translates, as far as may be, in equivalent words, phrases, and sentences. Whatever indulgence may be allowed him in other respectshowever excusable he may be if he fail of attaining the elegance, the spirit, the sublimity of his author-which will generally be in some degree the case, if his author excels at all in those qualities-want of fidelity admits of no excuse, and is entitled to no indulgence."

The temptation to blink certain questions, is, however, frequently strong in the translation of authoritative documents; and the translators of the inspired volume especially ought to be on their guard against this danger, as arising either from their own prepossessions, or the prepossessions of their friends. To leave a Greek word untranslated, is to withhold from the unlearned reader a complete translation of the writing in which it occurs. It is to throw him back upon other resources for the interpretation of the passage; to render him dependent for instruction on other books, or on living teachers; to transfer him again to the guidance of the clergy. It is, as far as that passage is concerned, to render the rule of faith, not the Scripture but its interpreter, the church. It was an expedient, therefore, to which the Roman party had recourse, in order to keep the laity partially in the dark, when they found they could not keep them in the dark wholly, but must allow them something that should be called a translation. The crafty Bishop Gardner, in particular, finding in the latter part of the Reign of Henry VIII. that to withhold an English testament was impossible, maintained that there were many words in the New Testament of such majesty, that they were not to be translated; but must stand in the English Bible as they were in the Latin. A hundred of these he put into a written list, which was read in convocation. "His design in this," says Burnet," was visible; that if a translation must be made, it should be so daubed all through with Latin words, that the people should not understand it much the better for its being in English. A taste of this the reader may have by the first twenty of them: ecclesia, pænitentia, pontifex, ancilla, contritus, olocausta, justitia, justificatio, idiota, elementa, baptizare, martyr, adorare, sandalium, simplex, tetrarcha, sacramentum, simulachrum, gloria. The design he had of keeping some of these, particularly the last save one, is plain enough; that the people might not discover that visible opposition which was between the Scriptures and the Roman church in the matter of images. This could not be better palliated, than by disguising these places with words that the people understood not."

King James the first adopted partially the bishop's plan, when, in the hope of superseding the Geneva Bible, which he abhorred, and which was becoming increasingly popular, he yielded so far to the expressed wishes of the Puritans, as to submit Parker's Bible to that revision which produced the version now in common use. 'The learned men to whom he committed the work were required to do homage to his royal wisdom, by compliance with fourteen instructions, of which this was the third: "The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church not to be translated congregation," &c. And his translators, having acted under his guidance, boasted of the just medium which they had observed between popish midnight and puritanical sun

shine. They say, "We have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the puritans, who leave the old ecclesiastical words and betake them to other, as when they put washing for baptism, and congregation instead of church: as also, on the other side, we have shunned the obscurity of the papists, in their azymes, tunike, rational, holocausts, prepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet, by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood."

We will not on the present occasion descant on the effect which this retention of "old ecclesiastical words" has had on the progress of divine truth in this country. This might furnish grave matter for remark, if we were engaged on some other questions; questions on which we should have our Presbyterian and Independent brethren on the same side as ourselves. But we must put the inquiry to our readers, Is this translation, made under the guidance of an earthly king, or is the Greek text, which was written by the apostles, to be the standard of faith and practice to the millions of India? Will they consent that our brethren, who are wearing out their lives in exertion to give the heathen the word of God, should have rivetted upon them any one of the fetters with which king James bound his bishops and their coadjutors? Are their consciences to be left free, or are they to be shackled? We rejoice that the Baptist missionaries have all remained firm, considering themselves to be set for the defence and confirmation of every portion of the gospel, maintaining their plea of responsibility to a Master in heaven. They have been assailed in the most vulnerable part, and with the most formidable weapons. It is easier by far to bear reproach, and scorn, and hatred, than it is to sustain appeals to candour, modesty, and the love of union; especially when those appeals are made by friends whose piety is undoubted, and whose benevolence has been amply proved. This is indeed a trial of integrity, when Christian brethren whom you love, whose wisdom you respect, and whom you would be delighted to gratify, call upon you to give up some particle of your principles to the preservation of unity in a society to which you are attached, and to the judgment of men whom you honour. To such an ordeal, however, Baptist translators have been subjected; but each one has retained his integrity, apparently regarding himself as sworn "to make true interpretation of the evidence according to the best of his skill and understanding."

The question respecting the translation or transference of the word baptizo into the Indian languages, is not a question of recent date. In the year 1813, writing to Mr. Hughes, the secretary of the British and Foreign Bible Society, a man to whom it was peculiarly difficult to refuse any thing, because of his habitual candour and amoenity, Mr. Fuller 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 Barrisw by a word that signifies to immerse, and níoкоTоs by a word that signifies an overseer." Mr. Hughes replied, "I thank you for the information respecting Dr. Ca

rey. 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 proceeding. This however is submitted, with deference, as an opinion from which, I am sensible, wiser and better men decisively differ."The subject, then, attracted attention a quarter of a century ago; but no practical result accrued. Dr. Carey persevered in his course, and the Bible Society continued to aid him. Within the last few years, however, a decided stand has been made against the rendering of baptizo. Episcopos is at present in abeyance; but the Bible Society has determined to withhold assistance from a translation of the New Testament, whose general excellence is not only unimpeached, but freely acknowledged, unless "the Greek terms relating to baptism be rendered, either according to the principle adopted by the translators of the English authorized version, by a word derived from the original, or by such terms as may be considered unobjectionable by the other denominations of Christians composing the Bible Society."

Mr. Hinton's Letter to Lord Bexley on this subject is worthy of his reputation for acuteness and mental vigour. It gives a condensed but lucid view of the question, and illustrates forcibly the untenable nature of that position which the Bible Society has taken. The whole of it deserves to be read by all who are interested in the integrity of Scripture, and to be circulated throughout the length and breadth of the land. We will, however, give a few pointed extracts.

"I have thus far considered the justice of the resolution of the Committee; permit me, further, to investigate its expediency. And here 1 maintain that, if it could be justified, it could not be shown to be wise. They attempt to adjust the difference" respecting baptism, by recommending the transfer of the Greek word; but what can they do towards adjusting the numerous other differences, doctrinal and ecclesiastical, which exist between the different sections of the religious world? There are as stub

born diversities of opinion concerning the words ἐπίσκοπος (bishop) πρεσβύτερος (elder,) and exkλŋoia (church,) as there can be about Barris (baptize;) and if the party strife notoriously existing, respecting the proper rendering of them, were to come before the Committee of the Bible Society, are we to suppose that they would direct these words likewise to be transferred, instead of being translated? What would they then do with rerayμévos (ordained,) and πрoćуw (to foreknow?) Must these be transferred to the language of the pagans too? And where would they stop? Or where, consistently, could they stop, until they had forbidden the translation of every disputed term, and ordered them all to be transferred into every language under heaven? And all this to make the Bible intelligible to the heathen! So for example, with the passage, Acts xiii. 48, "As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed." Because a Calvinist understands the word "ordained" Terayμévol as referring to the purpose of God and an Arminian as referring to the disposition of men: the Bible Society Committee, upon the case being brought before them, will adjudge that the word be not translated, but transferred; and that the pagans, by way of having an intelligible Bible, be taught that "As many as were tetagmenced to eternal life, believed!" In the case of Barrío (baptize,) the Committee "fall back on the practice of the English version." But would this satisfy the Presbyterian, the Congregationalist, or the Lutheran? We have a long list of ecclesiastical terms which King James ordered our translators to retain, right or wrong; and

we know the fraudulent design with which аoxa (passover) has been translated Easter. Acts xii. 4. And is this version to be made in every point the standard for all new translations, and its admitted errors and defects to be propagated, without remedy, under the whole heaven? It is impossible.

"I have now done, my lord, with the first branch of the alternative offered us by the Committee. I come next to the second. And if the first is bad, the second is far worse. We are recommended to render Barriso (baptize,) by a term which may not be considered objectionable by the other denominations of Christians composing the Bible Society.' It would be wrong, doubtless, to give unnecessary offence; nor, so far as appears, have our brethren been accused of it. The word they have used to denote immersion, is as inoffensive as any word can be which denotes the same thing; while it is very well known, that no word meaning immersion would be considered unobjectionable.' The recommendation of the Committee, therefore, goes upon the principle, that the primary object of a translator should be conciliation rather than fidelity,-that he should seek to please men rather than God,-that he should sacrifice truth to love! Strange and fearful doctrine! No. Precious as love is, it must not be purchased at the sacrifice of truth. Nor could any love which is worth possessing be purchased at such a cost. A man who could make such a sacrifice to the good opinion of his brethren would only deserve to be despised, and he would soon meet with his desert. The dignity and value of truth, the authority of God, the welfare of immortal souls, all forbid this guilty and fatal surrender. Most deeply do I deplore that, in such an age as the present, when the translation of the holy Scriptures is carried on by so many hands, and into so many languages, the sentiment on which I am remarking should have been promulgated, and more especially from a quarter so likely to be influential. With me, denominational considerations are as nothing, in comparison with my desire to extract this element of poison from the fountain of biblical translation. In the name of all that is honest and faithful, either towards God, himself, or his fellow-sinner, let every man who is employed in this work, render every word into what he believes to be its meaning. In what way else is any translator to clear his conscience?— Or in what way else is any satisfactory approach to be made towards giving to the nations the lively oracles' of God?

6

"Let it only be supposed that a translator of the word of God takes the recommendation given him by the Committee, and ponders at every step whether the word he is employing will be considered objectionable' by Christians of other denominations: what must be the result of this? It will introduce into his proceedings an element directly destructive of his fidelity. Instead of inquiring simply, What does the Scripture mean? he will have to ask, What will my brethren like? Instead of conforming his work to the mind of God, he will bend it to the views of his fellow-Christians. How intolerable this must be to men of upright mind! Place an Episcopalian translator among Congregationalists, and he must not render ekkλnoía 'church,' iσкoжоç, 'bishop,' but 'congregation' and 'overseer.' Place a Congregationalist translator among Episcopalians, and he must, in equal violation of his conscience, say 'bishop' and 'church.' Let but this rule be applied to the whole work of translation, and the whole body of translators, and it would inflict upon them a torture absolutely intolerable. They would rise against it as one man, and sweep it away with irresistible indignation. On such a principle, no honest man could endure the occupation. But this is not the worst. A source of corruption would thus be opened, within the very fountain of the water of life. To the whole extent of this influence, the character of a translator would be utterly, forfeited and de

stroyed, and he who should be a translator, would be composing a work of his own and yet not of his own, but of the sentiments of those around him. It would be impossible to carry out such a principle through a version of the whole Bible, without producing a corrupted volume, deserving rather to be called a caricature, than a copy of the word of God. It would also follow in this method, that, while every translation of the Scriptures would be corrupt, even these corruptions would have no uniformity. As the fellowchristians influencing translators in different parts of the earth will be of endless diversity, so must the translations be; till, ultimately, the Bible will be like a chameleon, having no colour of its own, but reflecting the hues of the objects which surround it. How far God would be honoured by such a process, or what would become of the purity and authority of his eternal truth, I need not say; nor will I say more, on so painful a subject, than this, that the havoc would be the more melancholy, for being, not the achievement of the great enemy of God and man, nor of wicked men devoted to his service; not the result of the infirmities of good men, failing to carry into perfect operation the intentions of an upright heart; but the issue of misguided friendship, the purchase of unparalleled liberality, the recommendation of the Bible Society!"

"I will now dismiss the resolution of the Committee, the first branch of which goes to give the heathen no translation at all, the second to give them a corrupt one. I will only add, on this subject, that the operations of translators and of printers of existing translations, require to be regarded with a watchful eye. A disposition to tamper with ancient versions already begins to appear among some non-immersionist brethren abroad.It has been stated by Mr. W. H. Pierce, lately from Calcutta, that an edition of the Armenian New Testament has not long ago been printed at Shuraz, with the word Barris (baptize) for the first time transferred: the word in all former editions, having been translated by a term denoting immersion. And this at the expense of the Bible Society, which aids the printing of the edition! To commence a practice of altering the ancient versions, while retaining their names, is carrying the matter somewhat too far."

The incalculable mischief of tampering with ancient versions will awaken the attention, we trust, of every biblical critic. The Armenian version is unanimously ascribed to the end of the fourth or the commencement of the fifth century; yet its emendation is but the application of the principle which has been desired in reference to the productions of our brethren in India. Where will the Earle-street committee stop? Where will they find an honourable halting-place? Safety, honour, usefulness, comfort, all require their immediate return to their original course.

"They have been mistaken in supposing that the measures they have adopted would preserve peace. They have avoided offending their Auxiliary at Calcutta, but they have caused long embarrassments in their councils at home, and given serious umbrage to the Baptist denomination.— The protest they have received must show them how extensively this is felt; but it does not by any means disclose to them the whole influence of their decision. That measure was one of experiment and of hope; all ulterior measures being held in abeyance, till the effect of the protest should be ascertained. The same state of suspense still continues, while perhaps, a public discussion of the matter may be in progress, and the Committee may be in course of learning the opinions of their various constituencies throughout the country in relation to it. But already the minds of many are alienated, and the liberality of some is stayed; and no mistake can be