The Evening Bulletin

"The Baptists and the American Bible Society."

Editor Bulletin: In the opening paragraph of Mr. Cecil's last article he gives as one of his reasons for continuing the discussion my "persistency in bringing the matter before the public." After this preface it is rather strange to find that almost the whole of his long article is a second reply to my first communication.

Mr. Cecil first attacks my statement that "the Baptists were among the first and most liberal supporters of the society, if not the real founders," calling it a "zealous boast, unsupported by the facts of history, &c." And yet the very article from which Mr. Cecil quotes proves all that I claimed: and in my first article I gave my reasons for making the assertion. I stated that the first Bible Society in America was organized by a Baptist, in Philadelphia, in 1808. In the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, vol. I, p. 262, I find this statement:

"In 1808 the first organization for the supply of the Bible was formed in Philadelphia. The idea was quickly taken up everywhere; so that in June, 1816, a hundred and twenty Bible Societies were reported."

Mr. Cecil further states in his sketch: "The New York Society was the first to respond, and not the Philadelphia Society organized by Dr. Staughton, a Baptist."

I fail to see the force of this, as I did not say that the Philadelphia Society was the first to respond, and Mr. Cecil evidently overlooks the fact that the New York Society owed its origin to William Colgate, a Baptist. Of course I never meant that the Baptists alone organized what is known as the American Bible Society, and I never said so. My claim was only that the idea of societies in America for the circulation of the Bible took active form first among Baptists, and that this idea developed into the formation of the general society, and I most respectfully affirm that history does support this claim, and refer for proof to the very sources from which Mr. Cecil made such copious quotations.

Mr. Cecil next takes up the statement which he made in his address that "in 1835 it was learned that Dr. Judson and his associates had translated instead of transferring baptizo," adding that Mr. Garrett infers from this language what was not charged, that those missionaries either 'knowingly violated the rules of the society,' or else 'obtained money under false pretenses,' and as one bright gentleman remarked by the array of syllogisms almost proved it on them. I will go a step farther than the aforesaid "bright gentleman" and affirm that I did prove it on them, if Mr. Cecil's premises are true. Of course the point of my argument was, that the American Bible Society had no such rule, and that Mr. Judson therefore violated neither the letter nor spirit of any article of its Constitution, or any by-law governing its work, when he made his Burmese translation. That this position is true can be plainly seen by any one who takes the trouble to read the Constitution. Art. I of that Constitution is the only one bearing on the subject, and it plainly states that "the only copies in the English language, to be circulated by the society, shall be of the version now in common use." In the Address accompanying and explaining the Constitution the framers state that they organized it for the dissemination of the Scriptures in the received versions, where they exist, and in the most faithful where they may be required.

Universal testimony is borne by all to the faithfulness of Judson's Burmese Bible. Its catholicity, and not its faithfulness was assailed. Indeed a distinguished Pedo-baptist scholar declares it to be the "purest and most scholarly translation of the Bible ever made by a modern missionary into a foreign tongue."

Not only is it the most faithful version in the Burmese tongue, but the only one ever made in that language. Therefore, by refusing to aid in the circulation of this Bible, the American Bible Society contradicts its own oft-repeated purpose to supply the world as soon as possible with the Scriptures in the most "faithful version that can be procured."

After repeating his former statement, Mr. Cecil says: "This statement I propose now to prove to be literally true, leaving Mr. Garrett to take care of the inferences." After this ominous promise, one would naturally look for something new and final, but instead we have two quotations, one of which, from the American Encyclopedia, is entirely irrelevant, as its statement has not been called in question in this discussion. The other quotation is simply the same which he made in his speech and was taken from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. Of this justly celebrated work, Mr. Cecil says that it is the "newest and best authority on religious subjects." If by this he means that it can be relied on as giving a fair statement of the views of the writers on different subjects, I agree with him; but I think that Mr. Cecil would be the last one to admit some of the statements made by that authority on some of the most important doctrines of his church.

For instance on p. 200 art. Baptism, I find this unqualified statement: "There is no trace of infant baptism in the New Testament." Is Mr. Cecil prepared to accept this authoritative statement as final? And it is written by a Pedo-baptist, too.

Now by a reference to the article from which Mr. Cecil quotes you will find at its close the significant sentence: Revised by E. W. Gilman, D. D., Sec. Amer. Bible Soc. So after all, Mr. Cecil's "positive proof" dwindles down to a statement of one side of the story only, written not by one who took part in the division of 1836, but by one of the present Secretaries of the Society. I do not call attention to this for the purpose of calling in question the honesty of Mr. Gilman's statement,
but only to show that after all it is only one side of the question. and I ask, in all fairness, are not the statements of the many eminent and pious men on the other side entitled to at least the same consideration? But Mr. Cecil, to further prove his point, brings forward another witness, a formidable one indeed at first sight-"Bible Translations, published by Board of Managers of Amer. Bible Soc.,' from which he makes a long quotation.

Now I happen to have a copy of the remarkable document from which this seemingly conclusive statement is taken, and I also happen to know its history. Remember the events which called forth the discussion occurred in 1835. In 1841, nearly six years afterwards, this paper from which Mr. Cecil quotes, was published anonymously. After floating around for a time the waif was adopted, and sent out as the child of the Board of Managers of the Amer. Bible Society as the first public attempt to vindicate their course toward the Baptists in 1835. In this document, the Board of Managers for 1841 say that they did not know that Mr. Judson had translated "baptizo." So far as I know, nobody ever disputed their statement. But that is not the question. Nor is the question whether or not Dr. Cone ever informed them before that Judson had translated baptizo. I don't suppose he ever thought of such a thing. Why should he? No such question had ever been brought up in connection with their work, and not a word or hint of it appears in either the Constitution, by-laws or records of the Society. Besides he knew that the Society was, and had been for years, circulating other versions in which the word was so translated. So nobody ever doubted the truth of the statement that this was "the first time Dr. Cone ever informed them of the fact."

Under the circumstances which I shall now relate, it would have been an insult to the intelligence of that body, had Dr. Cone volunteered this information. The real question is, did the Society have any knowledge of the fact that Baptist foreign missionaries always translated baptizo. Were there opportunities for them to gain that information? Let us see. Baptist Missions were begun in India in 1793 and the translation of baptizo and its cognates immediately followed. The British and Foreign Bible Society was founded in 1804, and its Calcutta Auxiliary in 1807. From the first, the Baptists were invited and did co-operate with those Societies, and their translations were aided by both. In 1813 an official correspondence between the Secretaries of the B. and F. Soc. and the Eng. Bap. Miss. Socs is recorded. In that correspondence the fact is brought out that the Baptist Missionaries always translated baptizo, and with this understanding the Bible Soc. still continued to aid the Baptist translations. The fact of this translation became a matter of world-wide notoriety in the Missionary world, being discussed in the Missionary publications of the day.

Now by a reference to the Amer. Bible Society's report for 1820, p. 51, you will find a mention of these very versions. Again in the Report for 1821, p. 44, mention is made of other translations by these same missionaries at Serampore, India, and on p. 45 of the same report it will be seen that one of these very missionaries, Rev. Mr. Ward, then visiting in this country, visited the Society, and was presented with copies of their publications. Again in 1833 the Amer. Baptist Board of Foreign Missions passed a resolution instructing their missionaries to follow the example of the English Baptist Missionaries and to "translate all words capable of translation." It has been proved beyond question that copies of this resolution were placed on the table of the Board of Managers and given to individual members of that Board.

Now in view of these facts, it has been well asked: "Can you bring a more serious charge against the managers of the American Bible Society than to say that for twenty years they had been aiding and recommending these versions, that the Board had had intercourse with Ward, one of the translators, and yet that at least thirty of the wisest men in America, having charge of that Society, were ignorant of the most vital question as to the character of the versions that they were circulating? No man can lay it to their charge that they were ignorant of concerning the sort of versions which they were using the trust funds of the Society to circulate, without reflecting upon their obtuseness of mind, and conscience too." And yet if this paper from which Mr. Cecil quotes be true, these thirty of the wisest men in the land were guilty of the most inexcusable recklessness in handling trust funds for a sacred purpose.

In the next paragraph Mr. Cecil objects to my statement that no attention was paid to Dr. Cone's minority report, and implies that the Board was discussing it for six months; but if he will refer to the history, he will find that instead of discussing Dr. Cone's report they were trying "to settle a principle in relation to the translation of the Greek word baptizo." To show that they did not succeed, see the final vote on the resolutions thirty to fourteen.

Perhaps they could have succeeded in settling this vexed question forever, had they been in possession of the information which Mr. Cecil gives in the next paragraph:

"That baptizo is a broad, generic term which describes a ceremonial washing, without prescribing the manner in which it shall be done, &c."

(If Mr. Cecil will tell us how you can describe a ceremony without telling how it is done, it will enlighten some perplexed readers). "While every Greek scholar knows that the word means to immerse, &c, baptizo is a generic word like the word 'go' which does not specify how one shall go.

Immerse is a specific word like 'walk' which prescribes the mode or manner in which one goes." If "every Greek scholar knows this" why has there been any discussion about it all those centuries? And why does every Greek Lexicon of any note, of any age, in all the world always give as the primary definition of "baptizo" the "specific" word "immerse?" I have before me a list of fifteen of the most eminent Greek Lexicons known, with their definition of "baptizo." None of them were written by Baptists and every one of them gives "immerse," or a synonymous word, as the definition of "baptizo." No Greek Lexicon worthy of the name ever defined the word "baptizo" in any other way. But Mr. Cecil refers to Dr. Dale's work as "the most voluminous and learned work extant" and says that "he has collated the word and its cognates, in the whole range of Greek literature, and I remember to have heard Dr. Hodge say that if anything could be proven by cumulative evidence, Dr. Dale had proved that baptizo was used by the Greek speaking people as a generic term to describe the application of water in various ways."

As to Dr. Dale's work being the "most voluminous" on the subject, I suppose nobody will doubt that, when they know that it consists of four large volumes. Let me say right here that I never read it, and I doubt if you could find a man, woman or child in this country that ever did read it through. Life is too short to waste in trying to prove that the Savior of the world, and the inspired Apostles, used a word to name one of the two solemn ordinances of the church, and attached to that word a meaning so vague, and so different from its common every-day meaning, that it would require four ponderous tomes of argument to show it. As to Mr. Cecil's authority, with equal propriety I might quote Dr. Conant's "Baptizein" in which pursuing the same line that Dr. Dale does, he reaches exactly the opposite conclusion viz: that "baptzo" always meant immerse to the Greeks. As to the relative value of these authorities the reader can determine for himself with the following facts to guide him: Dr. Conant was a member of the Board of American scholars who lately finished the Revision of the Bible, chosen for his eminent ability as a scholar, the author of many learned works of a religious nature, &c. (See sketch in American Encyclopedia, and in People's Encyclopedia). Dr. Dale's name is not even mentioned in either. Of Dale's work, Dr. Broadus says in his Commentary on Matthew that "he defines 'baptizo' as meaning 'intuspose,' (i. e. put within, see Liddell and Scott) merge, immerse, and then by a novel and ingenious, but purely fanciful and unreasonable process, explains it all away, and reaches the conclusion that immersion is not baptism at all." But to show that Mr. Cecil's definition of baptizo is not in accord with the scholarship of the world, nor even of his own denomination I need not quote a single Baptist author.

As Mr. Cecil has referred to one modern Presbyterian author's view, I will give another. Before Dr. Dale's work was published, Dr. Edward Beecher on Baptism was the "newest and best." Let us see what he has to say on the "generic" definition:

"As used in the New Testament, the word (baptizo) has a clear and well-defined meaning. Whilst in different circumstances and applied to different objects, it may mean different things, yet, when used as a religious term, and applied to the rite of baptism, it must always mean the same thing."

With this introduction from a Presbyterian scholar, let us see some of the definitions given by some of the most eminent of that faith:

"The very word baptizo, however, signifies Immerse; and it is certain that immerse was the practice of the ancient church"-John Calvin (see Calvin's Institutes, vol. II p. 41, edition of Pres. Board of Publication).

"The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion, and though we regard it as a point of indifference whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way or by sprinkling, yet we doubt not that the prevalent style in the Apostles' days was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water." (Chalmers Lectures on Rom. 6:3).

Dr. Geo. Campbell in his notes on Matthew, 3:2, says:

"The word baptizein (the infinitive mode of baptizo) both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, by tingere the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning."

Remember these are all Presbyterian scholars of world-wide fame. I might add any number to this list, but the limits of this article will not allow it. One more will do. Certainly the editor of the "newest and best authority on religious subjects" ought to be a competent witness. Turn to Schaff's History of the Apostolic Church, pp. 568,-9 and read this:

Finally as to the mode of administering this ordinance: immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original form. This is shown by the very meaning of the Greek words baptizo &c, used to designate the rite. Finally by the general usage of ecclesiastical antiquity, which was always immersion (as it is to this day) in the Oriental and also the (Greco-Russian Churches, pouring and sprinkling being substituted only in cases of urgent necessity, such as sickness and approaching death."

Did any Baptist ever bear stronger testimony to all that Baptists claim, than this Presbyterian scholar, whose great learning cannot be called into question? I might mention the names of almost every Commentator, Church Historian, (notably Neander and Mosheim) Philologist, and Lexicographer of any note in the world, as supporting these statements. Mr. Cecil repeatedly refers to Judson's translation as a denominational Bible. This is begging the whole question, but I will let another Presbyterian scholar answer him, in the most powerful defense of the Baptist translations I have ever read. In 1829 an attack was made upon the India translations (Baptist), and the Bible Societies which supported them, by a Churchman, and extensively circulated in England through the Missionary Magazines and otherwise. This called forth a reply from Rev. Mr. Greenfield, a scholarly Presbyterian minister who was soon afterwards made Superintendent of the Translating and Editorial Department of the great British and Foreign Bible Society. In beginning his reply Mr. Greenfield says: "I am neither a Baptist, nor the son of a Baptist, nor is it here my business to undertake a defense of their cause. In adducing this evidence therefore, it was simply with a view of evincing how utterly inconsistent it was, for a clergyman to accuse the Serampore missionaries of sectarianism, in employing the term of immersion for baptism, while that sense was so fully recognized by the established Church. It may be safely affirmed that many of the most accurate and valuable versions both ancient and modern are involved in the same accusation, and that there is not one which is directly hostile to it."

He then adduces the examples of the most celebrated versions, among which are the Peshito or Syriac, (the oldest version in existence, probably dating from the second century), the Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Luther's German Bible, the Dutch, the Danish and many others. In our day he might have added to the list the Norwegian and Swedish versions. All of these, with many others, translate baptizo by a word meaning to immerse. And no version of the Bible of any note in the world ever translated the word any other way. The only other method of treating the Greek word has been by transferring as in the English version and the Vulgate, Mr. Greenfield, after citing the examples mentioned above, goes on to say: I trust that these observations will suffice to exonerate the Serampore missionaries from the charge of bigotry and sectarianism in thus conscientiously rendering baptizo, to immerse." With these facts before us, I have only to say that if Judson's version was as Mr. Cecil calls it, a "denominational Bible" or a Baptist Bible, then the oldest version of the Bible in the world (the Peshito) must have been made by Baptists too, and they must have been more numerous down through the centuries than I thought they were. And if every scholar who ever translated baptizo as Judson did, was a Baptist, then there have been more Baptist scholars in the world than we ever had credit for.

Mr. Cecil next quotes from the sixty-sixth Report of the American Bible Society to show that this whole subject has been brought before the society in recent years:

"In October, 1880, an application was received from the Executive Committee of the American Baptist Missionary Union for a grant of $2,000 for printing the Burman and Karen versions of the Scriptures in Burmah."

Ah! but this is only half of the story. I have before me the whole correspondence relating to that request, and as Mr. Cecil has brought it up, I wish the limits of this article would permit the insertion of every letter that passed on both sides. And let me say here that this very incident has done more to drive the Baptists away from the Bible Society than anything which has occurred since 1835. But for it the writer of this article would still be using the little influence he possesses, and giving of his small means to its support, as he always did, heartily and gladly, until he became familiar with the particulars of this incident. Here are the facts as given by the official correspondence:

Dr. Howard Osgood was, up to 1880, the Baptist member of the Committee on Versions of the American Bible Society. He had resigned but his resignation was not accepted. In April, 1880, he was invited to meet with the committee to see if the differences between the Society and the Baptists could not be harmonized. He told them frankly that the only condition on which Baptists could return were those of the earlier years of the Society, when scholarly Baptist Versions with baptizo translated by words signifying to immerse were treated with the same favor as other versions: that the by-law framed in 1835 to exclude Baptist versions was a constant affront to us, and that if the Society was not willing to meet Baptists on this ground, it would be better to keep apart and do our work in peace." An earnest desire to put away all grounds of discord was expressed, and at that meeting a committee was appointed to bring in, at the next meeting, in May, a substitute for the old law of 1835. They reported as that substitute the following:

"In the matter of Scriptures in foreign languages, the Board will favor versions in any language which in point of fidelity and catholicity shall be conformed to the principles upon which the American Bible Society was originally founded"

The substitute was passed, and at the request of the committee Professor Osgood withdrew his resignation. The new by-law was published and sent to the Baptist Missionary Union in June, 1880. So satisfied were the Baptists that all differences had at last been removed, that an address was prepared by leading Baptists to "the Baptist Ministers and Churches in the United States," saying that with this revised by-law they "found no obstacle in the way of co-operation of Baptists with the American Bible Society at home and abroad." Every difficulty was removed, and all was peaceful at last.

To show our people that all difficulty was removed, it was decided to "apply for a grant of $2,000 to aid in circulating the Burman and Karen Bibles." As soon as the application was presented to the Committee on Versions, the same old objection was made that it translated baptizo. For fifteen months an answer was delayed, and when it came it was No!

No plea of ignorance could be used this time, as it was the same old Judson Bible of fifty years ago which had been used as a test. Pending this delay some correspondence passed, and I find in a letter from the Secretary of the Baptist Missionary Union to Secretary Gilman, of the Bible Society, the following answers to inquiries made by Secretary Gilman:

(1) "According to my best knowledge and belief, our people (Baptists) would co-operate with any society in circulating, in any language, the best version available, even though they might regard it as, in some respects, objectionable.

(2) "I think the fact that you aided in printing and circulating the version made by our missionaries in Burmah, and used by other Protestant missionaries in Burmah, so far as I know, without protest or objection would go far to remove the obstacles to our co-operation with the American Bible Society. If it could be known that 'versions of the Bible made by our missionaries for people among and for whom no other version exists, would be supported by the American Bible Society on the application of our Executive Committee, I am sure that the great mass of our people would rally to the support of your honored Society."

In the name of all that is reasonable, what more can they ask of the Baptists than this, and what less can we ask of them? Let us circulate our versions where none other exists and we will cordially co-operate with you in all else.

It was during this time that the letter was received from the Bishop of Rangoon, complaining that in using Judson's Bible he had to put in some other word where baptizo occurred, and on the complaint of one man a great denomination of Christian people is, for the second time, turned away from the doors of the American Bible Society! And what a curious conscience he must have had! His conscience would not let him use Judson's translation because Judson made baptizo mean to dip, and yet the very prayer book which at his ordination he swore to accept and believe translated the word exactly as Judson did, and prescribes as the only baptism for healthy children, dipping. "He shall dip it in the water discreetly, saying I baptize thee, &c."

But on Bishop Titcomb's objection the application of the Baptists was refused, the Baptist members of the Board of Managers resigned, and many of the churches and ministers all over the country who had been co-operating with the Auxiliary Societies, withdrew from all connection with them. Did we have sufficient cause or not? Let the reader judge for himself.

Mr. Cecil next attacks my statement upon the question of Baptist contributions to the American Bible society, I have only this to say, that Mr. Cecil gets his figures, and in fact his whole argument, from the first statement publicly made, and takes no note whatever of all the literature on both sides published since, nor of the fact that many of the statements made in the Bible translations from which he quotes, were afterwards so clearly and unquestionably refuted that they were practically given up, even by those who put them forth. On the question of contributions Rev. B. M. Hill, D. D., wrote a pamphlet in which he shows from the Society's Annual reports, and other sources, beyond the question of a doubt, that the Baptists had given a sum far exceeding $100,000. Mr. Cecil's authority gives $18,000 as the amount of legacies from Baptists, and yet John Fleetwood Marsh, a Baptist of East Chester, N. Y., left them an estate from which one estate alone nearly three times that amount has been received. It is true that at the time mentioned his estate had not been settled, and the Society had only received from it $10,000 in actual cash; but the only reason they had not received it was that the estate had not been settled. I find that some time after this they acknowledged at one time the receipt of $26,000 from the estate as a part only of the balance. This makes $36,000 from one Baptist, and more to come. No matter if it had not been paid in, the man was dead, the estate was worth many times that amount, and the will had been proved. Is it not then evidently misleading and unjust to the Baptists for Mr. Cecil to make no mention of this large legacy in compiling the figures to show how little the Baptists had done?

Mr. Cecil quotes my statement that as a matter of fact the Baptists are giving every year to this Society thousands of dollars, and since 1835 not one dollar has come from it to aid them in their work among the heathen anywhere," and the types made me say "or elsewhere." Of course Mr. Cecil could
[Continued on Third Page.]
"The Baptists and the American Bible Society."
[Continued From Second Page]
not know this, and I did not discover it in time to correct it. The idea was that the Society had refused to aid any Baptist translations in heathen tongues for the same reason that they refused Judson's. As to the grant which Mr. Cecil quotes, "for Baptist work in Sweden" perhaps some light may be thrown on the nature of the grant by the following item in the receipts as reported in the Annual Report of the Society. Under the "Returns for Books Donated," I find this: "From American Baptist Union Mission in Sweden, $1,024.89." I only mention this to show that what are called "donations" either to Missionary Boards, or to Auxiliary Societies, are not absolute gifts, but are made with the understanding that all funds received from the sale of books are to be paid back to the Society; and one of their rules is that even from heathen some price must be asked generally, unless they are unable to purchase, (an excellent rule by the way.) I do not mean by this to convey the impression that the Society has not aided Baptist missionary work in Sweden. The donation which Mr. Cecil mentions is not the only one by any means, and "for all they have done the Baptists are duly grateful. But the American Bible Society has withdrawn all help from Sweden for the reason that the Swedish scholars who lately revised the national Bible committed the same unpardonable sin that Judson did and actually made a Baptist Bible by translating baptizo by a word meaning to immerse. And they were not Baptists either. Mr. Cecil makes light of my statement that "Baptists have given every year thousands of dollars to the American Bible Society," and goes on to disprove it by a remarkable process. He says: "Take for instance the Annual Reports for 1882. In the column of "Receipts the Baptists are not credited with a single dollar but in the column of payments I find "To the American Baptist Missionary Union, $2,231.67." My reply is, take the Annual Report for 1884. (as I cannot find the one for 1882.) and in the column of Receipts the Presbyterians are not credited with a single dollar, but in the column of payments I find: "To Pres. Board of Foreign Mission, for Lodiana, $188.94." According to Mr. Cecil's own logic then, the Presbyterians in 1884 gave nothing to the Bible Society, and received $188.94 from it. Neither do I find in the column of receipts that the Methodists gave anything that year, nor the Congregationalists, nor the Disciples nor any other denomination. Therefore the Bible Society did not receive anything from any of the denominations in 1884. "But it may be said that these denominations contributed by church collections that year, and hence did not receive credit for their gifts," as Mr. Cecil says of the Baptists. But the church collections for that year, though the amount is not given separately as in the Reports for preceding years, were no larger than usual, probably not exceeding $10,000. And yet these church collections, one of the smallest sources of revenue reported, is the only source where credit is given to the different denominations, and there is absolutely no evidence outside of these church collections, that the Presbyterians, Methodists or any other denomination gave anything to the Society in 1884. Yet the receipts for that year amount to over $640,000. "When you remember that this amount $10,054.18 embraces all special collections for this cause &c., one is left to wonder from what peculiar source the several thousands of dollars come." Well there are several "peculiar sources mentioned in the Report before me. For instance: Auxiliary Societies, $178,824.67, of which $25,806.13 are credited as gifts. Then "Individual Donations" about $20,000. Then under the head of "Various Sources," I find "collections by Colporteurs, $11,336.97." Are Colporteurs in the habit of asking a man's church relations before they accept his money? Certainly those I have met, have not been thus careful. Then there are long lists of collections at different places, made by different persons, and not included under church collections, besides "Legacies," $156,372.00. And yet, with all these different sources of income before him, Mr. Cecil selects one of the smallest, and asks how can the Baptists give several thousand dollars a year to the Society when only $10,000 are reported as church collections, as if nobody gave in any other way. My reply is, that they have given it through the Auxiliary Societies, of which the Report says that including branches there are more than seven thousand. I don't know how many legacies have been left by Baptists, nor how many Baptists have made individual donations, nor how many have given to the Colporteurs, but I do know that many Baptist churches, all over the South work with the Auxiliary Societies yet; and that until within the last few years it was the exception rather than the rule to find one that did not. In the very year Mr. Cecil says Baptists are not credited with a dollar (1882,) the writer was pastor at Carlisle, and not only did the church take part, but I went with the Bible agent on Monday (court day) and introduced him to every Baptist I could find from the county, and if one refused a contribution I didn't know it. In that year the churches at Maysville, Flemingsburg, Carlisle, Millersburg, Paris, Cynthiana, Lexington and Mt. Sterling, or all of the churches along the K. C. Railroad towns co-operated with the Society, as some of them do yet. I have addressed twenty-five letters to different parts of the South to prominent brethren, asking if the churches in their section took part in the Auxiliary work of A. B. S., in 1883. I have received eighteen replies and seventeen answer "yes." The one exception was from a section where there is no branch Society. Many of these say that the churches still co-operate. In 1880, the writer was a Colporteur for one of these Auxiliaries in Mobile, Ala., and I know whereof I speak, when I say that no denomination more heartily engaged in the work than the three Baptist churches of that city. Mr. Cecil seems to have an especial spite against the two "Baptist Bible Societies," insisting that they have "ceased to exist." He says that I object to this statement but that it is "unquestionably true." Well, if Mr. Cecil will not take my word for it, the Secretary of one of these Societies says that in no sense have they ceased to exist, that they still hold valuable trust funds to be used in publishing the Bible, that they still hold regular annual meetings, and that they are publishing more Bibles than ever before. The only reason why the work is done through the Publication Society is that it can be done more cheaply than elsewhere. To the rest of Mr. Cecil's statement in this paragraph I have only to say that the work to which I referred does not correspond to the denominational work of the Presbyterian Board or the Methodist Book Concern, because neither of these have a Bible department, and the Bible Department of our own Publication Society is a separate institution, with separate funds, and a separate Secretary. Mr. Cecil says "I should not object to preaching their funeral and my text would certainly be 'Buried by Baptism into Death.' I almost regret that the Societies will not die, for I should like to hear that sermon. It would certainly have two characteristics; first, it would be new, as I am sure Mr. Cecil's "barrel" contains no sermon on that text. Again it would be instructive as it would have to tell the world something it never yet has found out, viz: how to bury a man by sprinkling. Then it would be interesting to hear how in this text, buried don't mean buried, and baptism don't mean baptism. Mr. Cecil's next paragraph is unworthy of the head and heart of the writer, and can only be amusing to those who will only think a moment. To say that Baptists, and immersionists generally, do not dare to let the world know their views, is a new charge, and I don't think anybody ever made it before. Heretofore they have been rebuked for their "boldness in obtruding their views upon the world," but never before for concealing them. "Why do I use the Common Version of the Bible?" Mr. Cecil has answered the question for me when he says "here in this country the people are acquainted with the fact of the difference of views in regard to the ordinance of baptism," and I only need add to this, that anybody who has access to a Webster's Dictionary, or a Commentary, or a Bible Dictionary, or a Greek Lexicon, or Calvin's Institutes, can find the meaning of the word for himself. The heathen have no dictionaries, commentaries, lexicons or church histories, therefore they depend upon the Word alone. Mr. Cecil in his profound sympathy for the poor heathen proposes as a remedy, the transferring of a Greek word, which would be as intelligible as Sanskrit to a Hottentot. In other words to make the heathen depend upon the teacher for the truth. This is all that Rome claims, that the Word is the Word, only so far as the priest interprets it. In teaching these various points I have been compelled to make this article longer than I intended, for which I ask the pardon of the reader and the printer. Let me close by again reminding the reader that the questions discussed here are not questions between Mr. Cecil and myself, and therefore can not be personal.
R. B. GARRETT