeiv, xarabuvuv, descendere in 
 pvofundum. Exod. xv. 5. xaras-feirte/, devorari. Ps. cvi. 27. (/3«Tr/- 
 fyadai, submergi. Lev. xi. 32.) 
 
 (D.tLCh Pavrlfyiv, baptizare. Matt. iii. 11, cum com- 
 
 positum : evbvvei v, irrepere, penetrare in locum. 2 Tim. iii. 6. 
 
 (flOJULC, PccTTrigfiol, baptismi. Ebr. vi. 2. 
 
 Item, baptizari. icjDAJLC baptizatus est. Cateches She- 
 
 nutii. MS. n Z.Tf'flCJO.iUXb s/3 arn^m, baptizabantur. Mat. iii. 6. 
 Marc. i. 5. Passim.' 
 
 “ The Gothic of Ulphilas employs a perfectly correspondent term 
 to our dip, daupjan, which is thus defined by Junius in the glossary 
 appended to the four Gospels, published at Stockholm, in 1671 : 
 
 “ ‘ Baptizare. S. bo))Cr A. S. depan, dyppan. Alem. tCtltfCtl/ 
 tftttffln- T. boofcen Dan. bSllC • Gr. buu, mergo, bvvru, aquas subeo. 
 S. topp&ftg I tab tuffare, submergere.” 
 
 44 Among the modern versions which render (SuTrl^u by to immerse 
 are the German of Luther, the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish ; which 
 employ the above words pointed out by Junius. Other versions, 
 which have apparently steered between the two extremes, by render- 
 ing (Baftri^cj by washing or ablution , as the of the Persian 
 
 of Martyn (though he even has sometimes employed the phrase 
 L v. t »V ^ . .j A , which can only mean ablution by dipping ), are in fact 
 decidedly on the side of the Serampore translators. It is evident, 
 that to wash the body or person , without specifying any particular 
 part of the body, must necessarily denote to bathe , which clearly im- 
 plies immersion. 
 
 “ The only other mode that has been adopted (for I believe none 
 has ever had the hardihood to render to pour or sprinkle ), 
 
 is that of retaining the Greek word ; as the baptizare of the Latin, 
 the battezare of the Italian, the bautizar of the Spanish, the baptizer 
 of the French, and our baptise. This is obviously no translation ; 
 and but 4 darkening counsel by words without knowledge.’ It would 
 naturally lead to the pasch, azymes, and other barbarities of the 
 Douay version, which even the advocates of this mode would be 
 among the first to deprecate ; and, instead of the poor heathen hear- 
 ing 4 in their own tongue’ the wonderful works of God, they would 
 be under the necessity either of studying Greek, in order to under- 
 stand the real sense of the terms employed, or be content with the 
 interpretation of their teachers. The adoption, however, of the 
 Greek word, it is clear, militates nothing against our Baptist brethren, 
 and decides nothing as to the real import of the term.'" Each party 
 
 * It should, however, be remarked, that though these translators adopted the 
 Greek word, yet they clearly understood it in the sense of immersion. Thus Dio- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 81 
 
 may with equal propriety claim it as being favourable to bis cause, 
 according as be may understand the original term whence these va- 
 rious words are derived. As, however, Pavri^u appears evidently to 
 exclude the idea of pouring, or of sprinkling , and as the only other 
 idea that can be attached to it is that of washing, which, when ap- 
 plied irrestrictively to the body, must, as above stated, denote to 
 lathe , which implies immersion ; it may justly be considered as 
 decidedly in favour of the Serampore translator. That such is in- 
 deed the primitive sense of the Greek word, its derivation from 
 fiaK-u, to dip, is sufficient to evince ; and is thus expressly affirmed 
 by Schleusner, with whom the most respectable lexicographers agree : 
 
 “ ‘Proprie : immergo ac intingo, in aquam mergo, a fSdcrru, et 
 respondet Hebraico 2 Reg. v. 14, in vers. Alex, et yau apud 
 Symmachum Psalm lxviii. 5, et apud insertum , Psalm ix. 6. In hac 
 autem significatione nunquam in N. T. Qnisi in baptizandi sensu] 
 sed eo frequentius in script. Gr. legitur, v. e. Diod. Sic. I. c. 36, de 
 Nilo exundante : ruv %ig<saiuv 6r]puv rd croXXa verb too yrorufjtoZ rrtp- 
 Xytpfevra diatpthiprai (Sacrridogsva, multum terrestrium animalium, a 
 flumine deprehensa, submersione pereunt. Strabo Lib. xii. p. 391, 
 et xiv. p. 458, ed. Casaub. Polyb. III. c. 72, goXtg tug ruv /aaaruv 
 ci rctZpl (3a vrit?6g,evoi die(3aivov. Idem. v. c. 47, et aliis in locis, 
 qua? larga manu dedit Schwarzius in Comment. Crit. Ling. Gr. p. 
 232, seq.’ 
 
 “ I trust that these observations will suffice to exonerate the 
 Serampore missionaries from the charge of bigotry and sectarianism, 
 in thus conscientiously rendering (3 acrrl^u, to immerse. Bigotry, 
 that is, ‘blind zeal, or prejudice,’ they cannot justly be accused of, 
 while they have the primitive sense of the term, and the rendering 
 of so many ancient and modem translations as the foundation upon 
 which they have grounded their version ; nor can they consistently be 
 charged with sectarianism, while they are found in company with the 
 churches of Syria, Arabia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Germany, Holland, Sweden, 
 Denmark, and others, together with the Church of England itself. 
 If they be bigots, I know not what name the advocates for pouring, 
 or sprinkling, who have no such basis to rest on, merit ; and if theirs 
 be a sect, it must be confessed to be a very ancient and a very exten- 
 sive one. It should be remembered, that the question respecting the 
 mode of administering the rite of baptism is a very different thing 
 from that respecting the subjects of baptism, or that of pcedo -baptism 
 and adult baptism. Concerning the latter, our opponent brings for- 
 ward no charge, nor even insinuates that the Serampore translators 
 
 dati explains “ battezzati,” Matt. iii. 6, in the edition of 1607, by “ tuffati, nell 
 acqua, per un sacro segno, e cerimonia, testificante, e suggellante la rimessione, e 
 purgemento de’ peccati nel sangue di Christo ; e la purification degli animi per la 
 virtu dello Spirito santo : per laquale altresi i battezzati s’ubbbgavano di conver- 
 sarsi puri, ad ogni lor potere, di peceato : esercitandosi in una continua conver- 
 sione, et amendamento di vita : vedi Luc. iii. 3 dipped in the water, for a 
 sacred sign and ceremony , testifying and sealing the remission, and purging away of 
 sin in the blood of Christ, and the purification of their minds by the power of the Holy 
 Spirit,” fyc. 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 APPEN DIX. 
 
 have ever corrupted or misrepresented a single passage to suit their 
 own peculiar views on this topic. 
 
 “ But there is another point of view in which the opponents of the 
 Serampore missionaries should consider the subject ; and one which 
 involves the most important consequences. Before they ‘ arraign the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society as guilty of a gross and unpardon- 
 able dereliction of duty,’ in aiding the Serampore translators, and 
 prefer a recommendation for them to withdraw that aid ; they should 
 be fully prepared to carry their censure, as well as their recommenda- 
 tion, to a much greater extent. In consistency, if that aid be with- 
 drawn from the Serampore missionaries, because they have rendered 
 /3acrr/^w, to immerse , then must it also be withdrawn from the 
 churches of Syria, of Arabia, of Abyssinia, of Egypt, of Germany, of 
 Holland, of Denmark, &c.; and the venerable Peshito Syriac version, 
 the Arabic Yersions of the Propaganda, of Sabat, &c.; the Ethiopian, 
 the Coptic, and other versions, must all be suppressed. If, however, 
 they are not thus prepared to carry their recommendation to its 
 fullest extent, then must they close their mouths for ever against 
 their Baptist brethren. But should a faction so far prevail over the 
 good sense of the Committee, and the sound and catholic principles 
 upon which the Society is founded, and which have ever been its 
 boast and glory, as well as the most powerful means of its extraordi- 
 nary success, then its ‘ honour will be laid in the dust and, from a 
 splendid temple in the service of which the whole Christian world 
 could cordially unite, it would dwindle into a contemptible edifice, 
 dedicated to party feelings, motives, and views. The broad basis 
 upon which it is founded is its strength and security ; contract this 
 within narrower limits, and it falls into ruins .” — Defence of the 
 Serampore Mahratta Version, pp. 29 — 45. 
 
 1 . II ADDON, PRINTER, CASTLE STREET, FINSRL'RY. 
 
THE BAPTISTS AND THE BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 MEMORIAL, 
 
 RELATING TO THE 
 
 BENGALI AND OTHER VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAME 
 
 MADE BY BAPTIST MISSIONARIES IN INDIA, 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE 
 
 NT 
 
 RIGHT HON. LORD BEXLEY, PRESIDENT, 
 
 THE VICE-PRESIDENTS, THE COMMITTEE, AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS 
 OP 
 
 THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY, 
 
 JANUARY fi, 1840, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 COMMITTEE OF THE BAPTIST UNION. 
 
 In the document now submitted to 
 the Committee of the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society, it is intended to 
 make another, and final effort, to induce 
 a reversal of the measure by which trans- 
 lations of the New Testament executed 
 by Baptist missionaries in India have 
 been denied thesupportof that institution. 
 
 In attempting this object, the Memo- 
 rialists are impelled by a solemn convic- 
 tion of the duty they owe to the truth, 
 to the heathen, and to the Bible Society 
 itself. 
 
 The question at issue is one affecting 
 not simply their own denomination. It 
 involves principles of common concern 
 to all who are engaged in giving the Sa- 
 cred Scriptures to the nations, the recog- 
 nition of which alone can, in their opi- 
 nion, relieve the Bible Society from 
 embarrassment, and enable it with an 
 equal hand to extend its encouragement 
 to all faithful versions. Nothing, they 
 conceive, is more to he deprecated by 
 those who love it most, than that it 
 should persist in a line of conduct which 
 lays it open to the charge of suppressing 
 any portion of God’s truth. If such an 
 allegation can be sustained against the 
 Society, the warmest friends it has must 
 condemn its policy, and all good men 
 will approve the effort to recover it from 
 so perilous a position. 
 
 Until the adoption of those proceed- 
 ings which form the subject of complaint, 
 the Baptist body took an equal interest 
 
 in the Society’s labours with all other 
 denominations, and they are still most 
 earnestly desirous to be permitted to 
 continue among its supporters. They 
 will regard it as a calamity to be sepa- 
 rated in such a cause from their fellow 
 Christians ; nor will they be the parties 
 to sever the bond. If they must adopt 
 an independent course of action it shall 
 be because they are compelled. If they 
 can no longer be fellow-labourers in the 
 foreign field of Bible distribution, it shall 
 be because they are thrust out. 
 
 Should they, on the one hand, be able 
 to show that the terms proposed by the 
 Committee of the Bible Society in order 
 to the Baptist body receiving support to 
 its versions are such as cannot he com- 
 plied with, both because, as a genera! 
 rule, they are impracticable, and, where 
 practicable, morally subversive of the 
 authority of conscience, and of the pri- 
 mary and imperative obligations of a 
 translator of the inspired volume ; and, 
 on the other hand, that the proper course 
 for the Bible Society to pursue is that 
 for which the Baptist body pleads, the 
 just conclusion will be obvious to every 
 impartial mind; and the memorialists, 
 having discharged their duty, will quietly 
 leave the result to their brethren and to 
 God. 
 
 The terms proposed to the Baptists by 
 the Committee of the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society are communicated in 
 their resolution of the 1st of July, 1833, 
 
 b " ' 
 
2 
 
 MEMORIAL OF THE BAPTIST UNION 
 
 which is expressed in the following 
 words : — 
 
 “ That this Committee would cheer- 
 fully afford assistance to the missionaries 
 connected with the Baptist Missionary 
 Society in their translation of the Ben- 
 gali New Testament, provided the Greek 
 terms relating to baptism be rendered, 
 either according to the principle adopted 
 by the translators of the authorized 
 English version, by a word derived from 
 the original, or by such terms as may 
 be considered unobjectionable by other 
 denominations of Christians composing 
 the Bible Society.” 
 
 This resolution gives the translator the 
 alternative of rendering the Greek terms 
 relating to baptism, either by a word de- 
 rived from the original, as is done in the 
 English version, or by such terms as 
 may be considered unobjectionable by 
 the other denominations of Christians 
 composing the Bible Society. It is al- 
 leged by the memorialists, that neither 
 of these alternatives can be acted upon 
 as a general rule. 
 
 They begin with the latter, and re- 
 strict themselves first to its application 
 to their own case. And they respect- 
 fully ask, what terms they are which 
 would describe baptism in a manner un- 
 objectionable to all denominations of 
 Christians composing the Bible Society ? 
 Where in any language can such terms 
 be found? Until immersion, and sprink- 
 ling, and pouring, mean the same thing, 
 or until there ceases to be a difference 
 of opinion as to which of these modes is 
 exclusively right, it is clear that no such 
 terms are likely to be discovered. More- 
 over, if it be laid down as the rule, that 
 Baptists, in their versions, must employ 
 terms “unobjectionable” to non-immer- 
 sionists, of course it must be the rule 
 also, that non-immersionists must, in 
 versions made by them, employ terms 
 “unobjectionable’’ to Baptists, since 
 they are one of the denominations of 
 Christians composing the Bible Society. 
 But the Baptist members of the Bible 
 Society contend that the Greek words 
 employed to describe the Christian rite 
 have one meaning, and one only, and 
 consequently, until that meaning, and 
 that alone, were given, they could not 
 cease to object. 
 
 There is, moreover, a fallacy involved 
 in this part of the resolution of the Com- 
 mittee, the exposure of .which deprives 
 it of much of its apparent reasonable- 
 ness, while it confirms what has just 
 been said of its impracticability as a 
 
 rule. By “ the other denominations of 
 Christians composing the Bible Society/' 
 are of course meant all who belong to it 
 besides the Baptists. But it is over- 
 looked, in this mode of putting the case, 
 that, in relation to the question in hand, 
 all these denominations merge into one. 
 For all the purposes of this controversy, 
 the Bible Society consists but of two 
 sections, immersionists and non-immer- 
 sionists; and it has the appearance, at 
 least, of disingenuousness (though the 
 memorialists do not impute it to the 
 Committee) that it should be otherwise 
 represented. As between these two 
 parties then, — and there are no other 
 within the view of the subject, — so long 
 as one of them shall consider immersion, 
 not an accident, but entering into the 
 essential nature of the ordinance of bap- 
 tism, while the other, professing to re- 
 gard the mode as an indifferent circum- 
 stance, iu practice altogether discards 
 immersion, the rule must of necessity be 
 perfectly inoperative. Ever to have 
 conceived of it as laying a ground of 
 union between them, was but a subtile 
 delusion, and for the Bible Society now 
 to persist in it must inevitably lead to 
 separation. 
 
 But the spirit of this rule extends far 
 beyond the particular case of the Bap- 
 tists ; and, impracticable as it is in re- 
 ference to them, it is even more so when 
 taken in that extent of application to 
 which impartiality requires it should be 
 carried. Did it not occur to the Com- 
 mittee, when assigning as a reason for 
 laying down this rule, that the Bible So- 
 ciety is “ composed of persons holding 
 on this subject widely different opi- 
 nions,”* that its members hold “ widely 
 different opinions” on other subjects also, 
 subjects moreover affecting, some of 
 them, not the ceremonial, but the vital 
 doctrines of Christianity, and quite as 
 likely to occasion embarrassment in the 
 translation of the Scriptures ? The epis- 
 copalian, the presbyterian, and the con- 
 gregationalist, entertain views widely 
 diverse from one another of the render- 
 ing of the terms iir'iaKOTroQ bishop, Siixko- 
 vog deacon, Trpia&vTfpoQ presbyter, Ikk\t]- 
 aia church. And besides these, as 
 already intimated, there are disputed 
 words relating to doctrines, such for ex- 
 ample as 7rpoyiv<jiOKtx> to foreknow, irpoopi- 
 £oj to predestinate, nrayptrog ordained, 
 hcXoyi) election, vXr/dif calling, ptravoia 
 repentance, SiKaiojaig justification, airo- 
 
 * Resolutions, confirmed April 4, 1836. 
 
TO THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETV. 
 
 3 
 
 Xvrpiotng redemption. Of course these 
 words must be subjected to the same 
 process ; nor these only, but every other 
 respecting 1 the signification of which de- 
 nominations differ ; a process which 
 shall either convey them in an untrans- 
 lated form into other languages, or trans- 
 late them, not with scrupulous philologi- 
 cal accuracy, but so as to unite the 
 suffrages of controversialists. The Bible 
 Society includes among its members, to 
 say nothing of minor, or, in a theological 
 point of view, less important sects, Pro- 
 testants and Roman Catholics, members 
 of the Greek, church, Lutherans, Calvin- I 
 ists, and Arminians. Is deference to be 
 paid to the conflicting sentiments of 
 these several parties ? Is a translation 
 of the word of God to speak nothing at 
 variance with their peculiar and distinc- 
 tive dogmas ? Or, lest it should, are all 
 words in debate among them to be left 
 untranslated ? It may be confidently 
 put to every considerate person, if the 
 former of these alternatives be not abso- 
 lutely impossible ; while, if the latter be 
 adopted, the Scriptures might as well be 
 withholden altogether, for they must 
 thus become an unintelligible jargon. 
 
 The improbability of finding terms 
 which shall express two or more mean- 
 ings essentially differing from each other, 
 as must be done if versions are to con- 
 tain no words objectionable to the dif- 
 ferent denominations of Christians com- 
 posing the Bible Society, is so obvious, 
 that another sentence need not be writ- 
 ten to expose the futility of the rule that 
 requires it; but if it be thought that dis- 
 puted terms may be transferred, let the 
 experiment be made upon some of those 
 already mentioned. In the following 
 passages these Greek terms are expressed 
 in words derived from the original : — 
 “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s 
 house, he saw his wife’s mother lakl and 
 sick of a fever ; and he touched her 
 hand, and the fever left her, and she 
 arose and diaconized them,” Matt. viii. 
 14, 15. “ This is a true saying, if a man 
 
 desire episcopy, be desireth a good 
 work,” 1 Tim. iii. 1. “ Feed the flock 
 
 of God which is among you, episcopising 
 not by constraint, but willingly,” 1 Pet. 
 v. 2. “ For the gifts and clesis of God 
 
 are without repentance,” Rom. xi. 29. 
 “ Wherefore the rather brethren give 
 diligence to make your clesis and eko- 
 logy sure,” 2 Pet. i. 10. “ Even so, by 
 
 the righteousness of one, the free gift 
 came upon all men unto dicaosis of 
 life,” Rom. v. 18. “ In whom we have 
 
 apolutrosis through his blood,” Eph. i. 
 7. Is any thing further needed to de- 
 monstrate the absurdity of such a prac- 
 tice ? 
 
 Nor is the difficulty thus stated an 
 hypothetical case, suggested merely for 
 the sake of illustration. It already 
 presses in a practical form. “ As was 
 to be expected (says the Rev. W. H. 
 Pearce, in a letter dated Calcutta, Sep- 
 tember 10, 1836), since the Bible Society 
 interfered about baptism, the words 
 above referred to'* are become the sub- 
 ject of difficulty; and brethren in India, 
 
 I instead of translating the original terms 
 for all of them, are at this moment about 
 to introduce the Greek words into the 
 native languages. Calling, Election, 
 Justification, Redemption, &c., must in 
 time follow : and the Christian church, 
 in giving the New Testament, will then 
 present to a heathen a work, although 
 in his own language, perfectly unintel- 
 ligible to the best informed of his coun- 
 trymen.”+ 
 
 This other alternative allowed by the 
 resolution, of rendering the Greek terms 
 relating to baptism by a word derived 
 from the original, as is done in the Eng- 
 lish version, is no less incapable of gene- 
 ral adoption on another ground. In the 
 English version these words are left un- 
 translated, the Greek terms themselves 
 being used with an English termina- 
 tion ; but there are some languages, per- 
 haps many, into which it is impossible 
 to transfer foreign words. The Chinese 
 language is in point, which being writ- 
 ten, not with alphabetic letters, but in 
 monosyllabic characters, does not admit 
 of the introduction of exotic terms in the 
 manner prescribed. Not only, therefore, 
 has Dr. Marshman translated the words 
 in question, but Dr. Morrison also. Of 
 the former indeed it might have been 
 expected, agreeably with the uniform 
 practice of the Baptists ; but, in fact, 
 neither of them was left to his option. 
 They might select the words by which 
 to translate ; but translate they must, 
 since to transfer is impossible. The 
 Cherokee, as the memorialists have 
 learned from competent authority, is 
 another language into which, from the 
 peculiarity of its construction, translators 
 are compelled to give vernacular render- 
 ings. The psedobaptist missionaries ac- 
 cordingly, by whom a translation of the 
 New Testament has been made for the 
 
 * Church, Congregation, Bishop, Bishoprick, 
 
 Presbyter, Deacon, Deaconness, &c. 
 
 f Bap. Mag. 1837, p. 307. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 
 
 MEMORIAL OP THE BAPTIST UNION' 
 
 use of tliat people, have not transferred [ 
 the terms relating to baptism, but have 
 translated them — and translated them 
 by words signifying to immerse, and im- 
 mersion.* Since in these instances the 
 impracticability of the rule lias been al- 
 ready ascertained, it is surely no impro- 
 bable presumption, that there may be 
 others; at all events these are sufficient 
 to show that it must of necessity be of 
 partial application. 
 
 But the Memorialists feel it to be their 
 duty to present this objectionable reso- 
 lution before the Committee of the Bible 
 Society in another light ; showing that, 
 if it be impracticable as a general rule, 
 it is equally to be condemned as subver- 
 sive of the integrity of translators. 
 
 Granting that, in the particular case 
 of the Baptists, the rule might be com- 
 plied with in the Bengali version, and 
 in all instances where the genius of the 
 language allowed it, if not by translating 
 the words in question into unobjection- 
 able terms, yet by leaving them untrans- 
 lated ; this could be done only by put- 
 ting human requirements in the place of 
 conscience, and sacrificing truth and in- 
 spiration to expediency. 
 
 The memorialists would most respect- 
 fully beg the Committee to reflect upon 
 the imperative obligations and solemn 
 responsibility of a translator of the Sacred 
 Scriptures, and then to consider if it 
 would be right before God to bind him 
 in the shackles imposed by their rule. 
 He who undertakes to convey divine re- 
 velation into a new tongue, assumes an 
 office with which scarcely another can 
 be compared whose duties are equally 
 momentous or responsible. By no qua- 
 lity of a moral kind ought he to be so 
 eminently distinguished as by scrupu- 
 lous conscientiousness. Unyielding in- 
 tegrity must be combined with literary 
 ability-, or he can never be deemed com- 
 petent to his task. And as these qualities 
 should be the guarantee, as far as his 
 own character is concerned, that his 
 work will be done faithfully, so ought 
 he to be most jealously sheltered from 
 every influence coming from without 
 which might interfere with his judgment. 
 His first, and last, and all-absorbing so- 
 licitude must be, to give the exact con- 
 tents of the document, without sup- 
 pression, without addition, and without 
 alteration. If the meaning of a passage, 
 or of a word, be hid under an unintelli- 
 gible phrase, it might as well be omitted, 
 
 * Christian Review, No. 1, p. 133. 
 
 since that part of divine revelation is 
 lost to the reader. The translator, in 
 fact, defrauds him of so much of the 
 truth. How, with the fear of God be- 
 fore his eyes, can he do this? How 
 could the Committee of the Bible Society 
 require him to do it? And yet this is 
 what their rule demands. There are 
 certain terms which, under peril of los- 
 ing their support, he is not to translate. 
 Though professedly occupied in giving 
 to the heathen “all the words of this 
 life,” and bound to do so by obligations 
 the most imperative and awful, as ex- 
 actly and completely as his ability en- 
 ables him, there are some words the 
 meaning of which he must systematically 
 withhold. And why? Because in them- 
 selves they are unintelligible? No such 
 thing. Because the rendering he would 
 give is unfaithful? Nothing of the 
 kind ; but because such rendering is 
 considered objectionable by some of his 
 fellow-christians who are members of 
 the Bible Society. The question then 
 comes to this, Are human opinions to 
 control the Bible, or is the Bible to con- 
 trol human opinions ? The Committee 
 of the Bible Society say in effect the 
 former ; for their rule determines that, 
 since the New Testament will not speak 
 in a certain manner, it shall not speak at 
 all. They insist that the meaning shall 
 be pushed aside, blinked, studiously 
 suppressed, where it does not harmonize 
 with the creed of all the parties compos- 
 ing that institution. Who, it may be 
 asked, that makes any claim to moral 
 independence, would put his neck under 
 such a yoke? What conscientious man 
 could do it ? With him it must be no 
 question in what degree the meaning of 
 the text may coincide with or differ 
 from the sentiments or the practice of 
 any section of the Christian church. His 
 duty is plain and imperative. If he 
 knows “ the mind of the Spirit,” he is 
 bound to express it. Should he wilfully 
 falsify the record by mistranslation, or 
 should he “add to,” or “take away 
 from the words of the book,” he would 
 be held by common consent to have per- 
 petrated a crime of the darkest hue. But 
 the memorialists desire it may be es- 
 riously weighed, how far he falls short of 
 the same censure who, in deference to 
 the opinions of others, imposes a doubt- 
 ful, or a double sense on the Scriptures, 
 instead of scrupulously adhering to their 
 exact grammatical interpretation ; or 
 who, by studious concealment, keeps 
 back part of the counsel of God. For 
 
TO THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 5 
 
 themselves, they dare not risk the coil- | 
 sequences of such a course, nor recom- 
 mend it to their honoured missionaries. 
 To act in this manner would, in their 
 view, be to violate a solemn trust, to be- 
 tray the truth, to endanger souls, and to 
 hazard at least the tremendous judg- 
 ments denounced in the closing sen- 
 tences of the inspired canon. If the 
 support of their fellow-christians in the 
 work of biblical translation can be pro- 
 cured only at such a price, by them it 
 cannot be procured at all. They must 
 persist in urging upon their translators 
 still to pursue the course marked out by 
 the noble-minded Tyndale, who, in refe- 
 rence to his translation, says, “ I call 
 God to recorde as against the daye we 
 shall appeare before oure Lorde Jesus 
 Christ, to givereckonynge of our doinges, 
 that I never altered one syllable of 
 Godes word agaynst my conscience, 
 nor wolde do thys day, yf all that is in 
 earthe, whether it be. honoure, pleasure, 
 or ryches, myght be geven me.”*' 
 
 It avails nothing, the memorialists 
 submit, against the force of this argu- 
 ment, that what is required of the Bap- 
 tist translators is sanctioned by the 
 English version ; for the plea of prece- 
 dent can never make that right which is 
 in itself essentially wrong. 
 
 Besides which, waiving for the pre- 
 sent their particular case, the} 7 entertain 
 on many grounds the most serious objec- 
 tions against erecting that version into a 
 standard for other translations. 1. It is 
 well known under what circumstances 
 the English authorised version was 
 made. The translators were compelled 
 by royal mandate to retain the old eccle- 
 siastical words. + But he who imposes 
 such a condition, and he who submits to 
 it, are alike guilty of infringing the liberty 
 of conscience, and of laying 7 violent 
 hands on the truth itself. Does the 
 Bible Society wish to perpetuate the 
 odious despotism of the Stuarts, by still 
 putting fetters on the translators of the 
 Bible ? 2. Moreover, if the English 
 
 version is to be followed in one instance, 
 by analogy of reasoning it must be fol- 
 lowed in all similar instances ; and this 
 would lead, in cases where a difference 
 of opinion obtains, to that transferring of 
 terms, the absurdity and impracticability 
 
 * Letter to John Fryth. 
 
 ■j 7 Historical Account of the several English 
 Translations of the Bible, by Anthony Johnson, 
 A.M., in Bishop Watson’s Theological Tracts, 
 Vol. iii. p. 06. 
 
 of which have been already shown. 3. 
 How, again, is it possible for a conscien- 
 tious translator to conform to this stand- 
 ard? The difficulties of translating, it 
 might be supposed, are great and nume- 
 rous enough without the aggravation 
 which such a necessity implies. Instead 
 of constructing his version, as an erudite 
 philologist, according to sound canons 
 of interpretation, he must recur at every 
 step to the work of his English predeces- 
 sors. His inquiry must be, not what is 
 the true meaning of a passage, and how 
 may it be rendered with fidelity, but 
 what is the sense put upon it by the 
 English version. Not what the uncor- 
 rupted originals may dictate must he 
 follow, but the originals modified by the 
 party views of polemical ecclesiastics, 
 and the caprice of a semi-papistical mo- 
 narch. A man who should translate on 
 this principle, the memorialists hesitat^ 
 not to say, would be totally unworthy of 
 the office lie had assumed ; nor would it 
 be safe to trust the conveyance of the 
 words of life to the nations to his hands. 
 4. Still further, they would ask wherein 
 the virtue consists of introducing the 
 faults of the English version into new 
 translations. Admitting, that under the 
 circumstances of its production it is an 
 admirable work, and even better exe- 
 cuted in the main than might have been 
 apprehended, no admirers of it have yet 
 been so enthusiastic as to pronounce it 
 immaculate. On all hands it is confessed 
 to betray the marks of human imper- 
 fection. The Committee themselves say 
 of it, “ Errors are to be found in it which 
 the humblest scholar could not only 
 point out but correct. Errors too there 
 are which obscure the sense in some im- 
 portant instances.’’* Why should these 
 errors be propagated ? If there be 
 thought to be a necessity for leaving 
 them uncorrected, at least let them re- 
 main where they are. If we must have 
 them at home, let us not send them 
 abroad. What benevolence is there in 
 afflicting the heathen with our calami- 
 ties? Every Christian would surely 
 say, give them the unadulterated word, 
 whatever you choose in regard to your- 
 selves. If it be stiid the resolution of the 
 Bible Society does not contemplate this, 
 but refers only to certain words in which 
 it requires the English version to be fol- 
 lowed, the reply is obvious and conclu- 
 sive — those very words constitute one 
 of its most glaring faults. They are 
 , — — 
 
 * Ann, Report, 1839, p. '■xxi. 
 
6 
 
 MEMORIAL OF THE BAPTIST UNION 
 
 ■words, to all but Greek scholars, without 
 a meaning ; and the Bible Society de- 
 termines that these same words in their 
 unintelligibleness shall be transferred 
 into foreig-n tongues, thus for ever with- 
 holding from the heathen part of the 
 Word of God. 5. And lastly, the me- 
 morialists cannot refrain from expressing 
 both their surprise and deep regret that 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society 
 should seem in any way to give its 
 sanction to the Popish practice of sub- 
 stituting a translation of the inspired 
 volume as the standard of truth, in the 
 room of the original scriptures. If Pro- 
 testants are right in setting up one ver- 
 sion as a model, how will it be shown 
 that Romanists are wrong in putting that 
 honour upon another ? The decree of 
 the Council of Trent and the resolution 
 of the Committee in Earl Street, are in 
 their principle exactl} 7 similar, and alike 
 unsound and dangerous. The one con- 
 fers infallibility on the Vulgate, the other 
 makes the English version the judge, 
 from whose decision there lies no appeal. 
 For all the ordinary purposes of transla- 
 tion, indeed, the Greek New Testament 
 may be used ; but, where Christian de- 
 nominations hold conflicting sentiments, 
 it shall be instantly laid aside, or, what 
 is the same thing, shall not be deemed 
 of authority, nor be taken as the rule. 
 Precisely in that crisis where the impor- 
 tance of having access to the original is 
 chiefly felt, the Committee of the Bible 
 Society takes it out of the translator’s 
 hand. Such a procedure, it is submitted, 
 cannot be justified on Protestant prin- 
 ciples. If it is to be defended, it must 
 take shelter under the obnoxious plea 
 that there resides an authority some- 
 where, and no matter where, whether in 
 a general council of the Church of Rome, 
 or in the Committee of the Bible So- 
 ciety, which has a right to modify the 
 Word of God. 
 
 The memorialists venture to hope, that 
 the Committee of the British and Fo- 
 reign Bible Society will now see that 
 their resolution of July 1, 1833, has 
 placed that great institution in an un- 
 fortunate and unsafe position — a posi- 
 tion of inextricable embarrassment, and 
 inconsistent both with the claims of 
 conscience, and with the deference due 
 to that volume which it is its honour 
 and duty to give to all people in their 
 mother tongue. 
 
 The consistent course for the Bible 
 Society to pursue would be, they con- 
 
 ceive, to give aid to all versions into new 
 languages which, upon the authority of 
 competent scholars, are ascertained to 
 be faithful. They beg to trespass upon 
 the continued attention of the Commit- 
 tee while they endeavour to show the 
 reasonableness of the course they re- 
 commend. 
 
 It is obvious to remark, that such a 
 principle of action is impartial. It fa- 
 vours no denomination at the expense 
 of the rest, and it excludes none from its 
 proper share of patronage through the 
 jealousy of the rest. It gives credit to 
 missionaries and translators of all sec- 
 tions of the Christian church for equal 
 sincerity in their desires to communicate 
 the tidings of “the common salvation.” 
 It leaves them to pursue their great 
 work free from human embarrassment, 
 and solely under the influence of their 
 responsibility to God. The Baptist body, 
 standing as they do on this plea of 
 liberty, would be the last to deny it to 
 their fellow-servants. If a Psedobaptist 
 translator conscientiously believes that 
 sprinkling or pouring is the meaning of 
 j3a7rri?&>, let him thus render the word. 
 As an honest man he is bound to do so ; 
 a nd if, upon the authority of competent 
 scholarship, his version be certified to be 
 faithful, let the Bible Society support it. 
 
 To act on this principle of supporting 
 versions simply on the ground of their 
 fidelity, would relieve the Bible Society 
 from the irksome necessity of listening 
 to denominational complaints, and of ad- 
 judicating in matters so much beside 
 their province as differences in senti- 
 ment existing among them. By their 
 present rule the Committee of the Bible 
 Society erect themselves into a tribunal 
 before which the various denominations 
 composing it may severally bring their 
 complaint, whenever words are used in 
 a version which they consider objection- 
 able. If Episcopalians render kirioKoiros 
 bishop, the Congregationalist complains ; 
 and if Congregationalists translate IkkXj/- 
 cia congregation, the Episcopalian is ag- 
 grieved. The Committee having, by the 
 rule laid down, invited the appeal, are 
 bound to hear the allegations of both 
 parties, and to settle the difference; and 
 the differences of all parties among the 
 Bible Society who may conceive their 
 peculiar views to be in a similar manner 
 endangered. The Committee have done 
 this in the case of the Predobaptist com- 
 plaint against Baptist versions, and of 
 course equity demands that they should 
 
TO THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 not shrink from doing it in other in- | 
 stances. If it be replied, that, so far 
 from taking upon themselves to settle 
 the difference in the case of the Baptists, 
 they declared* it to be “ no part of the 
 duty of the Committees or Sub-Commit- 
 tees to adjust such differences of opi- 
 nion,” and have therefore fallen back 
 upon the practice resorted to in the 
 English version, this is the very thing 
 which settles it. The moment it is de- 
 termined, in reference to any given word, 
 that the translator shall conform to a par- 
 ticular model, or forfeit the Society’s pa- 
 tronage, the whole question is closed ; 
 the difference its adjusted, and adjusted 
 by the Committee. Nothing can be 
 more satisfactory than the manner in 
 which the Committee express themselves 
 in part of the words just recited. Aware 
 that it would impose upon them a most 
 invidious and a perfectly hopeless task, 
 were they required to mediate between 
 contending denominations, and knowing 
 that it forms no part of their duty as the 
 executive of the Bible Society to attempt 
 it, with great reason they may decline 
 to undertake any such office. All the 
 memorialists regret is, that they did not 
 do so at first, and all they ask is, that 
 they will retrace their steps, and always 
 decline it in future. Would the Bible 
 Society adopt the rule they recommend, 
 a simple, uniform, and satisfactory an- 
 swer would be given in every such ease 
 of complaint. The Committee, rising 
 above all sectarian partialities, and 
 standing on that catholic ground which 
 was ever wont to be the foundation of 
 the Society, would say, “ Of denomina- 
 tional differences we take no cognizance 
 here. We ask not, and we decline to 
 know, in what respects versions may 
 favour the views of any section of the 
 Christian church, or be inimical to them. 
 We patronize none but versions duly 
 accredited for fidelity, and we patronize 
 these alike.” 
 
 Another advantage of this rule is, that 
 it disencumbers the Committee of the 
 Bible Society of the responsibility which 
 belongs to tlie translators who make the 
 versions, and the scholars who attest 
 them. It is no reflection on the Com- 
 mittee to say, that this is a species of 
 responsibility which they are altogether 
 incompetent to assume. Nor could it 
 have been supposed that it is a responsi- 
 bility they were likely to covet. Who 
 ever imagined that to them belonged the 
 
 *1 
 
 functions of philologists and critics ? 
 By the resolution, however, of requiring 
 translations to conform to the authorized 
 English version in the words relating to 
 baptism, they have imposed upon them- 
 selves this burden. It will surely pro- 
 vide them enough of difficult and unac- 
 customed labour to examine all the ver- 
 sions they take under their patronage, in 
 order to ascertain that there be in none 
 of them an infraction of the rule- The 
 practice, moreover, of transferring words, 
 if once adopted for the reason they as- 
 sign, can never be restricted to those 
 words. Many more, as the memorialists 
 have shown, are in a precisely similar 
 predicament. Either they must be trans- 
 ferred, or translated in a way against 
 which no members of the Bible Society 
 can object ; and the Committee make 
 themselves responsible to all the denom- 
 inations that in every case this is done. 
 It must be evident that no committee 
 can discharge such a trust. They them- 
 selves tell us in their last report* that 
 they know it to be impossible. “They 
 are not ashamed to confess (they say) 
 that the magnitude of the attempt to 
 form new versions, or to revise existing 
 ones is such, that they are compelled to 
 shrink from it.” How much is it to be 
 regretted that they did not perceive this 
 before they adopted a resolution which 
 pledges them to undertake it ! It is 
 clear, however, that the resolution is 
 now a mere nullity, and translators may 
 expect that the undivided responsibility 
 of versions will henceforth remain with 
 them. 
 
 To adopt this plan, lastly, is the only 
 way in which the Bible Society can dis- 
 charge its duty as the dispenser of God's 
 word to the nations. Any other will in- 
 volve its conductors in the serious charge 
 of tampering with the Scriptures. Once 
 to take up the ground that fidelity is not 
 the one great and paramount property 
 which shall recommend translations to 
 their assistance, is to quit the rock for 
 the quicksand. It little matters then, 
 whether the circumstance commending 
 them be their conformity to a previously 
 existing version, or the absence of terms 
 unobjectionable to antagonist denomina- 
 tions, or any other circumstance upon 
 which the Committee of the Bible So- 
 ciety may resolve to insist : the only 
 safe position is abandoned. No security 
 is thenceforth possessed against a thou- 
 sand influences which, through the me- 
 
 Resolutions of April 4, 1836. 
 
 p. cxx. 
 
8 
 
 MEMORIAL OF THE BAPTIST UNIOX 
 
 dium of tlie Bible Society itself, may 
 mutilate and corrupt the Bible. The 
 object of that institution should no doubt 
 be, above all things else and at all haz- 
 ards, to give (he contents of the inspired 
 canon to foreign nations in the most per- 
 spicuous and perfect manner in its 
 power; not a part of its contents, but 
 the whole ; not its contents modified or 
 obscured, but as near as possible to their 
 exact import, and written so plain that 
 “ he may run that reads.” To the fact 
 of the western nations not possessing 
 the Scriptures in a complete form in 
 their vernacular tongues is mainly to be 
 attributed the prevalence of the grand 
 apostacy. So at least the Bible Society 
 believes, as a writer informs us, who it 
 is understood is well known and in high 
 estimation with the Committee, and the 
 memorialists agree with him. “ You 
 believed (he says, addressing their se- 
 nior secretary) that the chief success of 
 the Romish priests in twisting to their 
 own purpose certain doubtful or erro- 
 neous renderings, arose from their not 
 giving to the people the entire word of 
 God in a language which they could un- 
 derstand.* * * § ” If this really be the opinion 
 held in Earl Street, it is in point of prin- 
 ciple all the memorialists can desire, 
 since it must make the Committee su- 
 premely anxious to give to the people 
 of the East the “ entire” New Testa- 
 ment, without concealment of a single 
 word. They will only add, that the 
 Christian community at large cannot but 
 rejoice to know that the views of the 
 Committee in relation to it are so defi- 
 nite and so just, and that, warned by 
 the dreadful mischief that has ensued in 
 Europe through leaving parts of the sa- 
 cred record untranslated, they will vigi- 
 lantly guard against any approach to that 
 popish practice in the versions of Asia, 
 and of all the rest of the world. 
 
 Will the Committee now allow the 
 memorialists to recur to the rejected 
 Baptist translations, and especially to 
 the Bengali ? Of this translation the 
 most ample and unquestionable testimo- 
 nials, vouching its faithfulness, were laid 
 before the Committee of the Bible So- 
 ciety, when they were solicited to aid 
 
 * Remarks on a pamphlet recently circulated, 
 &c., in two Letters to the Rev. A. Brandram, 
 M.A. By T. H., understood to be from the 
 pen of the Rev. Joseph Jowett, M.A , Superin- 
 tendent' of the Translating and Editorial De- 
 partment. 
 
 its publication.* No imputation affect- 
 ing its fidelity is indeed cast upon it 
 either in India or in England. The 
 Auxiliary Committee in Calcutta, at a 
 full meeting, assembled for the purpose 
 of deciding which they should adopt, 
 were unanimous in giving it the prefe- 
 rence ;f and the Bible Society has ac- 
 cordingly printed a large edition of it in 
 Calcutta, by consent of the Baptist mis- 
 sionaries ;% and subsequently, without 
 their consent, under the supervision of 
 Dr. Hoeberlin, another edition, in the 
 Roman character, with the English in 
 opposite pages, § in London, substituting 
 on their own responsibility the Greek 
 words relating to baptism for those Ben- 
 gali words which the translators had 
 used. With this exception the memo- 
 rialists believe they are correct in stating 
 the translation as printed by the Bible 
 Society to be in all respects what it was 
 when it came out of the translator’s 
 hands : if there be an}' other difference 
 they have not heard of it, nor have they 
 any reason to suppose such a liberty 
 would be taken. For though the Auxi- 
 liary Committee in Calcutta expressed a 
 wish to make a “few other such altera- 
 tions as a Sub-Committee of Bengali 
 scholars should recommend,” this pro- 
 posal was declined by the missionaries, 
 and does not appear to have been per- 
 sisted in. || Why the alteration was 
 made in the words relating to baptism 
 appears from the resolutions of the Com- 
 mittee, and that reason is, not because 
 the}' were translated unfaithfully, but 
 simply because they were translated. 
 
 Here then is a translation of the New 
 Testament, acknowledged on all hands 
 to be the best which has hitherto been 
 made into the Bengali language, which 
 the Bible Society might give to the mil- 
 lions of heathen, for whom, with so 
 much diligence and carefulness, it has 
 been prepared, but which they will not 
 give, solely because the words relating 
 to baptism are translated by terms sig- 
 nifying immersion. 
 
 it will strike every considerate person, 
 the memorialists conceive, that the Com- 
 mittee would not refuse to circulate 
 such a translation for the reason assigned, 
 unless that reason itself involved some 
 strong ground for their decision, or were 
 supported by extrinsic considerations of 
 
 * Letter from Baptist Missionaries, May 25, 
 
 1825. f Letter from Rev. W. Yates, Aug. 
 
 1, 1835. t R>id. 
 
 § Bible Society’s Report, 1839, p. Ivii. 
 
 i| Letter from Rev, W. Yates, Aug* 1, 1835. 
 
TO THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 9 
 
 great moment. Either it will be sup- 
 posed that the translation in question is 
 unfaithful, though the version in general 
 be not so, or that it is an innovation, or 
 contrary to the past usage of the Society, 
 to circulate versions having these words 
 so translated, or to its constitution, or 
 else that it is sectarian. The memorial- 
 ists think it due, therefore, to all parties 
 concerned, to inquire how the matter 
 stands in each of these particulars. 
 
 Is it then an unfaithful rendering 
 which the Bengali version gives of these 
 words? It is but justice to the Com- 
 mittee to asknowledge that they have 
 never alleged any such objection. The 
 utmost they have said of it is, not that 
 immersion is an inaccurate translation, 
 but that psedobaptists do not like it. 
 On the contrary, its fidelity is tacitly ad- 
 mitted ; for, if not, why is not its un- 
 faithfulness exposed, and the whole dis- 
 pute terminated at once ? 
 
 Is the rendering, then, a novelty? 
 Have the Baptists forsaken ancient and 
 trustworthy guides, and introduced an 
 unnecessary innovation ? Let this ques- 
 tion be determined when the following 
 facts have been considered. Of all ex- 
 isting versions of the New Testament 
 the Peshito Syriac is the oldest. “ Mi- 
 chaelis pronounces it to be the very best 
 translation of the Greek Testament 
 which he ever read, for the general ease, 
 elegance, and fidelity, with which it has 
 been executed. It is confessedly of the 
 highest antiquity, and there is every 
 reason to believe that it was made, if not 
 in the first century, at least in the be- 
 ginning of the second.”* Michaelis, 
 after Father Simon ,t shows also that it 
 was made immediately from the origi- 
 nal.^ In this version the words in ques- 
 tion are uniformly rendered as the Bap- 
 tists translate them. Next in point of 
 antiquity come the Coptic and Ethiopic 
 versions, referred to the third or fourth 
 centuries ; § about the middle of the 
 fourth we have also the Gothic of Ulphi- 
 las. || These all translate the words in 
 the same way, and so also does the an- 
 cient Arabic. Among modern versions 
 which translate by immersion are the 
 Arabic of the Propaganda, of Sabat, and 
 others in the same language, the German 
 of Luther, the Dutch, the Danish, and 
 the Swedish. Some modern versions 
 
 * Horne, v. ii. p. 208. f Crit. Hist. v. ii. p. 119. 
 X Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. ii. c. vii. sec. iv. 
 
 § Ibid. c. xiii. and xvii. 
 
 |] Ibid. vol. ii. c. vii. sec. xxxi. 
 
 render the terms by washing or ablution. 
 This is done in the Persian of Martyn ; 
 but he sometimes employs a phrase 
 which can only mean ablution by dip- 
 ping. The only other mode that has 
 been adopted is that of retaining the 
 Greek word. If, therefore, it be wrong 
 to translate these words as the Baptist 
 missionaries have done, it is at least a 
 very ancient and a very general offence 
 among translators. So far arc they from 
 standing alone, that, lo use the words of 
 the late lamented and learned Superin- 
 tendent of the editorial department of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society, in 
 his masterly defence of the Scrampore 
 Mahratta version, “ it may be safely af- 
 firmed, that many of the most accurate 
 and valuable versions, both ancient and 
 modern, are involved in the same accu- 
 sation ; and that there is not one which 
 is directly hostile to it.” Let it now 
 therefore be determined who are the in- 
 novators, the Baptists, who translate 
 these words, or those who would keep 
 them untranslated. 
 
 The Vulgate, it is true, and such of 
 the Western versions as in this respect 
 have been framed upon its model, among 
 which is our authorized English version, 
 retain the Greek terms. But, though 
 they thus forsake the track of the Orien- 
 tal versions, it is not, as is xvell known, 
 because the translators understood the 
 terms in another sense. To say nothing 
 of continental scholars, whether Roman- 
 ists or Protestants, the fathers of the 
 Anglican church, WiclifT, Tyndale, Cran- 
 mer, and others, speak plainly on the 
 subject, and so to this day does the Book 
 of Common Prayer. But these were 
 consecrated words ; and superstition, 
 church authority, and the command of a 
 pedantic king, combined to hold them in 
 their places, notwithstanding the mani- 
 fest absurdity and criminality of thus 
 muffling up the ordinance of Christ, till 
 its fair but dishonoured countenance is 
 no longer known. And will the Bible 
 Society lend itself to this truth-sup- 
 pressing practice ? Will they not only 
 sanction it, but resolve to sanction no- 
 thing else ? Implicitly condemning the 
 best and most ancient versions, and dis- 
 countenancing those which, like them, 
 speak, as the original Scriptures speak, 
 in plain and intelligible terms, will they 
 put a premium upon such as study to be 
 obscure ? The memorialists would ask, 
 in the pertinent language of Dr. Camp- 
 bell, “ Docs that deserve to be called a 
 version, which conveys neither the mat- 
 
10 
 
 MEMORIAL OF THE BAPTIST ORION 
 
 ter nor the manner of tlie author ? Not 
 the matter, because au unintelligible 
 word conveys no meaning ; not the man- 
 ner, because what the author said simply 
 and familiarly, the translator says scho- 
 lastically and pedantically. And if 
 former translators have from superstition, 
 from fear of giving offence, or from any 
 other motive, been induced to adopt so 
 absurd a method, shall we think our- 
 selves obliged to imitate them? If (the 
 church) herself has been any how in- 
 duced to adopt a style that is not well 
 calculated for conveying the mind of the 
 Lord, nay, which in many things dark- 
 ens, and in some misrepresents it, shall 
 we make less account of communicating 
 clearly the truths revealed by the Spirit, 
 than of perpetuating a phraseology which 
 contributes to the advancement of igno- 
 rance, and of an implicit deference in 
 spiritual matters to human authority ? 
 
 ( )n the contrary,” ( with him they would 
 go on to affirm) “if the church has in pro- 
 cess of timo contracted somewhat of a 
 Babylonish dialect, and thereby lost a 
 great deal of her primitive simplicity, 
 purity, and plainness of manner, her 
 language cannot be too soon cleared of 
 the unnatural mixture, and we cannot 
 too soon restore her native idiom. To 
 act thus is so far from being imputable 
 to the love of novelty, that it results 
 from that veneration of antiquity which 
 leads men to ask for the old paths, and 
 makes the votaries of the true religion 
 desirous to return to the undisguised 
 sentiments, manner, and style of holy 
 writ, which are evidently more ancient 
 than the oldest of these canonized cor- 
 ruptions.”* 
 
 As it is no innovation of the Baptist 
 missionaries to translate these words, so 
 neither is it a novel thing for the Bible 
 Society to circulate versions in which 
 they are so translated. The Society has f 
 done this from the time it commenced 
 the foreign distribution of the Scriptures, 
 it has done it in every quarter of the 
 2 -lobe, and it does it at the present time. 
 The resolution of the Committee there- 
 fore comes too late to derive any sanc- 
 tion from usage. It would have formed 
 an intelligible reason, at least, whatever 
 might have been thought of its value, if 
 they could have said, “We have never 
 given aid to such versions, and cannot 
 now begin.” But they have no such 
 plea. To say nothing of the various 
 versions, both oriental and western, al- 
 
 * Dissertation Jti. 
 
 ready mentioned, it appears from the 
 last report, that the Bible Society has 
 assisted in circulating upwards of 440,000 
 copies of the Scriptures in India alone — 
 240,000 issued by the Calcutta Auxiliary, 
 and 200,000 by the missionaries of Se- 
 rampore ; now as these versions were 
 principally made by Baptists, the vast 
 majority of the copies contain the words 
 in a translated form. They cannot 
 therefore even say that it is a new thing 
 in Bengal. 
 
 The memorialists have however heard 
 it replied that it was done in ignorance. 
 How far this is borne out by facts the 
 following statement will show. So far 
 back as the year 1813, there is a letter 
 from the Rev. A. Fuller, Secretary to the 
 Baptist Mission, to the Rev. J. Hughes, 
 in which the writer says, “In a letter 
 which I lately received from Dr. Carey, 
 he mentions having received one from 
 you, inquiring in what way certain words 
 were rendered in their translations. He 
 wished me to inform you that they had 
 rendered /3a7m$« by a word that signi- 
 fies to immerse, and ’tTrloiconog, by a 
 word that signifies an overseer.” Mr. 
 Hughes replied, “I thank you for the in- 
 formation respecting Dr. Carey. The 
 rendering- which concerns baptism I 
 might deem it proper to exchange for 
 the undefined one adopted in our ver- 
 sion, especially considering the circum- 
 stances under which oriental versions 
 are proceeding. This, however, is sub- 
 mitted with deference, as an opinion 
 from which I am sensible wiser and bet- 
 ter men decisively differ.”" Here then 
 is evidence that, twenty-six years ago, 
 one of the secretaries of tlie Bible Society 
 was in correspondence on the subject, 
 both with the Serampore translators, and 
 with the principal officer of that Society 
 by which they were sent out. Is it to 
 be supposed, even though this were an 
 unofficial correspondence, that it was 
 profoundly kept in the breast of Mr. 
 Hughes ? Did he never mention it to 
 either of his colleagues? Or, even be- 
 yond these individuals, was it never 
 talked of among the members of the 
 Committee, especially such as took a 
 lead ? If there were this total silence in 
 doors on the subject, it is certain there 
 was none out. This very correspond- 
 ence was, as is remembered, the topic 
 of free conversation in other circles ; 
 and even of debate at least at one, if not 
 at more associations of ministers and 
 
 * Baptist Magazine, 1838, p. 65. 
 
TO THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 11 
 
 churches. It must be well known to 
 those who have any experience in public 
 societies, how often it happens that their 
 functionaries or committee-men under- 
 take, and are even desired, to make in- 
 quiries in an unofficial manner, which 
 are nevertheless intended for the infor- 
 mation of their conductors. But besides 
 this, it will be seen by a reference to the 
 early proceedings of the Bible Society, 
 that the Baptist missionaries were from 
 the first in habitual confidential commu- 
 nication with the Rev. D. Brown and 
 the Rev. Dr. Buchanan, through whom, 
 until an Auxiliary Committee was or- 
 ganized in Calcutta, the correspondence 
 with the Bible Society relating to their 
 versions was principally conducted. 
 That organization took place in 1809 ;* 
 and they were then officially associated 
 with other gentlemen, and with the Pa- 
 rent Committee itself. Through this me- 
 dium the missionaries received in the 
 same year the first grant paid to them 
 by the Bible Society amounting to 1000/. 
 From their coadjutors, with whom by 
 office they were now connected, it is not 
 pretended that there was any conceal- 
 ment, as from Mr. Brown and Dr. Bu- 
 ehanan there had been none ; and they 
 must have had opportunity enough to 
 have possessed themselves of the secret, 
 if there had. The versions, moreover, as 
 soon as published, were open to the in- 
 spection of all the world, and criticisms 
 upon them were invited by public adver- 
 tisement. t Very possible, indeed, it is, 
 that the gentlemen composing the Com- 
 mittee when the grants were suspended 
 were not acquainted with the facts of 
 the case. It is possible, also, that those 
 gentlemen might not know that so many 
 other versions, to which they were giv- 
 ing, and to which their successors still 
 continue to givetheir countenance, trans- 
 late the words in the same obnoxious 
 way, until it was brought before them by 
 the present controversy. The Commit- 
 tee of the Bible Society, however, is 
 elected every year ; and it is not to be 
 concluded, because the individuals com- 
 posing it in 1833 may have been ignorant 
 of a particular fact, that it was therefore 
 unknown to their predecessors in office 
 twenty years before. But what entirely 
 destroys the little remaining force which 
 this plea of ignorance may yet perhaps 
 be thought to retain, is the circumstance 
 that, after the Committee were informed 
 
 * Owen Hist. British and Foreign Bible So- 
 ciety, vol. i. 99, 277, 288 ; vol. ii. p. 14. 
 
 t Owen. vol. iii. p. 466. 
 
 I of the fact, they were still willing to ex- 
 hibit their accustomed aid. For when 
 application was first made to them for 
 help in printing this Bengali version, 
 though they had received a letter some 
 time before from three Psedobaptist mis- 
 sionaries in Calcutta, requesting them on 
 the very ground of these words being 
 translated to withhold their grants from 
 the Baptists, the Secretary of the Bible 
 Society wrote to the Auxiliary in that 
 city, stating that, if the version were a 
 good one, it was the wish of the Com- 
 mittee to afford assistance.* 
 
 The memorialists would in this place 
 add, that since the circulation of immer- 
 sionist versions has been the practice of 
 the Society from its first foreign opera- 
 tions up to the present time, and is its 
 practice still ; since this practice was 
 commenced by the founders of the In- 
 stitution, who framed its constitution, 
 and enacted its laws ; and since the first 
 and only deviation from it is that which 
 gives occasion to the present complaint ; 
 that deviation cannot have been made 
 to vindicate its violated constitution, 
 but is itself a violation of it. 
 
 But if neither of the preceding rea- 
 sons can justify the Committee, there is 
 yet another which may perhaps serve 
 the purpose. The Baptist versions are 
 “ sectarian they uphold a party in- 
 stead of subserving the general cause of 
 Christian truth ; the tincture of bigotry 
 poisons their catholicity, and renders 
 them undeserving of the common sup- 
 port. If they are open to this charge, 
 the memorialists themselves say, let them 
 perish ; the church and the world can- 
 not be too soon freed from every trace 
 of their existence. But, only asking 
 how fidelity to the original can consist 
 with sectarianism, unless the New Tes- 
 tament itself be sectarian, they are con- 
 tent to leave the defence of their transla- 
 tors in the hands of that late eminently- 
 gifted servant of the Bible Society, to 
 whom they have before referred. “ Bi- 
 gotry,” (says Mr. Greenfield) “that is, 
 blind zeal and prejudice, they cannot 
 justly be accused of, while they have 
 the primitive sense of the term, and the 
 rendering of so many ancient and mo- 
 dern translations, as the foundation upon 
 which they have grounded their ver- 
 sion ; nor can they consistently' be 
 charged with sectarianism, while they 
 are found in company with the churches 
 of Syria, Arabia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Ger- 
 
 Letter of Baptist Missionaries. May 25, 1882. 
 
MEMORIAL OF TIIE BAPTIST UNION 
 
 rj 
 
 many, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, and 
 others, together with the Church of Eng- 
 land itself. If they be bigots, I know 
 not what name the advocates for pour- 
 ing or sprinkling, who have no such 
 basis to rest on, merit; and if theirs be 
 a sect, it must be confessed to be a very 
 ancient, and a very extensive one.” 
 
 “ But there is another point of view,” 
 he continues, (and while he writes these 
 memorable words, he says, as a preface 
 to them, ‘ I wish it to be distinctly un- 
 derstood, that I am neither a Baptist, 
 nor the son of a Baptist’) “ there is an- 
 other point of view in which the oppo- 
 nents of the Serampore Missionaries 
 should consider the subject ; and one 
 which involves the most important con- 
 sequences. Before they arraign the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society as 
 guilty of a gross and unpardonable de- 
 reliction of duty in aiding the Serampore 
 translators, and prefer a recommenda- 
 tion for them to withdraw that aid, they 
 should be fully prepared to carry their 
 censure, as well as their recommenda- j 
 tion, to a much greater extent. In con- 
 sistency, if that aid be withdrawn from 
 the Serampore Missionaries because they 
 have rendered /3a7rrt£w to immerse, then 
 must it also be withdrawn from the 
 churches of Syria, of Arabia, of Abys- \ 
 sinia, of Egypt, of Germany, of Hoi- j 
 land, of Denmark, &c. ; and the venera- 
 ble Peshito-Sj r riac version, the Arabic 
 versions of the Propaganda, of Sabat, 
 &c. ; the Ethiopic, the Coptic, and other 
 versions must all be suppressed. If, 
 however, they are not thus prepared to 
 carry their recommendation to its fullest 
 extent, then must they close their mouths 
 for ever against their Baptist brethren. 
 But should a faction so far prevail over 
 the good sense of the Committee, and 
 the sound and catholic principles upon 
 which the Society is founded, and which 
 have ever been its boast and glorj’, as 
 well as the most powerful means of its 
 extraordinary success, then its ‘honour 
 will be laid in the dust and from a 
 splendid temple, in the service of which 
 the whole Christian world could cor- 
 dially unite, it will dwindle into a con- 
 temptible edifice, dedicated to party 
 feelings, motives, and views. The broad 
 basis upon which it is founded is its 
 strength and security; contract this 
 within narrower limits, and it falls into 
 ruins.” 
 
 Such, in its general merits, is the case 
 of the Baptist versions ; and on the 
 
 grounds thus laid, the memorialists, with 
 great respect, renew their application 
 for aid. They are induced to this mea- 
 sure principally by two considerations ; 
 — first, because they know that in some 
 quarters among their Psedobaptist friends 
 their claim on the Bible Society is ac- 
 knowledged to be just; while the Com- 
 mittee, in their last Annual Report, con- 
 cede, when vindicating their own conduct 
 in reference to certain other versions, all 
 that the memorialists plead for in rela- 
 tion to their own : and next, because 
 they are most unwilling to proceed) in 
 any steps of separate organization for 
 raising funds to print and circulate them, 
 until the Committee shall have told them 
 again, if indeed they will tell them so, 
 that the Bible Society determines to cast 
 them off". 
 
 It will be in the recollection of the 
 Committee, that the Baptist Missionary 
 Society applied for aid towards the Ben- 
 gali version first in the autumn of 1832, 
 and again in February, 1836. The se- 
 cond application, however, was not a 
 repetition of the first ; it differed ma- 
 terially in its character. Though the 
 Baptist body felt deeply aggrieved that, 
 for the first time in the history of the 
 Bible Society, its Committee had frowned 
 upon the efforts of their missionaries in 
 the field of Bible translation, where 
 they had acquired so just a celebrity, 
 they still loved the Institution; and for 
 the sake of preserving the harmonious 
 co-operation in which, through so many 
 years, they had been joint labourers in 
 giving to the millions of India the word 
 of life, they were willing to accept a 
 grant simply for the use of their own 
 churches. Instead, therefore, of stand- 
 ing upon the ancient ground of asking 
 that they might be enabled to put the 
 version into general circulation, they re- 
 quested only “ a small supply” for them- 
 selves ; and this they conceived might 
 have heen the more readily complied 
 with, as their missionaries were about to 
 print a large edition for the general pur- 
 poses of the Bible Society, with the 
 words relating to baptism altered. This 
 second application, however, shared the 
 fate of the first. 
 
 It may not be improper to mention, 
 that this application was preceded, at 
 the instance of the Committee of the 
 Baptist Mission, by a personal confer- 
 ence between the noble President of the 
 Bible Society, attended by its principal 
 officers, and a deputation from them ; so 
 desirous were they of leaving no method 
 
TO THE BRITISH AX D FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 13 
 
 untried by which they could hope to 
 preserve the friendly understanding that 
 had always hitherto subsisted between 
 the two institutions. 
 
 Again repulsed, it became a matter of 
 anxious deliberation whether now the 
 Baptist body ought not to take imme- 
 diate steps to originate that support 
 which the Bible Society denied. But 
 they yielded to mild counsels. Reluct- 
 ant to the last degree to resort to a 
 course which should separate them in 
 any measure from the Bible Society, 
 they resolved to make another effort to 
 bring things back into their old channel. 
 A document was accordingly prepared, 
 setting forth in the form of a protest the 
 principal reasons sustaining their cause; 
 and, having received the signatures of 
 considerably more than 500 of their mi- 
 nisters, it was presented to the Com- 
 mittee in March of the following year. 
 But this also failed. At this stage of 
 the business, the whole case was review- 
 ed and argued from the press by one of 
 their ministers, standing deservedly high 
 in the esteem of his brethren, in a letter 
 to Lord Bexley; but though this pam- 
 phlet was extensively circulated, remains 
 unanswered, and is known to have had 
 considerable influence upon individual 
 minds, it has effected no change in the 
 Committee. And thus the matter at pre- 
 sent stands. 
 
 This brief recapitulation of circum- 
 stances the memorialists conceive, must 
 show that the Baptist body has not been 
 hasty to redress its wrongs ; that it has 
 evinced a scrupulous and tender regard 
 to the character of the Bible Society, 
 using all proper means to prevent a rup- 
 ture, and to induce the Committee to 
 retrace their steps ; and that, if, making- 
 still one pacific movement more, it 
 should unhappily be foiled in that, there 
 remains no other course for it to adopt 
 than, trusting in God, and seeking aid 
 wherever it maybe found, to enter upon 
 that department of Scripture distribution 
 from which, amidst its deepest regrets, 
 the Bible Society retires. 
 
 This final overture for a restoration of 
 concord is now made. The memorial- 
 ists have the means of knowing that, in 
 the document they now place before the 
 Committee, they represent the senti- 
 ments of their denomination throughout 
 the United Kingdom. Once more, there- 
 fore, they entreat the Committee to rec- 
 tify the cause of their complaint, and 
 not to force from the bosom of the Bible 
 Society a whole denomination of Chris- 
 
 tians who were amongst its earliest and 
 most useful friends. They confess them- 
 selves not without hope of a favourable 
 issue, from certain indications of altered 
 views which have much cheered their 
 minds. To individuals it would not be 
 decorous more explicitly to refer ; leav- 
 ing, therefore, those higlity-respected 
 ministers not of their body, who never- 
 theless coincide with them in opinion as 
 to the duty of the Society, to use their 
 influence in whatever manner they may 
 prefer, the memorialists would call the 
 attention of the Committee to their own 
 language in the conclusion of their last 
 Report. 
 
 In that Report the Committee enter 
 upon the vindication of their conduct, 
 in answer to the charge of another so- 
 ciety, in circulating certain versions on 
 the continent of Europe which are al- 
 leged not to be “ genuine versions of 
 the Word of God.” In the course of 
 their exculpatory observations, the fol- 
 lowing passages occur : — 
 
 “ They would begin (they say) with 
 remarking that they have always been 
 aware that these versions are justly open 
 to much exception.” 
 
 “ They would also beg to state that, 
 taking the calmest view of all the pas- 
 sages objected to, they do not find that 
 any thing essential is involved.’ 
 
 “They are aware of their many and 
 serious defects ; but they are net ashamed 
 to confess, that the magnitude of the at- 
 tempt to form new versions, or to revise 
 existing ones, is such that they are com- 
 pelled to shrink from it. The}- bid God 
 speed to all who may make attempts of 
 this kind, and shall rejoice unfeignedly 
 if they succeed ; but they know that 
 success must be a work of time ; and, 
 in the meanwhile, they feel themselves 
 justified in using imperfect versions — 
 versions which bear many marks of the 
 infirmities, not always excusable, of the 
 translators.” 
 
 “ Your Committee now turn to the 
 real question which the Society has to 
 consider — Does the amount of erroneous 
 translation, or of even corrupt transla- 
 tion, to use the stronger term, justify the 
 condemnation and consequent abandon- 
 ment of the versions referred to, as un- 
 worthy to be called the Word of God ? 
 Your Committee think a satisfactory 
 conclusion in the negative may.be ar- 
 rived at, by the following considera- 
 tions — 
 
 The memorialists quote the first. 
 
 “No version is perfect — no version is to 
 
14 
 
 MEMORIAL OF THE BAPTIST UNION 
 
 be found but what contains acknowledged 
 error, and, in a great many instances, 
 error that might be corrected. Your 
 Committee are persuaded (hat if even 
 the English authorized version were dealt 
 with in the same manner as the Portu- 
 guese, an amount of individual mistrans- 
 lations might be presented, which would, 
 with equal justice,* give rise to the 
 question, Can such a version be called 
 the Word of God? Errors are to be 
 found in it, which the humblest scholar 
 could not only 7 point out, but correct. 
 Errors, too, there are which obscure the 
 sense, in some important instances.” 
 
 In still further vindication of them- 
 selves, they add that, “ In giving such 
 versions to the people in their respective 
 countries, it has been regarded as a duty 
 to give them as they are, and not to at- 
 tempt to alter and improve them. They 7 
 have been given, with all their faults, 
 for what they are, with the name of the 
 translator on the title page : and your 
 Committee have ever deemed it of im- 
 portance to be able to say, through their 
 distributors, to the people, ‘ This is the 
 book known and recognized by your 
 own church.’ ” 
 
 “ Great as may be the variations be- 
 tween the English and the Portuguese, 
 or any other version circulated by the 
 Society, they all teach substantially one 
 and the same truth : — they set forth the 
 grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love 
 of God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Ghost. They all proclaim who and what 
 the Saviour is, — his proper Deity — his 
 one great sacrifice for sin — his interces- 
 sion with the Father- — his coming again 
 to judgment —man’s guilt, condemna- 
 tion, iind helplessness — the Holy Spirit’s 
 grace, power, and work. They are all, 
 your Committee solemnly believe, able 
 to save the souls of men ; ‘ to make men 
 wise unto salvation, through faith which 
 is in Christ Jesus.’ They all say, ‘ Search 
 the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye 
 have eternal life ; and they are they 
 which testify of me.’ ” 
 
 And they ask, “Are there not indi- 
 viduals in considerable numbers — are 
 there not congregations to which the 
 Society might point, and with reference 
 
 * “ The Committee are surprised to find 
 that this expression has been misapprehended. 
 “ With equal justice” — that is, if justly in one 
 case, justly also in the other. According to 
 the view taken by the Committee, they might 
 have said, “ With equal injustice and that 
 this was their meaning sufficiently appears 
 from the sentence which occurs towards the 
 conclusion of this paragraph.” Report , p. exxi. 
 
 | to which they might, accommodating 
 the words of the apostle, say, ‘ Ye are 
 the seal of our apostleship ?' Are there 
 not, in other words, many now ‘the 
 children of light,’ and walking as such, 
 who gratefully acknowledge that they 
 owe their all to some of these very con- 
 demned versions ? — who confess that the 
 light which they have, beamed upon 
 them from these very pages ? — who, now 
 rejoicing in the Lord as their Righteous- 
 ness, have learned the sacred truth from 
 these translations?” 
 
 And they conclude in a paragraph 
 which commences with the following 
 sentence : 
 
 “ Your Committee have thus simply 
 stated the principle upon which, with 
 regard to their versions, they have acted 
 in years that are past ; together with 
 the reasons which seem to justify their 
 adherence to that principle in years to 
 come.” 
 
 On these passages the memorialists 
 beg to submit to the consideration of the 
 Committee the following remarks. 
 
 These European versions, it is said, 
 the Committee have always known to 
 be “justly open to much exception,” 
 and “ they are aware of their many and 
 serious defects.” Still they circulate 
 them, and circulate them not with hesi- 
 tation, as though it were a thing of 
 doubtful propriety 7 ; but they say, “they 
 feel themselves justified in using imper- 
 fect versions — versions which bear many 
 marks of the infirmities, not always ex- 
 cusable, of the translators.” 
 
 Let it then be conceded that the Ben- 
 gali and other Baptist versions are “ im- 
 perfect versions” — imperfect, that is, of 
 course, not in general execution ; for it 
 was never pretended they were exempt 
 from the characteristic of all human per- 
 formances — but imperfect in the render- 
 ing of the particular words ; let it even 
 be conceded that in this rendering they 7 
 betray the inexcusable infirmities of the 
 translators ; still, by the Committee’s 
 own showing, they ought not on this 
 account to have been rejected. When 
 this charge is brought against the Portu- 
 guese version, the Committee say, “ We 
 know it is a just charge, but we shall 
 continue to circulate notwithstanding." 
 When it is brought against the Baptist 
 versions, the Committee say 7 , “ Whether 
 it be a just charge or not we give no 
 opinion, but we shall withdraw our sup- 
 port.” Is this treatment of the different 
 versions equal? Is it right? 
 
 But perhaps the reasons by which the 
 
TO THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 15 
 
 Committee vindicate themselves in the 
 case of the European versions are such 
 as justify the distinction. What then 
 are they ? As the memorialists gather 
 them from the Report, they are the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 ]. “Taking the calmest view of all 
 the passages objected to, the Committee 
 do not find that any thing essential is in- 
 volved.” These passages no doubt might 
 have suppressed fundamental truth, or 
 have inculcated fatal error. It appears 
 they do neither ; for thus it is imagined 
 the Committee must mean their words 
 to be understood when they say, “ they 
 do not find that any thing essential is 
 involved and they consequently deem 
 them worthy of support. But will the 
 Committee show what fundamental truth 
 is suppressed, or what fatal error is incul- 
 cated, when /3a7rri?a> is translated to im- 
 merse ? Baptists are accused of attach- 
 ing an undue importance to their mode 
 of administering the Christian rite ; but 
 where will the accusation lie now ? 
 Though they have the concurrent testi- 
 mony of antiquity, of versions, and of 
 criticism on their side, they never in- 
 sisted upon immersion as a fundamental 
 truth ; but the Committee of the Bible 
 Society do what is equivalent to this — 
 they proscribe it as though it were a 
 fatal error. 
 
 2. The next reason assigned by the 
 Committee is, that, as they can neither 
 make versions nor revise them, they 
 thankfully avail themselves of the la- 
 bours of those who can, even though 
 much imperfection may blend with 
 them. “They are not ashamed to con- 
 i fess (they tell us) that the magnitude of 
 the attempt to form new versions, or to 
 revise existing ones, is such that they 
 i are compelled to shrink from it. They 
 bid God speed to all who may make at- 
 tempts of this kind, and will rejoice un- 
 feignedly if they succeed.” 
 
 Attempts of this kind the Baptist mis- 
 sionaries have made, with what success 
 the former records of the Bible Society 
 sufficiently declare. 
 
 It might well be deemed superfluous 
 to eulogize the biblical labours of Dr. 
 Carey and his colleagues. Their repu- 
 tation in this important department of 
 Christian philanthropy is too well found- 
 ed, and too universally acknowledged 
 by learned men of all communities, 
 to be called in question now. Of the 
 competency of Dr. Yates and the bre- 
 thren associated with him to succeed to 
 the work of translation, the testimonies 
 
 to the Bengali version already laid be- 
 fore the public, and its acknowledged 
 superiority to all preceding versions in 
 that language, are ample proof. Why 
 then, since the Committee affirm that 
 they bid God speed to all who make at- 
 tempts of this kind, and rejoice unfeign- 
 ed ly if they succeed, do they not “ bid 
 God speed” to them ? Why, instead of 
 bidding them God speed, do they weaken 
 their hands, and use the influence of that 
 great confederation of Christian commu- 
 nities to discredit their versions ? Again 
 the memorialists have to ask if this is 
 worthy of the Bible Society ? if it is 
 just ? if it is in harmony with the pro- 
 fessions of the Committee ? 
 
 3. The Committee inquire, as a third 
 reason, “ Does the amount of erroneous 
 translation, or even of corrupt transla- 
 tion, to use the stronger term, justify 
 the condemnation and consequent aban- 
 donment of the versions referred to as 
 unworthy to be called the word of God;” 
 and they “think a satisfactory conclu- 
 sion in the negative may be arrived at.” 
 Among the considerations by the help 
 of which they arrive at this conclusion, 
 is the fact, that “ no version is perfect 
 and “ that if even the English author- 
 ized version were dealt with in the same 
 manner as the Portuguese, an amount of 
 individual mistranslation might be pre- 
 sented, which would with equal justice 
 (or, as they say in a note, with equal 
 injustice) give rise to the question, Can 
 such a version be called the word of 
 God?” 
 
 Here then are versions, of which it is 
 alleged that there is in them “ an amount 
 of corrupt translation,” or to take the 
 milder term of “erroneous translation,” 
 which gives rise to the question if they 
 can be considered the word of God. 
 The inference drawn from the errors 
 they contain, and insinuated in the 
 question, is indeed denied, but the fact 
 of the existence of these errors or cor- 
 ruptions is admitted. If the Committee 
 of the Bible Society will patronize these 
 versions with their admitted amount of 
 corrupt translation, or of erroneous trans- 
 lation, a fortiori, they ought to patronize 
 another version, against which no cor- 
 ruption at all, and even no error is al- 
 leged ; for its rejection has never been 
 grounded on the charge of corrupt trans- 
 lation, or even of erroneous translation, 
 but only on a translation which psedo- 
 baptists disapprove. “ If the English 
 authorized version,” moreover, it is said, 
 “ were dealt with in the same manner as 
 
16 
 
 MEMORIAL OF TUE BAPTIST UNION 
 
 the Portuguese, an amount of individual 
 mistranslation miglitbe presented, which 
 would with equal injustice give rise to 
 the question, Can such a version be 
 called the word of God?” What in- 
 justice then would be done it, if it were 
 dealt with in the same manner as the 
 Bengali ? That version is condemned 
 as unworthy of the Bible Society’s sup- 
 port. Not simply is it interrogatively 
 insinuated that such a version cannot be 
 the word of God, it is practically treated 
 as though it were not. With all the 
 mistranslations of the English version, 
 and all the erroneous or corrupt transla- 
 tions of the Portuguese version, they are 
 circulated ; but with no alleged mis- 
 translation, no corrupt translation, or 
 even erroneous translation, the Bengali 
 version is abandoned. Again the me- 
 morialists must ask if this is a consistent 
 proceeding ? 
 
 4. In the fourth place, the Committee 
 say, that “ in giving such versions to the 
 people in their respective countries, it 
 has been regarded as a duty to give them 
 as they are, and not to attempt to alter 
 and improve them. They have been 
 given, with all their faults, for what they 
 are, with the name of the translator on 
 the title-page ; and j our Committee 
 have ever deemed it of importance to 
 be able to say, through their distribu- 
 tors, to the people — ‘ This is the book 
 known and recognized by jour own 
 church.’ ” 
 
 In this remarkable passage, remark- 
 able for its pertinency to the case in 
 hand, there are at least three distinct 
 admissions, each of which concludes 
 against the decision of the Committee. 
 
 1. In the first place, they say they re- 
 gard it as a duty not to attempt to alter 
 and improve versions, but to give them 
 as they are. Had the Committee for- 
 gotten when they penned this sentence, 
 what they did to the 5000 copies of the 
 Bengali version, or did they in that in- 
 stance intentionally violate their regard 
 to duty ? The memorialists are loath to 
 impute the latter ; they think that up- 
 right men would not wilfully do wrong. 
 But if it were forgetfulness of duty, and 
 not intentional violation of it, the Com- 
 mittee will immediately set themselves 
 right. 
 
 2. Versions “tire given with all their 
 faults, for what they are, with the name 
 of the translator on the title-page.” In 
 other words, the Committee do not take 
 upon them the responsibility of transla- 
 tions, but leave that to be borne by the 
 
 translator. As it is no duty of theirs to 
 attempt to alter and improve what he 
 may have done, so his name on the title- 
 page tells all the world that the Com- 
 mittee have left the translation untouch- 
 ed. And what besides this have the 
 Baptists ever asked ? “ Give our ver- 
 
 sions (we respectfully say) for what 
 they are.” We have never desired to 
 shift the responsibility, our whole com- 
 plaint is that we are not suffered to 
 take it. 
 
 .3. The “ Committee has ever deemed 
 it of importance to be able to say, 
 through their distributors, to the people 
 — This is the book known and recog- 
 nized by j T our own church.” The me- 
 morialists are again compelled to recal 
 to the remembrance of the Committee 
 circumstances which they must have for- 
 gotten. Not “ ever” have they done 
 tliis. In one instance, at least, it was 
 thought of no importance. The Baptists 
 were content to have taken “ a small 
 supply” for ( the use of their own peo- 
 ple ; and tliej' would have said to them, 
 as they presented the New Testament in 
 the capacity of the Committee’s distri- 
 butors — “ The Bible Society gives j r ou 
 this as the book known and recognized 
 by j'our own church." But the boon 
 was denied. The Committee, in effect, 
 have said, the Roman Church shall have 
 their version in Portugal, the Episcopa- 
 lian in England, the Lutheran in Ger- 
 many, the Psedobaptists in China ; but 
 the Baptists shall not have theirs. If 
 the Bible Society can accomplish it, not 
 onlj' shall immersion as a mode of bap- 
 tism, he banished from every other 
 church in India, it shall be suppressed 
 in the Baptist itself. Again, the memo- 
 rialists put the question, Is this generous 
 treatment? Is it worthy of an Institu- 
 tion which is meant to comprehend all 
 churches, and to exclude none ? 
 
 4. The fourth reason by which the 
 Committee defend their support of Ro- 
 man Catholic versions is, that, great as 
 may be the variations between them and 
 the English version, “ they all teach sub- 
 stantially one and the same truth. Thej’’ 
 set forth (the Committee saj’) the grace 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of 
 God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Ghost. Tliej- all proclaim who, and 
 what the Saviour is, his proper Deity, 
 his one great sacrifice for sin, his inter- 
 cession with the Father, his coming 
 again to judgment ; man’s guilt, con- 
 | demnation, and helplessness; the Holy 
 Spirit’s grace, power, and work. They 
 
TO THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 17 
 
 are all, your Committee solemnly be- 
 lieve, able to save the souls of men ; ‘ to 
 make men wise unto salvation, through 
 faith which is in Christ Jesus.’ They 
 all say, ‘Search the Scriptures, for in 
 them ye think ye have eternal life ; and 
 they are they which testify of me.’ ” 
 
 It were needless to spend five words 
 in showing that this reason is alike ap- 
 plicable to the Baptist versions. 
 
 5. The past usefulness of the European 
 versions is assigned as the last reason 
 for their retention. But whatever weight 
 there maybe in this argument, it pleads at 
 least with equal, if not with superior force, 
 for the versions of the Baptists. With 
 what propriety might it not be inquired, 
 in the verv language of the Committee, 
 “ Are there not individuals in consider- 
 able numbers, are there not congrega- 
 tions, to which the Society might point, 
 and with reference to which they might, 
 accommodating thewords of the apostle, 
 say, ‘Ye are the seal of our Apostle- 
 ship?’ Are there not, in other words, 
 many, now ‘ the children of light,’ and 
 walking as such, who gratefully acknow- 
 ledge that they owe their all, to some of 
 those very condemned versions ? who 
 confess that the light which they have, 
 beamed upon them from these very 
 pages ? who, now rejoicing in the Lord 
 as their righteousness, have learned the 
 sacred truth from these translations ? ” 
 Who more appropriately shall be called 
 the apostle of Bengal than William Ca- 
 rey ? By whom have Christian churches 
 been planted in British India, if not by 
 Baptist missionaries ? And by whose 
 labours were the missionaries throughout 
 that vast territory of every denomination 
 provided with the Scriptures, but by 
 Baptist translators? By “these very 
 condemned versions” how many hea- 
 thens have been led to renounce their 
 “abominable idolatries?” How manj' 
 triumphs have been achieved over the 
 Shasters and the Koran ? How many of 
 the most abject and down-trodden vas- 
 sals of Satan have been lifted up to a 
 communion with Infinite purity and 
 love ? How many voices, once frantic 
 with the yells of demons, are now at- 
 tuned to “ the song of Moses and the 
 Lamb?” If past usefulness shall be a 
 plea with the Committee, let them think 
 of the moral change which has taken 
 place, and is still in progress, over the 
 whole extent of our Indian Empire ; let 
 them think of caste broken, suttee ex- 
 tinguished, native schools opened, fe- 
 male education instituted, Christian 
 j churches formed, benevolent institutions 
 
 founded, opposition silenced, and Go- 
 vernments themselves enlisted on the 
 Bible’s side ; let them think of the 
 thousands of converts to the Christian 
 faith, of the hundreds of native agents 
 variously employed in its propagation ; 
 of Krishna, Rammohun, Sebukram, Ram- 
 prusad, Aratoon, Soojatullee, and num- 
 bers more, Hindoos or Mussulmans once, 
 becoming preachers of “ the glorious 
 gospel of the blessed God let them 
 listen to the recital of facts such as 
 every missionary can tell them comifig 
 from the plains of Hindostan, to the 
 alarmed apprehensions of Brahmins of 
 the downfall of their ancient mythology, 
 and to the glowing hopes of Christians 
 of the approaching universal triumph of 
 Christianity ; and let them remember, 
 that, so far as these effects are to be at- 
 tributed to the Scriptures at all, they 
 are to be mainly attributed to these con- 
 demned and abandoned versions of the 
 Scriptures, for there were no other ; and 
 then let them consider, if the plea of 
 usefulness is to prevail, whether these 
 circumstances do not establish an irre- 
 sistible argument for their re-instatement 
 in the patronage of the Bible Society. 
 
 In conclusion, the Committee tell the 
 public, that they have thus “ stated the 
 principle upon which, with regard to 
 their versions, they have acted in years 
 that are past, together with the reasons 
 which seem to justify their adherence to 
 that principle in years to come.” 
 
 To the uniformity, however, with 
 which they have acted upon this prin- 
 ciple, their conduct towards the Baptists 
 forms an exception. The memorialists 
 believe, and they rejoice to believe, that 
 it is the solitary exception. They sin- 
 cerely hope that no other faithful ver- 
 sions of the Scriptures have been treated 
 as theirs have been, or ever will be. It 
 may be enough for any body of Chris- 
 tians to have taken a resolution only in 
 one instance, which, however uninten- 
 tionally on their part, will not let God 
 speak the whole revelation of his will in 
 a language that can be understood. The 
 memorialists are aware that this is put- 
 ting the case plainly and solemnly. So- 
 lemnly they wish to put it, and with 
 plain-spoken truthfulness. They impute 
 no evil motives, they believe none ex- 
 isted in the minds of the Committee; on 
 the contrary, they are persuaded those 
 excellent persons who passed the reso- 
 lution acted under a conviction that 
 they were doing what duty required at 
 their hands. But that such conviction 
 was founded in error, cannot, they con- 
 
18 
 
 MEMORIAL OF TIIE BAPTIST UNION. 
 
 ceive, be a matter of doubt, now the 
 consequences which their resolution in- 
 volves are apparent. Looking at the 
 subject, not in the light simply of a dif- 
 ference of opinion between Baptists and 
 Paedobaptists, but in its whole extent of 
 application to the great work of Bible 
 translation, and at the consequences 
 which must ensue, either as translators 
 shall feel themselves bound to give the 
 entire Scriptures without concealing any 
 part, or at liberty to evade translation, 
 or to translate on a principle of accom- 
 modation and compromise; the memo- 
 rialists must confess, that no language 
 they can employ would adequately re- 
 present their views of its importance. 
 They have accordingly 7 desired to deal 
 with it, not as a party question, but as a 
 grave matter of Christian morals, in the 
 decision of which the whole church of 
 Christ is concerned. As a party ques- 
 tion by no fairness of representation can 
 it be exhibited. With that volume be- 
 fore them which is their Heavenly Fa- 
 ther’s gift to the whole human family, 
 and which they and the rest of the 
 Christian church hold in trust for all their 
 brethren of mankind, mere party ques- 
 tions sink in their esteem into unutter- 
 able insignificance. They plead not for 
 the advantage of their own denomina- 
 tion, but for common principles, in 
 which there ought to be a concurrence 
 amongst all denominations. They plead 
 for the restoration of harmony, for a re- 
 turn to the ancient paths, the good old 
 ways in which the Bible Society used to 
 walk, and in which, towards all but 
 themselves, its determination is declared 
 to walk in future— in a word, they plead 
 for the consistency and honour of the 
 Bible Society itself. 
 
 Time was, when in concluding one of 
 their Annual Reports,* the Committee 
 could say, 
 
 “ Let it not be forgotten, that the ba- 
 sis of the Society is as ample as ever. 
 There the various communions of Chris- 
 tians have enjoyed communion with each 
 other. There, within the range of the 
 United Kingdom, the Episcopalian has 
 delighted to meet and encourage, and to 
 be met and encouraged by, his brethren 
 of other names. There they have mu- 
 tually learned, that brethren they are, 
 and there they indulge the hope that 
 brethren they shall remain, and dwell 
 together in unitj 7 . There they have 
 mingled their sympathies with the breth- 
 ren of the Lutheran and the Reformed 
 churches of the Continent. There they 
 have witnessed with delight, the breath- 
 ings of the pious Roman Catholic, and 
 have hailed the approach of 'the Greek 
 and Armenian, the Syrian, the Copt, and 
 the Chaldee Christian. All, of every 
 name, who love the Lord Jesus Christ in 
 sincerity, have gladly extended to each 
 other the right hand of fellowship.” 
 
 But should the Committee in an evil 
 hour, turn a deaf ear to the pleadings of 
 the memorialists, the time they describe 
 in these glowing terms is gone. One 
 denomination of Christians who trust 
 they may, nevertheless, humbly aver 
 that they “ love the Lord Jesus Christ in 
 sincerity,” is expelled from the fraternal 
 union ; or, if they still retain a place as 
 contributors — which numbers of them 
 will — and, if one or two of their body 
 are continued on the Committee — as 
 probably they may — their translations 
 are discarded, their churches are ag- 
 grieved, and they no longer unite on 
 terms of equality. Christians of every 
 other name, and in their distinctive 
 names, may still extend to each other 
 the right hand of unbroken friendship ; 
 but henceforth, though still extended, 
 the right hand of a Baptist none maj' 
 take. 
 
 * A.D. 1829. 
 
 AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE BAPTIST UNION, 
 
 Held Dec. 17, 1839, 
 
 Thomas Pewtress, Esq., in the Chair. 
 
 Resolved unanimously, — That the cordial thanks of this Committee be presented to the Rev. E. 
 Steane, for the highly valuable Memorial to the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, which he has drawn up by the desire of this Committee, and now read. 
 
 Resolved unanimously,— That the document now read be adopted as the Memorial of this Com- 
 mittee, and be presented as such to the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Societv, at 
 their next meeting, by the Rev. Edward Steane, the Rev. John Dyer, and the Rev. J. H. 
 Hinton, A.M. 
 
Cambencdl , Feb. 28, 1840. 
 
 Deaii Sir, — By direction of the Committee of the Baptist Union, I 
 transmit you the preceding Memorial. Agreeably with the instructions of 
 the Committee, it was presented by the deputation appointed for the purpose 
 to the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, at their meeting 
 of January 6th. On the 28th of the same month their answer was received, 
 in which they adhere to their previous determination not to grant aid to our 
 translations of the New Testament, and conclude by calling upon us to 
 re-consider the subject. The steps proper to be taken having been matter of 
 serious and protracted deliberation, the Committee of the Union, at its 
 meeting on the 2nd instant, unanimously adopted the subjoined Resolutions. 
 
 A Provisional Committee has been appointed to carry these resolutions 
 into effect; and I have to request that you will oblige me with any com- 
 munication you may kindly make on this subject in compliance with the 
 last of them, on or before the 18th of March. 
 
 I am, my dear Sir, yours faithfully, 
 
 EDWARD STEANE, 
 
 Secretary, pro tem. 
 
 m I. Resolved unanimously , 
 
 That this Committee having attentively con- 
 sidered the communication of the Committee of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society, in reply 
 to the Memorial, are deeply concerned to find 
 that, upon an answer to that document so in- 
 conclusive — some of the main points of the case 
 being evaded, others misrepresented, and none 
 disposed of in a satisfactory manner — they 
 should persist in rejecting versions of the New 
 Testament admitted to be faithful ; the only 
 allegation against them being, that the rendering 
 of a certain word, with an honest adherence to 
 what the translators believe to be its exact 
 meaning, is found by the Committee to be un- 
 acceptable to some of their constituents. 
 
 II. Resolved unanimously , 
 
 That in the opinion of this Committee, the 
 answer to the Memorial lays no new ground on 
 which the Memorialists can with propriety be 
 required to re-consider their position. That 
 position, taken at first upon mature delibera- 
 tion, and strengthened by seven years’ reflection 
 (during which time the subject has been in 
 debate) cannot now be abandoned, unless it may 
 be shown that it is right to sacrifice conscience to 
 views of expediency, or to suppress the meaning 
 of some part of the word of God. The resist- 
 ance to it manifested by the Committee of the 
 Bible Society, this Committee are moreover con- 
 vinced rests on grounds which are utterly un- 
 tenable, whether considered in relation to sound 
 canons of biblical translation, to the first and 
 most imperative duty of translators, to the con- 
 stitution and past usage of the Bible Society, to 
 its present practice in other instances, or to 
 those obvious and just principles on which alone 
 it can proceed in such cases with honour or 
 safety. 
 
 III. Resolved unanimously, 
 
 That the continued refusal of the Committee 
 of the Bible Society to support the versions of 
 the New Testament made by the Baptist mis- 
 sionaries, notwithstanding their admitted supe- 
 riority and unquestioned faithfulness, leaves the 
 Baptist body no alternative, after seven years’ 
 endurance of the wrong, and the employment 
 
 all proper methods to obtain redress, but to seek 
 support for them by an appeal to the Christian 
 public through an organization formed for that 
 purpose ; a measure which will be adopted with 
 extreme reluctance, but which the Committee 
 of the Bible Society has forced upon them by 
 its inequitable decision. 
 
 IV. Resolved unanimously, 
 
 That a Society he accordingly formed, of 
 which the following be proposed as the Consti- 
 tution and Rules. 
 
 1. The name of this society shall be, The 
 Bible Translation Society. 
 
 2. It shall be the object of this Society to 
 encourage the translation of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures into the different languages of the 
 world, by aiding the circulation of such 
 versions by Baptist missionaries and others 
 as are competently authenticated for fidelity. 
 
 3. Each subscriber of £1 Is. per annum shall 
 be a member. 
 
 4. Each subscriber of £10 10s. at one time 
 shall be a member for life. 
 
 5. An Executor paying a bequest of £19 19s. 
 and upwards shall be a member for life. 
 
 6. The management of the Society shall be 
 vested in a Committee, with a Treasurer 
 and Secretary. 
 
 7. An Annual Meeting of Subscribers shall 
 be held at a time and. place to be fixed by 
 the Committee, when the proceedings of 
 the year shall be reported, and the Com- 
 mittee and Officers elected. 
 
 8. Every minister subscribing £1 Is. per ann., 
 or who has made a collection within the 
 preceding year for the Society, shall be 
 entitled to attend and vote at all meetings 
 of the Committee. 
 
 Y. Resolved unanimously. 
 
 That the Memorial, with a Circular contain- 
 ing the preceding resolutions be sent to every 
 Baptist minister throughout the kingdom, with 
 the request that he will immediately communi- 
 cate with the brethren and churches in his dis- 
 trict, in order to a systematic and vigorous co- 
 operation, and cause this Committee to be ap- 
 prized at the earliest opportunity of the result. 
 
t: 
 
 [ 
 
 iji • 
 
 • ■ 1 • ■ ' ■ 
 
 
 ,0'i 1 
 
 
 ri f :-i 1.;.: . 
 
 ■ 
 
 *