The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller: Volume 11 Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India 9783110420487, 9783110414059

Citation preview

Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller

Edited by Michael Haykin In Cooperation with John Coffey, Crawford Gribben, Nathan Finn, Doug Sweeney

Volume 11

Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India Edited by Peter Morden

ISBN 978-3-11-041405-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-042048-7 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-042062-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2022948970 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover illustration: Oil painting of Andrew Fuller, undated, in the private possession of Norman Hopkins. Used by kind permission. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

To Cheryl, with gratitude and much love. Isaiah 54:2

General editor’s foreword The writings of Andrew Fuller (1754– 1815) are increasingly recognized as key documents in both the Baptist story and the wider history of Evangelical Christianity. “Fullerism” brought about a lasting revolution in Baptist circles that enabled British Baptists to be vitally involved in the globalization of Christianity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The impact of Fuller’s thought stretched far beyond his own denominational circles, for he became one of the main purveyors of the theological legacy of Jonathan Edwards in the British Isles. Currently Fuller’s writings exist in three states: those published during his lifetime, those issued posthumously, and those still in manuscript form, which include his vast correspondence, a few sermons, an incomplete commentary on Isaiah, and a diary. Until now, scholars and students of Fuller’s thought have had to rely on a number of inadequate mid-nineteenth-century editions, which lack critical annotation, adequate indices, and substantial historical introductions to help orient the reader to Fuller’s historical context and the shape of his theological reasoning and biblical exegesis. Moreover, without his massive correspondence, which reveals the enormous influence Fuller had in both Baptist circles and other realms of eighteenth-century Evangelicalism, an adequate evaluation of Fuller’s achievement in his own day and his enduring legacy is impossible. The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller is a modern critical edition of the entire corpus of Andrew Fuller’s published and unpublished works. It seeks to advance the current understanding of the life and thinking of this highly influential pastortheologian as well as providing a comprehensive foundation for investigating the impact of his life and work in the two centuries since his death. The volumes in this series reproduce Fuller’s texts as he wrote them in manuscript form or as they were printed in the final edition to which he would have had access during his lifetime. The annotations that accompany each text present textual problems and variant readings. In the introductory essays, annotations, and headnotes, the editors will delineate Fuller’s historical context and intellectual influences. The publication of these volumes coincides with a significant renaissance in Fuller studies over the last few decades, demonstrated by a growing body of monographs and dissertations as well as scholarly conferences focusing on this important English thinker. Michael A.G. Haykin, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, March 2015.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110420487-001

Acknowledgements Producing a book like this is always a collaborative effort and I am very grateful for the input of many people. I especially want to thank Michael Haykin, the General Editor of the Fuller Works project, for the invitation to edit this volume, his comments throughout the process, and his friendship and encouragement over many years. I am indebted to Alissa Jones Nelson for her careful, perceptive, and thorough reading of my work. She suggested various changes to my introduction and my notes, most of which I adopted. She has also produced all the indexes. Her input has improved this volume significantly and it has been a pleasure to work with her. Peter de Vries of Carey Library and Research Centre, Serampore College, India generously agreed to give the final draft of my text a close reading. His grasp of the details of BMS work in India is second to none and his comments saved me from a number of errors. Cheryl Morden read through the introduction in draft and made a range of encouraging comments, as well as reminding the author of the importance of readability! Thank you to the team at De Gruyter who have prepared the text for publication, especially Katharina Zühlke (Content Editor), and Florian Ruppenstein (Production Editor). Of course, the mistakes which doubtless remain are my responsibility alone. A number of librarians and archivists have provided valuable assistance: Mike Brealey at Bristol Baptist College; Emily Burgoyne and Rebecca Shuttleworth at the Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford; and Rob Bradshaw at Spurgeon’s College, London. It is a privilege to be associated with both Bristol and Spurgeon’s, as Honorary Research Fellow and Distinguished Visiting Scholar, respectively. David Milner, Roland Sokolowski, and Vicki Sokolowski of Fuller Baptist Church, Kettering helped me mine the rich vein of material still held on the church premises. Sam Masters of the Seminario Biblico William Carey in Córdoba, Argentina and Peter de Vries located and provided me with material relevant to Serampore, especially the original printed Serampore Form of Agreement published by the missionaries themselves. Cornerstone Baptist Church, Leeds, granted me a period of three months sabbatical leave in the summer of 2021, during which time I completed the bulk of the research and wrote much of the introduction. Thanks are due to the elders and to everyone at this special church for all of their support. I particularly want to mention the staff team who, in different ways, all caried additional burdens whilst I was on sabbatical: Kate Burkett, Kate Churchill, Kevin Praties, Tracy Praties, Nathan Shipley, and Duncan Stow. Finally, thank you to Cheryl Morden for friendship, love, and bringing such joy into my life. Isaiah 54:2, “William Carey’s text,” has become special to both of us. Cheryl, we are embarking on a great adventure together. This volume is dedicated to you. Peter Morden Adel, Leeds, UK July 2022 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110420487-002

Contents Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India   1  The BMS in context   3 . The BMS and the history of Protestant cross-cultural mission   3 . The genesis of the BMS   5 .. Theological renewal   5 .. The development of a missional spirituality   7 .. The Pernicious Consequences of Delay in Religious Concerns   9 .. The Enquiry   12 .. The BMS formed   14  The work of the BMS in Britain and in India   14 . Fuller’s role in supporting the mission as home secretary   14 . The BMS in India   16 . Establishing the mission base at Serampore   18 . The principles governing the mission: The Serampore “Form of Agreement”   18 .. Gospel mission   20 .. Community   22 .. Strategy   23 .. The Indian mission’s efficacy   27  Context in India   29 . The British East India Company   29 .. The BMS and colonial rule   30 . Culture and religion in India   34  The mission’s difficulties: 1806–1808   39 . The Vellore Mutiny and the restrictions placed on the mission   39 . The “Persian Pamphlet”   41 . Further attacks: Fuller’s principal opponents in the “Pamphlet War”   42 .. Thomas Twining (1776–1861)   43 .. John Scott Waring (1747–1819)   44 .. Charles Stuart (1757/58–1828)   45  Writing and publishing the Apology   47 . The events of December 1807   47 . The events of January–March 1808   48 . Publication of the Apology and further work for the BMS   49  The leading arguments of the Apology   50 . Introduction   50 . Part I: The nature of toleration   52 . Part II: The cause of God and truth   54

XII 

 Contents

. 

Part III: Obedience to the great commission  Editorial Principles   60

 57

An Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India in Three Parts with an Appendix Part I Section I:

An address to Edward Parry, Esq., Chairman of the East India Company   63 Section II: Strictures on the Preface to a Pamphlet Entitled “Observations on the Present State of the East India Company”   77 Part II Introduction   98 Section I: Remarks on Major Scott Waring’s Letter to the Rev. Mr. Owen   99 Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”   106 Part III Preface   128 Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet   131 Section II: Remarks on “A Letter to the President of the Board of Control on the Propagation of Christianity in India”   152 To the Missionaries Going to Surat.   152 To the Missionaries Going to Bengal.   152 Section III: Remarks on the Propriety of Confining Missionary Undertakings to the Established Church   156 Appendix: Recent Testimonies to the Character of the Missionaries   162 Index of Persons  Subject Index  Scripture Index 

 174  177  187

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India Andrew Fuller (1754– 1815) was a pastor whose ministry coincided with the revitalization of the English Particular Baptist denomination of which he was a distinguished member.¹ He was a pathbreaking theologian, apologist, and spiritual biographer, who throughout his career remained rooted in the local church. Yet despite his multiple achievements, Fuller was probably best known at the end of his life as a pioneering missionary statesman. He was one of the founders and principal advocates of what was originally styled ‘The Particular Baptist Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen’ (henceforth BMS), serving as the new society’s secretary from its inception in 1792 until his death. His Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India was published in 1808 to defend the BMS missionaries from those who wanted them recalled from what was, at that time, the society’s primary sphere of operations. In the Apology, Fuller shares his passion for overseas cross-cultural mission, a passion which came to define his ministry for many of his contemporaries and also, to a significant degree, for subsequent generations. Although the Apology was originally published in 1808 in three parts, before it was bound together and sold as one volume towards the end of that year, no substantive changes to the text were made during this process, and no true second edition ever appeared.² Consequently, on one level the task of a modern editor is straightforward, since almost no work is needed to establish the “best text” of the Apology. Yet on another level, working on the book is extremely challenging. Writing responsibly on the history of cross-cultural mission, particularly when that mission took place in a colonial context, involves engaging with a complicated set of themes and issues, and there is a vast body of literature analyzing these from a wide variety of perspectives. Moreover, the relationship between Christian missions and colonialism was especially problematic in late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century “British India;” indeed, words such as “complex” and “convoluted” pepper the sec-

 For a theological biography, see Peter J. Morden, The Life and Thought of Andrew Fuller (1754 – 1815) (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2015). For a thorough survey of Fuller scholarship up to his time of writing, see Nathan A. Finn, “The Renaissance in Andrew Fuller Studies: A Bibliographic Essay,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (SBJT) 17, no. 2 (Summer 2013): 44– 61.  A bound volume of “Miscellaneous Tracts” held at the Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford contains the three parts of the Apology. In this particular copy of Fuller’s work, the title page of Part I announces that this part specifically is a “Second Edition” (Tracts LII). However, it is identical to the previously published Part I (see, e. g., the copy held at the Angus and bound in “Sermons etc. Fuller 1792– 1848” [4.f.1]). Even the errata are uncorrected. Therefore this is a reprint and not a true second edition. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110420487-003

2

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

ondary literature.³ One of the reasons for this complexity is that British territory on the Indian subcontinent was under the direct jurisdiction not of the British government, but of the East India Company (henceforth EIC)—a self-serving, corrupt, and sometimes chaotic trading corporation.⁴ Furthermore, the “Pamphlet War,” which directly occasioned the writing of the Apology, had many dimensions to it. Fuller had to deal with multiple opponents and different, sometimes mutually exclusive perspectives. Disentangling the different strands and contradictory arguments was not easy for him, and it will not be easy for us. Therefore, with the encouragement of Michael Haykin, the general editor of the Fuller Works project, this introduction is longer than is usual for this series. In particular, it seeks to set the Apology in its wider as well as its immediate context, paying special attention to the biblical theology and missional spirituality which fired and moulded the work of the BMS. Close examination of the precise nature of these theological and spiritual principles greatly illuminates the motives and activities of the key BMS personnel, both in England and India. This will not be an uncritical survey: the missionaries made significant mistakes. However, I hope to show they were not motivated by a sense of superiority over those they were working among, still less by a desire to export western “civilization” or to facilitate the expansion of the British Empire. Rather, they were driven by a desire to glorify the God they served and to share his gospel message with people they believed were their absolute equals, whom God loved just as he loved them. These principles deeply informed their work, and the same principles undergird and pervade Fuller’s Apology. This introduction is structured in six main sections, with the first five focusing on establishing a proper context for the Apology. In the first, foundational section, I consider the theological and spiritual developments which gave rise to the BMS, setting the establishment of the new society within the wider framework of the history of Protestant cross-cultural mission. In the second section, I analyze the work of the BMS in India as well as the work in England to support the mission, with a focus on the main actors’ motivations and the theological, spiritual, and practical principles which governed their labours. In the third section, I examine the complex political and religious context of the BMS mission in India. In the fourth section, I analyze the web of issues which—in Fuller’s view—necessitated the publication of the Apology, considering the BMS secretary’s principal opponents in turn. In the fifth section, I seek to illuminate the complicated process of the work’s production and the intense pressure under which Fuller was working. In the sixth and final section, I offer a reading of the leading arguments of the Apology itself.  See, for example, Robert E. Frykenberg, “Introduction: Dealing with Contested Definitions and Controversial Perspectives,” in Christians and Missionaries in India: Cross Cultural Communication since 1500, ed. Robert E. Frykenberg (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), 2.  Cf. Robert E. Frykenberg, “Christian Missions and the Raj,” in Missions and Empire, ed. Norman Etherington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 107.

1 The BMS in context

3

1 The BMS in context 1.1 The BMS and the history of Protestant cross-cultural mission The BMS was founded on October 2, 1792. William Carey (1761– 1834) and John Thomas (1757– 1801) became the society’s first missionaries, setting sail with their families on the Danish East Indiaman Kron Princessa Maria and arriving in India on November 7, 1793.⁵ Carey has passed into Baptist folklore as the “father of modern missions,” but in many ways this is misleading.⁶ He and Thomas were certainly not the first Protestant missionaries to be sent out by European or North American churches in the eighteenth century; indeed, John Eliot (1604– 1690) had pioneered cross-cultural mission work among Native Americans even earlier. In the official history of the BMS, Brian Stanley expresses himself with great care: [The] early missionaries of the BMS were among the first impressions of a renewed endeavour by Western Christians to refashion the rest of the globe in a Christian image—a movement which was to have profound implications for the history of the non-European world over the next two centuries.⁷

Among the other “first impressions of a renewed endeavour” were the Moravian missionaries, who had worked in regions as varied as Greenland (from 1733) and Jamaica (from 1754),⁸ and the Presbyterian David Brainerd (1718 – 1747), who had followed Eliot in working among Native Americans.⁹ The principal BMS personnel explicitly stated their indebtedness to these earlier movements and individuals, with the Moravians perhaps especially important for Carey, and Brainerd for Fuller.¹⁰ Carey and

 No modern, critical biography of Carey has been published. The best study is probably still Timothy George, Faithful Witness: The Life and Mission of William Carey (Leicester: IVP, 1991). Thomas was a medical doctor who had already worked in Bengal before returning there under the auspices of the BMS. For further details, see Charles B. Lewis, The Life of John Thomas (London: MacMillan, 1873).  For further details, see William H. Brackney, “The Baptist Missionary Society in Proper Context: Some Reflections on the Larger Voluntary Religious Tradition,” Baptist Quarterly (BQ) 34, no. 8 (October 1992): 364.  Brian Stanley, The History of the Baptist Missionary Society, 1792 – 1992 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992), 1.  For the classic account, see J[oseph] E[dward] Hutton, A History of Moravian Missions (London: Moravian Pub. Office, n.d. [1922]), esp. 3 – 206. For a critical study, see John C. S. Mason, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening in England, 1760 – 1800 (Woodbridge: Boydell [Royal Hist. Soc.], 2001).  For biographical details, see John A. Grigg, The Lives of David Brainerd: The Making of an American Evangelical Icon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 3 – 127. Brainerd’s influence was mediated to the English Particular Baptists through Jonathan Edwards’s Life of Brainerd. For this text, see The Life of David Brainerd, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 7, ed. Norman Pettit (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985 [1749]).  See Brackney, “BMS in Proper Context,” 368 – 69 (on Carey); Morden, Fuller, 59 – 60 (on Fuller).

4

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

Thomas were not even the first eighteenth-century Protestant missionaries to arrive in India, since Lutheran Pietists trained at the University of Halle began working there, especially in the south, as early as 1706.¹¹ At times too much has been claimed for Carey and the BMS. Nevertheless, as Stanley shows, something of great significance was happening with the founding and subsequent development of the new society. The BMS was organized as a “voluntary association” formed, in their particular case, with the specific aim of engaging in cross-cultural gospel mission overseas. The “voluntary society”—with clear aims and objectives, a list of subscribers, and a committee to direct and administer its affairs—became a template which was increasingly picked up and used by others who wanted to engage in missionary activity themselves. There were precedents, but it was the BMS which became the key point of reference.¹² The interdenominational London Missionary Society was founded in 1795, the Edinburgh (Scottish) and Glasgow Missionary Societies in 1796, and the Anglican Church Missionary Society in 1799.¹³ They were all profoundly influenced by the BMS. This was also the case with a new wave of missionary activity which flowed from North America. William Staughton (1770 – 1829), a young student at Bristol Baptist Academy, had been present at the founding BMS meeting in 1792. He came to believe the subscription he had pledged on that occasion was the best investment he ever made. He emigrated to America in 1793 and remained a staunch advocate of crosscultural mission. In 1811 he published a “narrative” of BMS work in India up to that point, with the avowed intention to “animate […] missionary cooperation” yet further in his adopted land. He was instrumental in the formation of the American Baptist Foreign Missionary Society in 1814 and became its secretary.¹⁴ Their first mis-

 For an overview of Protestant missionary endeavour prior to 1789, see Andrew Porter, Religion versus Empire? British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas Expansion, 1700 – 1914 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), 15 – 38. On the history of Christianity in India, see Robert E. Frykenberg, “Christians in India: An Historical Overview of their Complex Origins,” in Christians and Missionaries in India, 33 – 61.  Brackney (“BMS in Proper Context,” 364– 66) surveys the general history of “voluntary associations.” The Anglican Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG), founded in 1701, was a voluntary association of sorts with a commitment to overseas mission. However, it was established by Royal Charter (see Porter, Religion versus Empire, 17– 18). It was also deeply compromised by direct involvement in slavery in the Caribbean from 1710. On this topic, see Noel Titus, “Concurrence without Compliance: SPG and the Barbadian Plantations, 1710 – 1834,” in Three Centuries of Mission: The United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 1701 – 2000, ed. Daniel O’Connor (London: Continuum, 2000), 249 – 61. The SPG “owned” two sugar plantations and a number of enslaved Africans, and their involvement in the abomination of slavery was buttressed, as Titus states, by “specious arguments” (261).  The Church Missionary Society was known as the Society for Missions in Africa and the East until 1812.  William Staughton, Baptist Mission in India: Containing a Narrative of Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition […] Intended to Animate to Missionary Co-operation (Philadelphia: Hellings and Aitken, 1811). For more detail on Staughton, see Dictionary of Evangelical Biography 1730 – 1860 (DEB), ed.

1 The BMS in context

5

sionary was Adoniram Judson (1788 – 1850), an Independent who—together with his wife, Ann (1789 – 1826)—had been in the process of sailing to India to engage in mission with Congregational support, only for the couple to become convinced en route of a need to undergo believers’ baptism. They were baptized in Calcutta (Kolkata) by the BMS missionary William Ward (1769 – 1823) and went on to serve with great distinction in Burma.¹⁵ The extent to which the American Baptist Society was directly indebted to the English Baptist example was unusual. Yet the BMS had a lasting impact that was both broad and deep, giving form and impetus to a movement which would come to have profound global implications. Thus the formation of the Baptist Missionary Society in 1792 is an event of huge significance in the history of cross-cultural Christian mission.

1.2 The genesis of the BMS The central figure in the genesis of the BMS was William Carey, as Fuller himself freely acknowledged. “The origins of the society,” he said, “will be found in the workings of our brother Carey’s mind.”¹⁶ Yet Fuller himself was also highly important in this process. In the following account, I focus especially—although not exclusively—on his own role in the beginnings of the BMS. I analyze the developing missional theology of the Particular Baptists, especially that of Fuller and Carey. As I have already noted, it was this applied theology which prepared the way for the foundation of the BMS, shaped its operations, and underpinned the arguments in the Apology itself. 1.2.1 Theological renewal Fuller played a vital role in preparing the way for the formation of the BMS. In particular, his writings challenged the “High Calvinism” that was then influential in many Particular Baptist churches. High Calvinism exalted the divine decrees in ways that greatly minimized human responsibility. Ministers who were shaped by this theology included Fuller’s boyhood pastor at Soham, Cambridgeshire, John Eve (d. 1782). According to Fuller, Eve had “little or nothing to say to the unconverted” in his pulpit ministry, which is unsurprising given the theology that informed his

Donald M. Lewis (2 vols.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 2:1044– 45. For further material on BMS influence on the American missionary enterprise, see Emily J. Conroy-Krutz, “‘Engaged in the Same Glorious Cause’: Anglo—American Connections in the American Missionary Entrance into India, 1790 – 1815,” Journal of the Early Republic 34, no. 1 (Spring 2014), 21– 44, esp. 25, 33 – 34, 36.  For further details on the Judsons, who are significant figures in the history of Protestant crosscultural mission, see Adoniram Judson: A Bicentennial Appreciation of the Pioneer American Missionary, ed. Jason G. Duessing (Nashville: B & H, 2012).  Periodical Accounts Relative to the Baptist Missionary Society (PA) (5 vols.; London: Baptist Missionary Society, 1794– 1816), 1:1.

6

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

preaching.¹⁷ Urging people to trust in Christ “indiscriminately” was nonsense for pastors such as Eve, for faith could not be an unregenerate person’s “duty,” and the elect would come to believe anyway, in God’s good time. There were a number of Particular Baptist churches, especially in the west of England, which had never embraced High Calvinist dogma. Even so, it was a significant force in Calvinistic Baptist life for much of the eighteenth century.¹⁸ Fuller responded to this theology with his treatise The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, first published in 1785.¹⁹ In this text, he continued to affirm all the leading Calvinistic doctrines but struck at the heart of High Calvinism by insisting the gospel should be “offered” freely to all.²⁰ Fuller grounded his work in some of the detailed theological and philosophical reasonings of the New England Congregationalist Jonathan Edwards (1703 – 1758). In his Freedom of the Will, Edwards had distinguished between “natural” and “moral” inability, arguing that although people were incapable of responding to the gospel without God’s regenerating grace, they were still morally culpable if they failed to do so.²¹ Fuller’s debt to the New England theologian was considerable, but he did not simply repeat Edwards’s arguments. Rather, he engaged with them critically and contextualized them to serve his own purposes, insisting it was each individual’s duty to believe and the corresponding duty of pastors to preach invitational evangelistic sermons.²² Important as this line of reasoning was, Fuller was a thoroughgoing biblicist, and the Bible itself was foundational for him

 John Ryland, Jr., The Work of Faith, the Labour of Love, and the Patience of Hope Illustrated in the Life and Death of the Rev. Andrew Fuller (2nd ed.; London: Button and Son, 1818), 11. I have cited from my copy of the original work throughout this introduction. For a critical edition of the text, see John Ryland, Jr., The Life of Andrew Fuller, ed. C. Ryan Griffith (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2022 [1st ed. 1816; 2nd ed. 1818]).  See Morden, Fuller, 16 – 20.  Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1st ed.; Northampton: Thomas Dicey, 1785). The second edition of The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation is printed in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, ed. Andrew Gunton Fuller, rev. ed. Joseph Belcher (3 vols.; 3rd ed.; Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988 [1845]), 2:328 – 416.  For further details on High Calvinism and Fuller’s response to it, see Peter J. Morden, “Andrew Fuller and the Birth of ‘Fullerism,’” BQ 46, no. 4 (October 2015): 140 – 52.  Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985 [1754]), esp. 135– 440. Edwards was an important influence on all the leading BMS figures. The standard critical biography is George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2003). There are eleven volumes written by Edwards in the extant “List of Books in Fuller’s Library, 1798”—more than by any other author. For the list, see The Diary of Andrew Fuller, 1780 – 1801, ed. Michael D. McMullen and Timothy D. Whelan (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2016), Appendix A. The books listed include “Edwards on the Will,” which is no. 76 on Fuller’s list. See 215, here 221. The original “List” is held in Bristol Baptist College Library.  Edwards’s purpose in writing had been to challenge Arminian concepts of human freedom. For a discussion of the ways in which Fuller draws from Edwards, see Chris Chun, The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards in the Theology of Andrew Fuller (Leiden: Brill, 2012); see pp. 10 – 65 for material relevant to The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation.

1 The BMS in context

7

as he wrote. He had become convinced that, while Scripture did teach doctrines such as election and predestination, it also depicted Christ and his apostles urging all of their hearers—including those who would never come to believe— to put their trust in Jesus. Ministers and others, Fuller urged, must follow their example.²³ Thus High Calvinism was rejected in favour of an evangelical Calvinism which was expansive and missional. Fuller was certainly not the first eighteenth-century Particular Baptist to practice such an evangelical approach, nor was he the first to advocate it in print. Robert Hall, Sr. (1728 – 1791) was another who wrote against the High Calvinists, with his Help to Zion’s Travellers actually published four years before Fuller’s Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. Hall, Sr.’s work was especially influential in Carey’s own theological development.²⁴ Furthermore, as I have already noted, there were others, especially in the west of England, who had always eschewed High Calvinism. Even so, it was Fuller who became the principal advocate of Edwardsean evangelical Calvinism in the life of the English Particular Baptist denomination. The theology cultivated by Fuller, Hall, Sr., and others in their circle—such as John Ryland, Jr. (1753 – 1825) and John Sutcliff (1752– 1814)—provided the seedbed out of which the BMS would spring.²⁵ 1.2.2 The development of a missional spirituality The “prayer call of 1784” was also an important step towards founding the BMS.²⁶ Once again, one of Jonathan Edwards’s books—An Humble Attempt to Promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of God’s People in Extraordinary Prayer, originally  Fuller, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1st ed.), esp. 40, 162– 63, 166.  Robert Hall, Sr., Help to Zion’s Travellers (1781). The Complete Works of the Late Robert Hall (ed. John W. Morris [London, 1828], 47– 199) contains the second edition. On the book’s influence on Carey, see, for example, Eustace Carey, Memoir of William Carey, DD (London: Jackson and Walford, 1836), 15 – 16.  Ryland, Jr. is henceforth Ryland. He was a pastor in Northampton before moving to the Bristol Baptist Academy in 1793. Sutcliff was a pastor in Olney, Bucks. Both men are important to the founding and subsequent progress of the BMS. Together with Fuller, they formed what has sometimes been termed the “home trio” to complement the “Serampore trio,” which comprised the key missionaries. For brief biographies, see DEB, 2:965 – 66 (on Ryland); 1073 (on Sutcliff). For further details, see Christopher W. Crocker, “The Life and Legacy of John Ryland Jr. (1753 – 1825),” (PhD diss., Bristol, Bristol Baptist College and University of Bristol, 2018); Michael A. G. Haykin, One Heart and One Soul: John Sutcliff of Olney, His Friends and His Times (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1994). The eighteenth-century Evangelical Revival and what is often termed “modern evangelicalism” provides vital background for both the BMS and the Apology. For various perspectives on these topics, see David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989); The Emergence of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities, ed. Michael A. G. Haykin and Kenneth J. Stewart (Leicester: IVP, 2008); Evangelicalism, Piety and Politics: The Selected Writings of W.R. Ward, ed. Andrew Chandler (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014).  John W. Morris, Memoirs of the Life and Death of the Rev Andrew Fuller (2nd edn.; London: Wightman and Cramp, 1826), 95 – 98. For further details, see 153– 71.

8

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

published in 1748—provides essential background.²⁷ The book was rooted in the movement to establish regular prayer meetings for revival, which had begun in the 1740s and subsequently criss-crossed the Atlantic. At these meetings, those present offered “fervent and constant” prayer for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the rapid extension of God’s kingdom around the world.²⁸ Phrases in the Humble Attempt such as “the promised glorious and universal outpourings of the Spirit of God” need to be read against the background of Edwards’s optimistic postmillennial eschatology, with its accompanying belief in the imminence of “the latter day glory.”²⁹ When Fuller, Ryland, and Sutcliff read the work in 1784, they disagreed with some of the detailed predictions concerning the ways in which God’s kingdom—in Edwards’s view—was about to grow exponentially around the world. Nevertheless, broadly speaking they shared his eschatology. Fuller’s own commitments are revealed in his published expositions of the biblical book of Revelation,³⁰ and his postmillennial thinking shows the imprint of Edwards’s own views.³¹ The early BMS missionaries shared this optimistic Edwardsean eschatology, which proved to be a great motivation not only to prayer, but also to action. Having read the Humble Attempt, Fuller, Ryland, and Sutcliff wasted little time in establishing monthly prayer meetings in their respective churches along the lines proposed. At these meetings, information on mission at home and abroad was shared, and then extempore prayer was offered for the worldwide extension of God’s kingdom. Similar gatherings were established by other Particular Baptists as they followed this trio’s lead. Then in 1789, Fuller, Sutcliff, and Ryland reprinted the Humble Attempt with a new preface written by Sutcliff. Their “avowed design” was to “promote” further what was already becoming a dynamic movement.³² By the 1790s considerable momentum had been created, and serious discussions were taking place concerning the possibility of Particular Baptists engaging in mission work overseas.³³ The “call to prayer” and the missional spirituality it helped to fan into flame were vital in preparing the way for the BMS. One should also note that both the theology of evangelism and the practice of prayer which established the conditions for the founding of the BMS were firmly rooted in the transatlantic Evangelical Revival.

 The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Edward Hickman (2 vols.; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974 [1834]), 2:280 – 312. All subsequent references to the Humble Attempt are from this edition of Edwards’s Works.  Edwards, Humble Attempt, 312.  Edwards, Humble Attempt, 306.  Andrew Fuller, Expository Discourses on the Apocalypse, Interspersed with Practical Reflections (London: Wm. Button, 1815). For this text, see Fuller, Works, 3:201– 307. For a new critical edition, see Expository Discourses on the Apocalypse, ed. Crawford Gribben (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2022).  See Expository Discourses on the Apocalypse in Fuller, Works, 3:251 for an explicit reference to the Humble Attempt. For Edwards’s influence on Fuller’s eschatology, see Chun, Edwards in the Theology of Fuller, 66 – 83.  Reprint published by: Northampton: T. Dicey, 1789 (1742). For Sutcliff’s preface, see iii–vi, here iv.  Morden, Fuller, 115.

1 The BMS in context

9

1.2.3 The Pernicious Consequences of Delay in Religious Concerns The Northamptonshire Association of Particular Baptist churches—to which Fuller, Carey, Ryland, and Sutcliff all belonged—provided a vital context for the discussions concerning the feasibility of engaging in cross-cultural mission.³⁴ One of the sermons Fuller preached at an Association meeting at Clipstone on April 27, 1791 was especially important in advancing the debate. The original title of the message was The Instances, Evil, And Tendency of Delay, in the Concerns of Religion,³⁵ and in the course of his address Fuller had some points to make to those who said “the time has not yet come” for world mission.³⁶ Referring to the words of the risen Christ, as recorded in Matthew 28:19 – 20, Fuller declared: When the Lord Jesus commissioned his apostles, he commanded them to go and teach “all nations” and preach the gospel to “every creature”; and that notwithstanding the difficulties and oppositions that would lie in their way. The apostles executed their commission with assiduity and fidelity; but, since their days, we seem to sit down half contented that the greater part of the world should remain in ignorance and idolatry. Some noble efforts have indeed been made; but they are small in number, when compared with the magnitude of the object.³⁷

It was unusual for Protestants at that time to believe Christ’s command in Matthew 28:19 – 20—the so-called “great commission”—was directly applicable to them. Martin Luther (1483 – 1546), John Calvin (1509 – 1564), and Theodore Beza (1519 – 1605), together with the vast majority of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Puritan divines, held the apostles had already fulfilled this command.³⁸ This was also the published position of Jonathan Edwards, who argued in favour of world mission on other grounds.³⁹ This view—that the commission was not God’s command for their time— was standard in Particular Baptist life.⁴⁰ However, the Moravians thought differently,  For the Northamptonshire Association, its evangelical ethos, and its importance for Fuller, see Morden, Fuller, 39 – 40, 56 – 57. Its name was something of a misnomer, as the Northamptonshire Association included Particular Baptists from a number of counties, including Cambridgeshire and Leicestershire.  It was later published as The Pernicious Consequences of Delay in Religious Concerns (Clipstone: J. W. Morris, 1791). For this text, see Fuller, Works, 1:145 – 51. All subsequent references are to this edition.  Fuller’s text was Haggai 1:2, in which God’s people said, “The time is not yet come” for the temple to be rebuilt. See Pernicious Consequences of Delay, 145.  Fuller, Pernicious Consequences of Delay, 147.  See Ronald E. Davies, “The Great Commission from Calvin to Carey,” Evangel 14, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 46 – 49. An exception to this rule among the seventeenth-century English Puritans was Richard Baxter.  Although see Davies, “Great Commission,” 47 for reference to a handwritten note about the commission in Edwards’s “Blank Bible.”  This is strongly implied in John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (3 vols.; London: Aaron Ward, 1746) 1:337, and famously illustrated in an anecdote related by John Webster Morris in Fuller, 101. Morris relates Carey’s rebuke at the hands of Ryland, Jr.’s father, John Collet Ryland. In a min-

10

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

and their understanding of the biblical text impelled them to action.⁴¹ Fuller stopped just short of saying Matthew 28:19 – 20 was binding on all believers in every age, showing the influence of his Protestant heritage. Even so, one could argue that the continuing validity of the great commission was implicit in the point he was making. The apostles had taken the gospel to “all nations”; Fuller was increasingly convinced of the need for similar concerted action in his own day. He continued: Are the souls of men of less value than heretofore? No. Is Christianity less true or less important than in former ages? This will not be pretended. Are there no opportunities for societies, or individuals, in Christian nations, to convey the gospel to the heathen? This cannot be pleaded as long as opportunities are found to trade with them, yea, and (what is a disgrace to the name of Christians) to buy them, and sell them, and treat them with worse than savage barbarity? We have opportunities in abundance; the improvement of navigation, the maritime and commercial turn of this country, furnish us with these; and it deserves to be considered whether this is not a circumstance that renders it a duty peculiarly binding on us.⁴²

Fuller’s appeal was predicated on the eternal truth, relevance, and power of the gospel, but it was also shaped by the circumstances of the age in which he and his hearers lived. At this point, it is also worth noting Carey’s words—that the accounts of Captain James Cook’s (1728 – 1799) voyages to Australia and the South Seas were “the first thing that engaged [his] mind to think of missions.”⁴³ Fuller and Carey alike believed opportunities were opening up which made active participation in gospel work overseas a real possibility for English Particular Baptists. Moreover, if engagement in such work was a genuine possibility, it was also their solemn duty. So while reflection on Scripture was primary in motivating them to consider overseas mission, awareness of their context was important too. The “disgrace” of the slave trade was a further motivating factor impelling them to share the love of Christ overseas; indeed, Fuller’s words in the quotation I have just cited are noteworthy as a statement of his implacable opposition to the “savage barbarity” of the transatlantic

isters’ meeting, Carey had proposed they discuss whether the commission was still “obligatory on all succeeding ministers to the end of the world,” only to be told by Collett Ryland to “sit down.” The accuracy of this anecdote is contested (although Morris was present when the exchange took place, so his is an eyewitness account). Whatever the precise truth of the story, the anecdote accurately reflects an important strain of thinking in English Particular Baptist life. In Scotland, Archibald McLean was probably the “first Scottish Protestant [minister] since the Reformation to argue that the Great Commission […] was a duty to be taken seriously” by contemporary Christians when he published on the subject in 1796. See Brian R. Talbot, “Spreading the Good News from Scotland: Scottish Baptists and Overseas Mission in the First Three Decades of the Twentieth Century,” in Pathways and Patterns in History: Essays on Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Modern World in Honour of David Bebbington, ed. Anthony R. Cross, Peter J. Morden, and Ian M. Randall (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2020 [2015]), 146.  Davies, “Great Commission,” 47.  Fuller, Pernicious Consequences of Delay, 147.  E. Carey, William Carey, 18; Stanley, BMS, 8. These were probably the accounts of Cook’s second and third voyages, originally published in 1784.

1 The BMS in context

11

trade in enslaved Africans. Thus, we can only properly understand the founding of the BMS if we view it in its late eighteenth-century context. Finally, it is helpful to emphasize again that the word “duty” carried much theological and practical freight. It was every individual’s duty to believe, every pastor’s duty to preach invitational sermons, and given the particular opportunities their situation afforded, it was also a duty for Particular Baptists, and indeed for all Christians, to engage in world mission. Fuller was developing the missional theology of The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation in a bold and daring way. With an allusion to the 1784 prayer call, the BMS secretary further pressed home his appeal for action: We pray for the conversion and salvation of the world, and yet neglect the ordinary means by which those ends have been used to be accomplished. It pleased God, heretofore, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believed; and there is reason to think it will still please God to work by that distinguished means. Ought we not then at least to try by some means to convey more of the good news of salvation to the world around us than has hitherto been conveyed? The encouragement to the heathen is still in force, “Whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved: But how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent?”⁴⁴

The appeal is scriptural, with the long quotation taken from Romans 10:14– 15, and it nicely illustrates the evangelical Particular Baptists’ characteristic balance between God’s sovereignty (it was God who would “work”) and human responsibility (he would work through preachers and preaching). If the word “duty” is central to the previous extract, “means” is the vital one here. The “good news of salvation,” according to Fuller, was conveyed by God’s appointed means of preaching. This was as true with respect to overseas work as it was of evangelism at home, and for him it was a great spur to action. As he would later write to John Fawcett (1739 – 1817) of Hebden Bridge, “we now think we ought to do something more than pray.”⁴⁵ Many of those who heard his Association sermon were likewise ready to act. The importance of Fuller’s Clipstone message for the founding of the BMS is highlighted in nearly all the contemporary accounts, as is that of a sermon John Sutcliff preached on the same day.⁴⁶ Sutcliff’s Jealousy for the Lord of Hosts Illustrated was also later published.⁴⁷ In this sermon, he argued that if someone is truly “jealous” for God and his glory, then this will reveal itself in a love for people which is so

 Fuller, Pernicious Consequences of Delay, 148. Italics original.  Fuller to John Fawcett, January 28, 1793, in John Fawcett, Jr., An Account of the Life, Ministry and Writings of the Late Rev John Fawcett, DD (London: Baldwin, Craddock and Joy, 1818), 294.  See, for example, PA, 1:2; Morris, Fuller, 103; Ryland, Fuller, 149; Francis A. Cox, History of the Baptist Missionary Society. From 1792 to 1842 (2 vols.; London: T. Ward and G. & J. Dyer, 1842), 1:16.  Jealousy for the Lord of Hosts Illustrated (London: William Button, 1791). Sutcliff’s text was 1 Kings 19:10, especially Elijah’s words: “I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts.”

12

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

strong it “can embrace a globe.”⁴⁸ Momentum for the missionary cause continued to build. After the Clipstone meeting, another key moment came in May 1792, when— with the encouragement of Fuller, Ryland, and Sutcliff—Carey himself published on the subject of world mission. 1.2.4 The Enquiry Carey’s pamphlet, An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, appeared on May 12, 1792.⁴⁹ The words “obligations” and “means” in the title convey the thrust of his argument.⁵⁰ Christians were “obligated” (he might have said it was their “duty”) to use “means” to take the gospel to those who had never heard it. Carey had imbibed the language and concepts of the evangelical theology which was the hallmark of the Northamptonshire Association’s senior figures. Fuller, Ryland, and Sutcliff had urged Carey to publish on world mission and had read and approved what the younger man had written.⁵¹ Indeed, as Stanley states, some of Carey’s language “corresponded closely to a passage in Fuller’s April 1791 sermon on the dangerous tendency of delay.”⁵² The statement: “It has been said that some learned divines have proved from Scripture that the time is not yet come that the heathen should be converted” is especially close to the thrust of Fuller’s sermon.⁵³ Carey further declared: It seems as if many thought the commission [i. e., the “great commission,” Matthew 28:19] was sufficiently put in execution by what the apostles and others have done; that we have enough to do to attend to the salvation of our own countrymen; and that, if God intends the salvation of the heathen, he will some way or other bring them to the gospel, or the gospel to them. It is thus that multitudes sit at ease, and give themselves no concern about the greater part of their fellow sinners, who, to this day, are lost in ignorance and idolatry.⁵⁴

Despite obvious similarities, it is by no means certain Carey was drawing from Fuller’s Clipstone sermon. Indeed, it is possible Fuller had borrowed from Carey rather than vice versa, given he had seen and critiqued the draft manuscript of the Enquiry before he had preached at Clipstone.⁵⁵ The essential point is this: the two men shared a common theology and a common understanding of that theology’s practical outworking. This theology and praxis would establish and drive forward the work of the BMS, and would later underpin Fuller’s work in the Apology.

 Sutcliff, Jealousy for the Lord of Hosts, 8.  Published by: Leicester: Ann Ireland, 1792. It has also been published in facsimile by: London: Kingsgate Press, 1961 (1792).  Cf. Stanley, BMS, 12.  Ryland, Fuller, 238 – 39.  Stanley, BMS, 12.  Carey, Enquiry, 12.  Carey, Enquiry, 8.  Cf. Stanley, BMS, 12.

1 The BMS in context

13

In the Enquiry, Carey did go beyond Fuller in one vital respect. He explicitly and daringly insisted the commission in Matthew 28:19 – 20 was still “binding” on present-day disciples, arguing his point at length.⁵⁶ As he built his case, he observed that, if the command to go and make disciples of all nations was not still binding, then surely, to be consistent, the command to baptize should be treated in the same way. You could not have it both ways. As far as Carey was concerned, he was certain both directives were still in force. Moreover, he argued it was increasingly possible to put the commission into practice, even though it was still difficult. He cited the efforts of the “Moravian Brethren” as proof that it could be done. Their missionaries had encountered the “scorching heat” of northern Africa and the “frozen climes” of Greenland, and had also mastered “difficult languages.”⁵⁷ Why could others not do the same? The commission remained in force, and the way to fulfil it was increasingly opening up. Why did more Christians not respond? Once more, biblical theology and reflections on context were blended together. In Carey’s hands, the mix was a potent one. As Carey developed his argument in the different sections of the Enquiry, he repeatedly connected theology and practice, insisting the one must lead to the other. He wanted to move beyond words to actions and to impress on his readers the implications of their evangelical theology and their renewed commitment to intercession. At one point he appealed to his readers: “I trust our monthly prayer-meetings for the success of the gospel have not been in vain.”⁵⁸ The proposal to form a society on the voluntary association model, with a committee and subscriptions, was explicitly articulated and driven home. Possible objections were acknowledged and swept aside.⁵⁹ Carey concluded his pamphlet thus: We are exhorted to lay up treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, nor thieves break through and steal […] It is true all the reward is of mere grace, but it is nevertheless encouraging; what a treasure, what an [sic] harvest must await such characters as PAUL, and ELLIOT [sic], and BRAINERD, and others, who have given themselves wholly to the work of the Lord. What a heaven will it be to see the many myriads of poor heathens, of Britons amongst the rest, who by their labours have been brought to the knowledge of God. Surely a crown of rejoicing like this is worth aspiring to. Surely it is worthwhile to lay ourselves out with all our might, in promoting the cause, and Kingdom of Christ.⁶⁰

The spur to action was passionate commitment to Christ, love for biblical theology, an awareness of the history of missions, a deep love for the “heathen” (note “Britons” are included in this description of those “heathens” who had not embraced

 Carey, Enquiry, 6 – 13, here 6. Cf. 77, here 73: “[T]he commission is a sufficient call […] to venture all, and, like the primitive Christians, go everywhere preaching the gospel.”  Carey, Enquiry, 11.  Carey, Enquiry, 79.  Carey, Enquiry, e. g., 83 – 85.  Carey, Enquiry, 86 – 87. Capitalization and italics original. Cf. Matthew 6:19 – 20.

14

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

the gospel), and the pursuit of heavenly reward. Above all it was concern for the extension of the “Kingdom of Christ.” Here was a breadth of vision combined with an urgency of appeal outstripping even that contained in Fuller’s Association sermon. 1.2.5 The BMS formed Carey went on to preach a celebrated sermon on Isaiah 54:2– 3 at the Association meeting held at Friar Lane, Nottingham on May 30, 1792. The central points of this message have often been rendered as “expect great things from God; attempt great things for God,” although the shorter title “expect great things; attempt great things” is probably more strictly accurate.⁶¹ Once again we see the influence of a postmillennial eschatology. “Great things” could be expected of a sovereign God who had promised to pour out his blessing and grow his kingdom. Confident of this, his servants could “attempt great things,” for they were the means by which God would accomplish his sure purposes. With Carey’s prompting, Fuller submitted the resolution “that a plan be prepared against the next [Northamptonshire Association] ministers’ meeting at Kettering, for forming a ‘Baptist society for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen.’”⁶² The meeting took place on October 2, in the home of Martha Wallis (d. 1812), a leading member of Fuller’s church. As well as Fuller, Carey, and the young William Staughton, there were eleven other men present.⁶³ A five-man committee was elected: Fuller, Ryland, Sutcliff, Carey, and Reynold Hogg (1752– 1843) of Thrapston, who became the treasurer. Carey and his party left for India on June 13, 1793.⁶⁴ The evangelical theology, postmillennial eschatology, and missional spirituality of this group of Calvinistic Baptist ministers was now being worked out in vigorous practical action.

2 The work of the BMS in Britain and in India 2.1 Fuller’s role in supporting the mission as home secretary Fuller made a remarkable contribution to the society’s work, doing more than anyone in England to sustain the missionaries who went overseas. His duties as BMS secretary included producing its regular Periodical Accounts and supplying missionary news to John Rippon’s Baptist Annual Register, as well as to the Evangelical Maga See PA, 1:3; cf. Fuller to John Fawcett, August 30, 1793, “Typescript Andrew Fuller Letters,” transcribed by Joyce A. Booth, superintended by Ernest A. Payne, Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford (4/5/1 and 4/5/2), (4/5/1), in which Fuller recorded Carey’s headings as: “1. Let us expect great things; II. Let us attempt great things.”  The Baptist Annual Register, vol. 1, ed. John Rippon (London: Dilly, Button and Thomas, 1793), 375, 419.  PA, 1:3 – 4. For the full list and further details, see Stanley, BMS, 15.  Cox, BMS, 1:2, 24.

2 The work of the BMS in Britain and in India

15

zine, the Baptist Magazine, and other religious periodicals.⁶⁵ He took the lead role in selecting missionary personnel and corresponded regularly with those already in the field. He wrote numerous letters promoting the work, visited countless individuals, and spoke in many churches on behalf of the mission.⁶⁶ As well as visits to churches in his own local area, he engaged in longer tours. He ventured to London on many occasions and at one time or another visited most of the counties in England. Yet more remarkable still were his preaching tours in Ireland (1804), Wales (1812), and Scotland (1799, 1802, 1805, 1808, and 1813).⁶⁷ Fuller was regularly away from his own church in Kettering for three months of each year under the auspices of the BMS, traversing the British Isles to increase awareness, encourage prayer, and raise much-needed funding. He aimed to collect “a pound a mile” and appears to have been largely successful in achieving this ambitious target.⁶⁸ Fuller conducted all of these BMS duties while he continued as pastor at Kettering, where he was still ostensibly full-time. Fuller did not even have an assistant at the church until 1811, when John Keen Hall (d. 1829) was appointed. Moreover, he suffered extended bouts of poor health caused, at least in part, by overwork. One of his letters from 1800 captures his dilemma: [Samuel] Pearce’s memoirs are now loudly called for. I sit down almost in despair […] My wife looks at me with a tear ready to drop, and says, “My dear, you have hardly time to speak to me.” My friends at home are kind, but they also say, “You have no time to see us or know us, and you will soon be worn out.” Amidst all this there is “Come again to Scotland—come to Portsmouth— come to Plymouth—come to Bristol.”⁶⁹

The Pearce referred to in this letter was Samuel Pearce (1766 – 1799), the late pastor of Cannon Street Chapel in Birmingham. Pearce had been an important supporter and enthusiastic promoter of the BMS, and his death was a formidable blow to the new society. Even so, Fuller kept up his exhausting schedule, which included responding positively to the requests from Plymouth and Bristol which he referred to in his letter. In 1801 Robert Hall, Jr. (1764– 1831), having heard Fuller had just visited those places, expressed his fears for the BMS secretary’s health in a letter to Ryland: “If he is not more careful he will be in danger of wearing himself out before his time. His jour-

 Significant work on the Periodical Accounts was also done by Samuel Pearce until his death in 1799. See Ryland, Fuller, 147.  Ryland, Fuller, 212; Morris, Fuller, 110 – 11.  Ryland, Fuller, 156.  Fuller to James Deakin, August 14, 1812, in [Anon.], “Letters to James Deakin,” BQ 7 (October 1935): 365. Fuller estimated that the journey to Wales was also “about a 600 miles excursion.” Still, he raised what he usually aimed for: “my old price, a pound a mile.” Cf. Morris, Fuller, 113 – 14; Stanley, BMS, 20.  Fuller to unnamed correspondent, March 1800, in Andrew Gunton Fuller, Men Worth Remembering: Andrew Fuller (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1882), 91– 92. Fuller succeeded in publishing Pearce’s biography later that year. For a critical edition of the text, see Andrew Fuller, Memoirs of the Rev. Samuel Pearce, ed. Michael A. G. Haykin (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2017 [1800]).

16

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

neys, his studies, his correspondencies [sic] must be too much for any man.”⁷⁰ Yet in 1805, on his third journey to Scotland, Fuller was still keeping the same relentless pace. The following extract is from a letter to his wife, Ann (née Coles) (1763 – 1825), written towards the close of his tour, after he had begun his return journey south: The last letter I wrote to you, was from Glasgow, Tuesday, July 23. (This letter is wanting.) Since then, I have preached at Paisley, Greenock, Saltcoats, Kilmarnock, Kilwinning, Air [sic], and Dumfries. I am now on my way to Liverpool, I have not been in bed till tonight [Thursday], since Lord’s-day night, at Irvine, in Scotland. I have felt my strength and spirits much exhausted; yet hitherto the Lord hath helped and my health is good.⁷¹

As I have already shown, this sort of punishing programme was not at all unusual for Fuller. Despite his failing health, it never seems to have occurred to him to ease off. This work was invaluable to the BMS, yet it came at a cost to his family and his church. One result of this unbridled activism is especially relevant to this introduction: the vital political and apologetic work he engaged in on behalf of the BMS—including writing the Apology—was carried on under immense pressure. We will need to return to this point on a number of occasions as we consider the text of the Apology. Ryland recorded one more consequence of the immense burden Fuller was carrying, declaring that his friend’s “exertions proved greater than nature was able to sustain, and he sunk under them into a premature grave.”⁷² Of course this is subjective, and there were other factors which affected his health (he regularly took snuff, for example). Nevertheless, it is surely likely that overwork was one cause of his early death. Hall, Jr.’s concerns had been well founded. Perhaps the remarkable thing is that Fuller managed to survive until 1815. In any case, it is evident he gave himself unstintingly to the work of the mission.

2.2 The BMS in India The BMS sought to develop its overseas operations after 1792. In 1795 Jacob Grigg (1769 – 1835) and James Rodway were sent to establish a mission in Sierra Leone. However, this effort failed due to Rodway’s poor health, which meant he had to return home, and Grigg’s radical political views, which led to him being expelled from

 Robert Hall, Jr. to John Ryland, May 25, 1801, in Geoffrey F. Nuttall, “Letters from Robert Hall to John Ryland, 1791– 1824,” BQ 34, no. 3 (July 1991): 127. For further details on Hall, Jr., son of the author of Help to Zion’s Travellers and one of the most prominent Baptist ministers of the first half of the nineteenth century, see DEB, 1:506 – 7. As we will see, Fuller encouraged Hall, Jr. himself to publish in defence of the Indian mission, but in vain.  Andrew Fuller to Ann Fuller, [Thursday,] August 1, 1805, in Ryland, Fuller, 197.  Ryland, Fuller, 381.

2 The work of the BMS in Britain and in India

17

the colony.⁷³ Bengal remained the primary focus for the newly established society, and it is the work there and the situation in India more broadly which occasioned the writing of the Apology. Consequently, in the following account I consider the progress of the BMS on the Indian subcontinent after 1793 and especially seek to tease out the principles—both theological and practical—which governed the work of Carey and his colleagues on the ground. Soon after he arrived in India, Carey faced a series of setbacks which could easily have led to the mission’s failure.⁷⁴ Thomas could be unstable and unreliable. Partly because of this, they quickly encountered financial problems. Loneliness was also an issue, and the mission was hampered by many further challenges. For example, William Carey’s wife, Dorothy (née Plackett) (ca.1756 – 1807), had been extremely reluctant to come to India and increasingly experienced problems with her mental health —problems that were poorly understood and poorly addressed.⁷⁵ An extract from Carey’s journal, dated April 19, 1794, which is included in the BMS Periodical Accounts, gives insight into his own struggles. The obstacles to the work were so great and so many that he believed his “hopes would utterly die away” were it not for God’s sovereign, sustaining grace.⁷⁶ There were no conversions for seven years. Between 1794 and 1799 he worked at indigo planting in Mudnabati as he sought to mitigate extreme financial hardship. Thanks in part to strenuous fundraising efforts at home, Carey and his family—by now operating largely independently of Thomas—were joined by a number of co-workers, some of whom died soon after disembarking. For example, William Grant, who arrived in 1799, succumbed to cholera and dysentery less than a month after stepping ashore in India. But two men who had travelled with him, Joshua Marshman (1768 – 1837) and William Ward, survived the dangerous early months and were to prove extremely significant for the developing work.⁷⁷

 Fuller to Carey, October 11, 1796, “Letters to Carey, Marshman and Ward,” Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford (4/3/5); Morden, Fuller, 162.  For further information on the topics in this paragraph, see Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964), 262– 64; E. Daniel Potts, British Baptist Missionaries in India, 1793 – 1837 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 172; Stanley, BMS, 36 – 39, 70.  The story of her life in India and her death in 1807 is one of the tragedies of the mission.  PA, 1:175. Cf. Carey to Samuel Pearce, Mudnabati, April 29, 1798, in PA, 1:421. A “long series of disappointed hopes” taught him to go on “in the strength of God.”  For an appreciative nineteenth-century account of Ward, see Samuel Stennett, Memoirs of the Life of the Rev. William Ward (London: J. Haddon: 1825). For Marshman, see the account by his son, John Clark Marshman, The Story of Carey, Marshman, and Ward, The Serampore Missionaries (2 vols.; London: Alexander Strahan, 1864 [1859]).

18

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

2.3 Establishing the mission base at Serampore Between 1799 and 1800 the missionaries established a new base in the small Danish enclave of Serampore (Shrirampur), 15 miles north of Calcutta on the Hugli river. The governor, Olave Bie (1733 – 1805), a committed and pious Lutheran, was sympathetic to their cause and supportive. Carey, Marshman, and Ward worked closely together as a unit and became known as “the Serampore trio.” At the end of 1800 Carey accepted a post as a tutor at Fort William College in Calcutta, which gave the group a new financial security. Carey and Marshman engaged in extensive Bible translation work, and Ward, a printer and a journalist, was instrumental in establishing a press at Serampore so the Bible and other Christian literature could be printed and distributed. The first Hindu convert was Krishna Pal (d. 1822), a carpenter who embraced the Christian faith and was baptized in 1800. Yet progress remained slow. There was a steady trickle of conversions, but nothing like the flood for which the trio, imbued with postmillennial optimism, had hoped. Carey famously said: “I can plod. I can persevere in any definite pursuit. To this I owe everything.”⁷⁸ Unsurprisingly, his biographers believed this comment showed great humility on their subject’s part. Carey’s plodding was the “plodding of a genius,” as John Clark Marshman put it.⁷⁹ Even so, the dogged perseverance of this core team of pioneers in the face of much adversity was one crucial reason the mission finally embedded itself in Indian soil. This perseverance was underpinned by an unshakable belief in God’s sovereignty and goodness. This was a perspective Fuller understood and shared, and it grounds and informs his writing in the Apology.

2.4 The principles governing the mission: The Serampore “Form of Agreement” What were the principles which shaped the Indian mission, and how did these work in practice? On October 6, 1805, the twelfth anniversary of the BMS formation at Kettering, the trio and six other missionaries who were by then at Serampore signed a “Form of Agreement” (henceforth SFA)⁸⁰ following a day-long meeting that began with a time of corporate prayer at 6:00 a.m. Carey had been in Bengal for the full

 E. Carey, Carey, 623; J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:478.  J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:478.  The Serampore Form of Agreement, Respecting the Great Principles Upon Which the Brethren of the Mission at Serampore Think it to Act in the Work (Serampore: “Printed at the Brethren’s Press,” 1805). The original is extremely rare, although the Angus Library in Oxford does have a copy. Fortunately the text of this important work is freely available elsewhere. The SFA was printed in PA, 3:198 – 211 and is also reproduced in full in other places, such as in William Yates, Memoirs of Mr John Chamberlain (Calcutta/London: Baptist Mission Press/Wightman & Cramp, 1926), 190 – 201. It is also transcribed with almost complete accuracy, with some commentary offered on the text (anonymously, but probably by Ernest A. Payne), in “The Serampore Form of Agreement,” BQ 12, no. 5 (1947): 125 – 38.

2 The work of the BMS in Britain and in India

19

eleven years of the mission’s life and, together with Ward and Marshman, at Serampore for almost five. The SFA crystalized the principles that had already been guiding them and mapped out how they planned to proceed,⁸¹ which was especially important as they hoped to fan out and establish mission stations far from Serampore. The principles speak to the day-to-day life of the mission and to its longer-term goals. Ward drafted the document, but it expressed the trio’s convictions.⁸² The principles, as Samuel Pearce Carey summarizes them, are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

To set an infinite value on men’s souls. To acquaint ourselves with the snares which hold the minds of the people. To abstain from whatever deepens India’s prejudice against the Gospel. To watch over every chance of doing the people good. To preach “Christ crucified” as the grand means of conversions.⁸³ To esteem and treat Indians always as our equals. To guard and build up “the host that may be gathered.”⁸⁴ To cultivate their spiritual gifts, ever pressing upon them their missionary obligation—since Indians only can win India for Christ. 9. To labour unceasingly in Biblical translation. 10. To be instant in the nurture of personal religion. 11. To give ourselves without reserve to the cause, “not counting even the clothes we wear our own.”⁸⁵

The SFA is worthy of extended comment, with respect to both the principles themselves and the ways in which they were worked out on the ground. They distill the essence of the missionary effort Fuller would passionately defend in print less than three years later. The following analysis refers to Pearce Carey’s summary but focuses on the full text of the agreement, which is just over 4,500 words in length and represents a detailed exposition of the missionaries’ guiding tenets. I consider the SFA under three headings: gospel mission, community, and strategy.

 On the early adoption of some principles which later took their place in the SFA, see, for example, William Ward’s journal entry for January 18, 1800, in PA, 2:44.  On Ward’s authorship, see J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:229.  1 Corinthians 1:23  A possible reference to Jeremiah 8:2. This is not a direct quotation from the SFA, which has instead “souls that may be gathered.”  Samuel Pearce Carey, Memoir of William Carey, DD (8th edn.; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934 [1923]), 262. Note that Pearce Carey’s summary heading for clause 4 is potentially misleading. The thrust of this clause is not that the missionaries should engage in social action—although, as we will see, they certainly did so. Rather, the clause insists they should not confine themselves to preaching, but should look for other opportunities to commend the gospel, for example in one-to-one conversations. The quotation in clause 10 is again a free rendering of what is found in the SFA, which has: “Let us never think that our time, our gifts, our strength, our families, or even the clothes we wear, are our own.”

20

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

2.4.1 Gospel mission That Carey and his colleagues placed “an infinite value” on “souls,” as Pearce Carey’s summary of the first clause of the SFA puts it, is amply shown by the missionaries’ preaching, publications, letters, and journals. One example I have already cited in this introduction is the Enquiry itself. The full text of the SFA articulates the BMS workers’ core evangelistic principles in more detail. They were convinced God had created all people equally in his image and showed his continued love for them all by sending his Son, Jesus, into the world as their saviour. Furthermore, they held to the evangelical principle that the message of “Christ crucified” was salvation for everyone who believed, without exception. Their Calvinistic convictions were evident in their insistence that salvation was only possible due to God’s sovereign grace. As they made clear in the preamble to the agreement, they were persuaded “only those who are ordained to eternal life” would believe, for “God alone” can add to the church “such as shall be saved.” Paul might plant and Apollos might water, but all would be in vain if God did not give the increase.⁸⁶ However, as might be expected, they did not see this belief in God’s overarching sovereignty as negating applied, evangelistic ministry; indeed, it was a spur to it. God used means—especially biblical, Christ-honouring, crucicentric preaching—to accomplish his sovereign saving purposes. It was their great privilege to be used by God as his “instruments” in his great work of human redemption.⁸⁷ As I have already noted, these fundamental commitments had inspired their work in India from the beginning, and in the SFA they reaffirmed their desire “to give themselves without reserve to the cause.” Evangelistic work should proceed only on the basis of peaceful persuasion: any use of force to bring about “conversions” was anathema.⁸⁸ Nevertheless, their deep commitment to share the gospel of Christ with any who would listen is evident. As they expressed themselves in clause 6, “We can never make sacrifices too great when the eternal salvation of souls is the object.”⁸⁹ They also affirmed a commitment to forms of mission that were not directly evangelistic.⁹⁰ This included providing “free schools” for Indian children, something the Marshmans, especially Hannah Marshman (1767– 1847), had already put into practice.⁹¹ Hannah had arrived in India with her husband and their two children in 1799. She would serve with distinction for nearly forty-eight years, despite the indifferent health which necessitated her one and only return to England in 1820 – 1821.

 SFA, preamble, 129. 1 Cor. 3:6. All quotations and pagination in this introduction are taken from the SFA as it appears in the BQ article, “The Serampore Form of Agreement.”  SFA, clause 10, 137.  SFA, clause 6, 132.  SFA, clause 6, 132.  SFA, clause 9, 137. One should note, however, that in the minds of the missionaries the schools still provided a vital context in which the gospel could be shared. Furthermore, they believed the education they offered would lead to a greater receptivity to the gospel in time.  S. Pearce Carey, Wm. Carey, 195.

2 The work of the BMS in Britain and in India

21

The couple began in 1800 by opening two small, fee-paying boarding schools. These quickly grew in reputation and increasingly contributed to the mission’s finances.⁹² Yet alongside these they also established free schools for the very poorest.⁹³ Girls as well as boys attended, with Hannah taking the lead role in female education. In 1824 there were 160 Indian girls attending six schools under Hannah Marshman’s direction, a ministry she developed while continuing to play a large role in running the missionary household at Serampore. She is perhaps the supreme example of the crucial ways in which women served in the mission. The agreement explicitly stated women were to be afforded “all possible assistance” in language learning to enable them to develop relationships and share the gospel with Indian women. Indeed, the trio were clear that such work would very much rely on the women on the team.⁹⁴ In holding to the foundational importance of mission—especially evangelistic mission—the BMS leaders in England were at one with the missionaries in Bengal. That is why they had released their friends for work in India: to see Matthew 28:19 – 20 worked out in practice and Bengali men and women become disciples of Christ. When reports of the first Indian converts reached Kettering, Fuller was elated. He wrote directly to Krishna Pal, Sister Joymonee,⁹⁵ and others on behalf of the home committee: In you we see the first fruits of Hindustan, the travail of our Redeemer’s soul, and a rich reward for our imperfect labours. You know, beloved, that the love of Christ is of a constraining nature. It was this, and only this, that constrained us to mediate the means of your conversion. It was this that constrained our brethren that are with you to leave their country and all their worldly prospects, and to encounter perils, hardships and reproaches. If you stand fast in the Lord and are saved, this is their and our reward.⁹⁶

Fuller was aware that his and his friends’ “labours” had been “imperfect.” Yet, he said, the love of Christ had constrained them to make great efforts to share the gospel cross-culturally. It was this love and this love alone, he insisted, which had motivated

 J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:131.  S. Pearce Carey, Wm. Carey, 195 – 96. For further details, see M. A. Laird, “The Contribution of the Serampore Missionaries to Education in Bengal, 1793 – 1837,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 31, no. 1 (1968): 92– 112, esp. 94. Unfortunately, Laird does not highlight Hannah Marshman’s crucial role.  SFA, clause 7, 134.  Joymonee (sometimes Joymooni) was Krishna Pal’s sister-in-law. She was one of the first converts, was baptized on January 18, 1801, and was active in evangelism among Bengali women. See Ward’s journal entry for February 13, 1801, in PA, 2:133 (her conversion); Joshua Marshman’s journal entry for January 18, 1801, in PA, 2:148 (her baptism); and Ward’s journal entry for November 1, 1801, in PA, 2:221 (her evangelism).  Fuller to Brother Krishna, Sister Joymonee, August 19, 1801, “Letters to Carey, Marshman and Ward.” The BMS secretary was referring to 2 Corinthians 5:14: “For the love of Christ constraineth us” (AV).

22

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

them in a venture that involved considerable sacrifice, yet which brought its own reward. 2.4.2 Community From its beginnings, the trio had sought to establish the missionary community at Serampore around a “common rule.” All goods were to be held in common, with finances administered for the benefit of all and—especially—for the furtherance of the mission. No one was to accrue wealth or possessions for themselves or their families. The hope and prayer was that, in time, Indian converts would come to join the community, doing so on equal terms.⁹⁷ These were high ideals, but this approach is reaffirmed in the SFA. The final clause includes the following words: Let us never think that our time, our gifts, our strength, our families, or even the clothes we wear, are our own […] If we give up the resolution which was formed on the subject of private trade when we first united at Serampore, the mission is from that hour a lost cause […] If in this way we are enabled to glorify God with our bodies and spirits which are his—our wants will be his care. No private family ever enjoyed a greater portion of happiness, even in the most prosperous gale of worldly prosperity, than we have done since we resolved to have all things in common, and that no one should pursue business for his own exclusive advantage.⁹⁸

The use of the word “family” to describe what they hoped to nurture is telling. In reality, as Stanley observes, the principles were too “distinctive to command the support of many who followed [Carey, Marshman, and Ward] to India.” Ultimately the next generation of missionaries did not adhere to them.⁹⁹ Yet the vision of discipleship worked out in the context of a close-knit community which was essentially an extended family was a crucial part of the original trio’s vision and modus operandi. First, it directed as many resources as possible towards the furtherance of the gospel. Second, it provided—assuming harmonious relationships were maintained—living proof of the power of the gospel to bring radical transformation. This was not just the transformation of an individual, but community transformation, as modelled by a diverse family bound together by a common purpose and characterized by deep relationships which were also outward looking. Such a community would be a beacon of light to those who encountered it. At least that was the theory. In reality Joshua Marshman in particular, who was single-minded to the point of rigidity and could be dismissive of others’ views, tested the model to its breaking point. Although there were tensions elsewhere, his inflexibility and impatience with others’ perceived failings caused particular dissatisfaction among younger missionaries as the commu-

 Stanley, BMS, 39 – 40.  SFA, clause 9, 137– 38.  Stanley, BMS, 39.

2 The work of the BMS in Britain and in India

23

nity grew. Even so, it seems the trio themselves continued to live in close harmony, with Hannah Marshman a crucial member of the group as well.¹⁰⁰ What had shaped this communitarian vision? The fellowship described in Acts 2:42– 47 and 4:32– 37 was an obvious precedent, and the missionaries believed they were following the example set by the Jerusalem church. Yet there was a more recent model, one which Carey in particular was additionally drawing from— that provided by the Moravians.¹⁰¹ Moravian missionaries lived in extended families, following the example of the Herrnhutt community established in 1722 by Count Nikolaus von Zinzendorf (1700 – 1760), and their missionaries were committed to a “common housekeeping”—that is, to shared finances and a community of goods.¹⁰² The trio also took up other Moravian practices, including a weekly meeting to share experiences and discuss Scripture, and a further weekly gathering for the airing—and hopefully resolution—of any grievances that existed within the group. The concept of a permanent “housefather” to superintend the community “in love” was not picked up at Serampore, with this role instead rotating on a monthly basis.¹⁰³ Thus the Moravian model was not adopted wholesale. Nevertheless, its influence was pervasive. This egalitarian, Moravian-style community at Serampore formed the inner core of the church. Once again, we should note the aim was to incorporate Indian believers alongside the Europeans on an equal basis. Indeed, as far as the church was concerned, at the meetings on October 2, 1806, Krishna Pal and another Indian—a converted Brahman, Krishna Prasad—were elected to serve alongside four of the missionaries as deacons.¹⁰⁴ Missional discipleship experienced in community was vital for all. The Serampore missionaries found that the outworking of this principle was not straightforward, but the trio’s commitment to the basic ideal was strongly affirmed in the SFA. 2.4.3 Strategy A crucial part of the Serampore strategy was to “labour unceasingly in Biblical translation,” as Pearce Carey’s summary of SFA clause 9 puts it. After Marshman’s arrival in 1800, the translation work carried on apace. The fruits of his and especially Carey’s labours began to pour from the newly established mission presses at Serampore in the form of books, booklets, and leaflets, with the latter designed to be mass produced so they could be widely distributed. A Bengali New Testament had been

 Stanley, BMS, 39, 42.  Cf. S. Pearce Carey, Wm. Carey, 192.  August Gottlieb Spangenberg, An Account of the Manner in which the Protestant Church of the Unitas Fratrum, or United Brethren […] Carry on their Mission among the Heathen (English trans.; London: H. Trapp, 1788), 58: “The brethren and sisters belonging to one mission have a common housekeeping.”  S. Pearce Carey, Wm. Carey, 194.  Marshman and Ward, who had previously been deacons, became co-pastors along with Carey.

24

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

printed and bound by 1801, with an initial print run of 2,000 copies.¹⁰⁵ By 1803 the printing office employed 17 printers and 5 bookbinders.¹⁰⁶ At the end of 1807 the missionaries were able to report to their British supporters that at least some part of the Bible had by then been translated into fourteen languages. The printing of these new translations lagged behind, but not by much. Production had already commenced for booklets in six of the languages—no mean feat given the complex typefaces required. The missionaries assured their home readership that types were in the process of being cast for a further five languages, “as fast as we can get them done.” This was even more of an achievement given the care Carey, Marshman, and their Indian pandits and other helpers took with their translation work.¹⁰⁷ It was a phenomenal effort. Underpinning the linked emphases on translation and printing was the conviction that the Bible contained “the foundation of eternal truth, and the message of salvation.” It was this commitment which fundamentally shaped the decision to focus such a large share of resources, both human and financial, in this way. The missionaries also produced a range of other pamphlets commending the gospel.¹⁰⁸ The “diffusion of the knowledge of Christ,” they insisted in the SFA, “depends upon a liberal and constant distribution of the Word, and of these tracts, all over the country.”¹⁰⁹ The trio would put a great amount of their time and energy into this work. A further part of the strategy was to win Indian believers and to disciple them so they in turn would win and disciple others in the Christian faith. It was Indian evangelists, not British missionaries, who would be the “means” of the gospel spreading throughout Bengal and beyond. As far as the missionaries were concerned, it was their “absolute duty” to raise up and send out as many Indian believers as possible. Various reasons were set down in the SFA to support the trio’s leading contention in this regard. There were not enough Europeans; sending and supporting them in sufficient numbers was too costly; there was a real possibility they would succumb to the “intense heat” and to disease; there were language and cultural barriers, which made the task of outreach difficult for those coming to India. In any case, the task was simply too large. The piety and gifts of new converts had to be nurtured and then released. This was a practical necessity driven by their overarching goal of multiplying gospel work and mediating the conversion of countless men and women across the Indian subcontinent. But the telling use of the words “means” and “duty” surely indicates the trio’s belief that such a strategy was part of God’s plan. Accordingly, the gifts of their Indian brothers and sisters were to be carefully nurtured and

 J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:141.  Ward’s journal entry for September 12, 1803, in PA, 2:433  Cox, BMS, 1:170 – 71, here 170. The Indian pandits were invariably uncredited, yet without their work the translations would not have been possible.  SFA, clause 9, 136.  SFA, clause 9, 137.

2 The work of the BMS in Britain and in India

25

developed—they used the word “cherish.” This strategy gave real dignity and prominence to the new believers. In addition, national churches were to be formed under national leadership. These “separate” churches should select pastors and deacons from among them so “that the word may be statedly preached, and the ordinances of Christ administered in each church by the native minister, as much as possible, without the interference of the missionary of the district.” Pursuing such a course of action was, once again, their “duty” before God. This radical plan for a national church was predicated on the missionaries’ understanding of the Indian believers as their “brothers”— their absolute equals before God.¹¹⁰ It also sprang from reflection on Paul’s missionary strategy, including his appointment of local leaders who enjoyed a significant degree of autonomy with respect to the daily affairs of the church.¹¹¹ Their approach also chimed with their inherited Particular Baptist ecclesiology, as shown by their commitment to the gathered church model, the involvement of the whole congregation in selecting leaders, and the importance of pastors and deacons as officers in the church. Practical concerns were also significant, as they had been in equipping and releasing Indian evangelists. How could the church possibly multiply without indigenous leaders? “The advantages of this plan are […] evident,” the agreement declared.¹¹² The trio were pragmatists, and they adopted models which they believed stood the best chance of achieving their ultimate goals. Yet their strategy was grounded first and foremost in theological and ecclesiological reflection and in a spiritual anthropology that saw all of humanity as equal before God. It may have been pragmatic, but it was also deeply principled. In addition, it was both radical and enlightened. The “self-governing” nature of these new churches did have limits, as indicated by the comment that church life should proceed without missionary interference “as much as possible.” The relevant SFA clause, number 8, continues: The missionary of the district […] will constantly superintend their affairs, give them advice in cases of order and discipline, and correct any errors into which they may fall; and who, joying [sic] and beholding their order, and the steadfastness of their faith in Christ, may direct his efforts continually to the planting of new churches in other places, and to the spread of the gospel in his district, to the utmost of his power.

In English Particular Baptist life there was an increasing emphasis on associating, especially as evangelical currents flowed into the denomination’s stream. I have already indicated how important the Northamptonshire Association was to the foundation of the BMS. Nevertheless, this commitment to associate was not pursued at the expense of the essential independence of the different churches, which was jealously

 They would have understood this to include the female believers.  See, for example, Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5.  SFA, clause 8, 135.

26

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

guarded. No English Calvinistic Baptist Chapel would accept an outside authority who would “constantly superintend” their affairs, whereas the churches envisaged in the SFA were “separate” but not, in reality, independent. In a letter to William Ward, Fuller himself gently questioned the trio’s approach: I like your plan of having native officers in the native churches, and of the missionaries retaining their missionary character, and so I think do all my brethren [i. e., those on the BMS committee]. The influence, which a missionary in a district will have over the church or churches in that district will not be authoritative, but persuasive, not official, but natural […] If it should so happen that a native pastor should have more wisdom and [rectitude?] than the missionary of his district, he will have just as much right to advise and admonish him, as the missionary him.¹¹³

Fuller essentially defends traditional Particular Baptist ecclesiology, especially the independence of gathered churches. Ward and his colleagues wanted to adapt this ecclesiology in their particular missional context. It would be easy to conclude that the missionaries advocated this shift because they thought Indian believers were in some way deficient compared to their European counterparts. But this would fly in the face of the ways in which the trio and their colleagues generally regarded and treated Indian Christians, and there is an alternative explanation for this reworking of traditional Particular Baptist ecclesiology: the pattern of ecclesial governance set out in the SFA draws from a new reading of the Apostle Paul. The churches Paul planted enjoyed a high degree of autonomy yet he retained apostolic oversight in matters of doctrine and essential practice.¹¹⁴ The missionaries prized biblical doctrine and were concerned to maintain what they believed were the essentials of orthodoxy and orthopraxy in fledgling churches. So, in a sense, the superintending missionary assumed an “apostolic” authority; indeed, the Pauline character of SFA clause 8 is striking. These newly established churches would then themselves be mission-sending centres, identifying and releasing new evangelists and church planters inured to the climate, acquainted with the customs, language, modes of speech and reasoning of the inhabitants; able to become perfectly familiar with them, to enter their houses, to live upon their food, to sleep with them, or under a tree; and who may travel from one end of the country to the other almost without expense.¹¹⁵

 Andrew Fuller to William Ward, December 2, 1806, “Andrew Fuller Letters to William Ward, 1800 – 1815,” Regent’s Park College, Oxford, (HI/1 [H1/1/1]). Emphasis original. Fuller made it clear in this letter he was “well pleased” with the SFA overall.  See, for example, Titus 1:5 – 16 for a blend of autonomy (e. g., 1:5: “appoint elders” [NIV]) and continued oversight (esp. 1:10 – 16).  SFA, clause 8, 135.

2 The work of the BMS in Britain and in India

27

The aim was to create a disciple-making movement with churches that were biblically orthodox and missionally focused, able to multiply themselves. Thus would India be won for Christ. Here was a big vision indeed. 2.4.4 The Indian mission’s efficacy Questions have been raised about both the wisdom of the strategy Carey and his colleagues developed in India and the effectiveness of their work. It is appropriate to pause here and consider some of these issues. A. Christopher Smith has offered a wide-ranging critique of the pioneering BMS work in India.¹¹⁶ One of his criticisms relates to the trio’s stress on Bible translation. Smith argues that the “huge investment of time in linguistics and translation” actually hampered the mission, because the missionaries shut themselves away at Serampore rather than incarnating the gospel among the people. His argument is stronger if we add printing to “linguistics and translation,” as the operation and maintenance of Ward’s presses took considerable time and effort. Did this concentration on the production of Christian literature contribute to the progressive institutionalization of the mission to India, as Smith believes? He contends the missionaries “became sahibs rather than sadhus,” essentially living above rather than among the people.¹¹⁷ This is a strong claim. In evaluating this line of argument, one should admit that Carey and his colleagues did indeed spend a great amount of time and effort on “linguistics and translation.” Paul Landau depicts Carey as “obsessed with language, disciplined, and scholastic.” He continues: “From dawn to starlight he typically prayed, translated, studied an Indian language with a pandit, studied Greek and Hebrew on his own, practised his Sunday homiletics, and then prayed again.”¹¹⁸ This is a fair reflection of an average day for Carey.¹¹⁹ It is also true that the missionaries were working in a predominantly oral culture, overwhelmingly so in the villages. Could a different approach have been more effective in the particular cultural context of Bengal? Certainly at one level, compared to their own expansive hopes and the bold vision laid out in the SFA, the results of their work were disappointing. Landau contends the numbers of churches planted, indigenous evangelists released, and people converted were relatively small. It is also the case that, after 40 years of missionary labour, the Serampore church itself had only 43 converts in good standing.¹²⁰ The missionaries themselves were frequently disappointed by a perceived lack of progress and did not hide this. As Ward once remarked, it was one thing to believe in the millen For a collection of Smith’s writing on Carey, Ward, and the Serampore mission, see A. Christopher Smith, The Serampore Mission Enterprise (Bangalore: Centre for Contemporary Christianity, 2006).  A. Christopher Smith, “The Legacy of William Carey,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 16, no. 1 (January 1992): 2– 8.  Paul Landau, “Language,” in Missions and Empire, ed. Etherington, 203.  PA, 5:490.  Landau, “Language,” 203.

28

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

nium having heard Samuel Pearce preach it to a packed, lively gathering back in England; it was quite another to hold fast to such a hope in India, when the “field” seemed so hard and unyielding. The missionaries had been inspired by an expansive, postmillennial vision; the reality on the ground would sometimes seem more akin to Carey’s “plodding.” However, there is other evidence which should be considered as a counterweight to the case put forward by Smith, Landau, and others. As far as growth is concerned, by the end of 1806 over 100 people had been baptized as a result of the mission’s work.¹²¹ Given the challenges presented by the surrounding culture and the other difficulties the missionaries faced, this was surely a sign of significant gospel progress. True, the number of converts “in good standing” at the Serampore base always disappointed the trio: they longed for more. Yet their emphasis on discipleship and the high bar they set for membership of the gathered community meant exclusions were common: a group with a different ecclesiology might well have reported different “results.” Furthermore, countless people had heard the message, not only through tract distribution, but also via preaching tours, debates with Brahman leaders, the schools ministry, one-to-one visitation, and the gift of hospitality; it was not only Bible translation and printing that filled the missionary’s time, important as this was. The overall impact of the work at Serampore is difficult to assess but should not be lightly dismissed. As far as church planting is concerned, it is noteworthy that, at the time of Carey’s death in 1834, there were 19 mission stations connected with Serampore, staffed by 50 missionaries. Some of these were Europeans, some indigenous Indian believers. Significantly, only six had been sent directly from Europe.¹²² True, the SFA envisaged more, yet this is still evidence of real progress. What about the strong focus on translating and printing as a key plank of the Serampore strategy? Other approaches would undoubtedly have been possible. It is likely Carey’s particular gifts and reflective temperament suited him to the life of the scholar, and this—as well as his biblical and missiological commitments— shaped the way he worked and the strategy he pursued. Similarly, Marshman and Ward played to their strengths. But is this such a bad thing? Moreover, the extraordinary programme of translation left a lasting legacy and laid the foundations for future initiatives. The forward-thinking nature of much of the trio’s work is also worthy of comment. In recognizing the need to train and release Indian evangelists to do the “frontline” ministry of incarnating and sharing the gospel in a range of urban and rural settings, the trio were ahead of their time, anticipating a range of more recent developments in missiological thinking and praxis. They rarely changed the names of those who came to Christ to more recognizably “Christian” ones and encouraged the converts to retain their national dress. For these reasons, as well as the trio’s en Cox, BMS, 1:166.  See Joshua Marshman, The Efficiency of Divine Grace: A Funeral Sermon for the Late Rev. William Carey, D.D. Preached at the Danish Church, Serampore, Lord’s-Day, June the 15th, 1834 (Serampore: Mission Press, 1834), 52.

3 Context in India

29

during commitment to a simple lifestyle, the aforementioned description of them as “sahibs rather than sadhus” is, I submit, particularly unfair. In fact, Smith is especially unconvincing on the subject of the missionaries’ relationships with the Indian population. Did they really look down on the people of Bengal, for example, treating them with “patronising condescension”?¹²³ I believe there is a compelling weight of evidence already cited in this introduction that shows otherwise. In summary, the missionaries worked hard to incarnate the gospel, and whatever mistakes they made, they sought to act with integrity and grace. What is more, when viewed in the round, the achievements of the trio and those who followed them to India are considerable.

3 Context in India 3.1 The British East India Company The political situation in India needs to be carefully considered, as it formed a crucial part of the immediate context of both the BMS missionaries’ work and the Apology. As I have already noted, the Bengal in which Carey and his colleagues were based was governed by the British by means of the East India Company. Although English trade with the Indian subcontinent went back to Tudor times, the so-called “‘Honourable’ British East India Company” had its immediate origins in a joint stock company established in 1600.¹²⁴ The EIC was set up to trade with the subcontinent and southeast Asia, dealing in commodities such as cotton, silk, spices, and tea. It quickly became a vehicle for rapacious colonial expansion, as company officials wrested control from local leaders, annexed vast tracts of land, and ruthlessly established dominance over the aspirations of other European powers. A pivotal moment came in 1757, with the defeat of the Nawab of Bengal and his French allies at the Battle of Plassey (Palashi). This effectively established a British Raj (rule) over Bengal, as well as Bihar and Orissa, thus setting in motion a train of events which would lead to the EIC controlling most of India by 1803. The company had become—as far as the British government was concerned—an instrument of empire. The EIC assumed responsibilities for governance and administration over its territories. It was overseen by a governor, who was based in Calcutta and operated by means of regional presidencies, each run by a president and a council who usually ruled in uneasy cooperation with local Moghuls and other Indian leaders. The British officials in India

 Smith, Serampore Mission Enterprise, 184, here 190 n. 56.  For details on the British East India Company as presented in these two paragraphs and for further information on the EIC, see Phillip Lawson, The East India Company: A History (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013 [1993]), esp. ch. 5; Charles J. Borges, “Christianity in South and South-East Asia,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. VII: Enlightenment, Reawakening, and Revolution 1660 – 1815, ed. Stewart J. Brown and Timothy Tackett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 435.

30

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

were answerable to a Court of Directors in England, based at East India House on Leadenhall Street in London. In reality, however, the lines of communication were poor, and clashes between governors and directors were frequent. EIC rule was enforced on the ground by an army, which by 1778 numbered some 67,000 troops, mostly Indian “sepoys” under the command of British officers. In this and other ways, the EIC depended on the cooperation of Indian elites, especially the “twice born” Brahmans and Kshatriyas who stood at the pinnacle of the caste system. With a virtual monopoly on trade, the EIC siphoned off resources at an alarming rate and put down any rebellion swiftly and brutally. The company was also corrupt. Indian national treasures—not least from Bengal—were systematically looted. Opium was openly traded on an industrial scale, with little thought to the consequences. Yet the EIC was often in financial trouble and had to be bailed out by the British government on several occasions. The ignominious period of company rule in India was brought to an end in 1857, following the Indian rebellion, but this only resulted in the British Crown assuming direct control, establishing a new British Raj which essentially took over the institutions already established by the EIC. India would not achieve independence from Britain until 1947. As far as the EIC is concerned, the anti-imperialist Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy’s (1828 – 1910) comment to a Hindu correspondent is apposite: “A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred million people.”¹²⁵ 3.1.1 The BMS and colonial rule What was the relationship between the BMS—both the home committee and the missionaries—and the British East India Company? This is part of a broader question— one which, as I have already noted, has generated a vast amount of scholarship. What was the relationship between colonial expansion—especially the rise of the British Empire—and Christian missionary endeavour? To put the question more sharply, did the missionaries collude with colonial authorities and further colonial aspirations, either tacitly or actively? These issues need to be addressed. There are a range of articles and books which argue, to different degrees and in different ways, the missionaries facilitated and even explicitly worked for the expansion of the empire. Some of this literature directly critiques the BMS in India.¹²⁶

 Leo Tolstoy, “Letter to a Hindu,” December 14, 1908, as cited in William Dalrymple, The Anarchy: The Relentless Rise of the East India Company (London: Bloomsbury, 2019), xi.  Only a sampling of this secondary literature can be referenced here. See, for example, Jeffrey Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700 (New York: Routledge, 2008); Sita Ram Goel, History of Hindu-Christian Encounters (New Delhi: Voice of India, 1989); K. M. Panikkar, Asia and Western Dominance: A Survey of the Vasco Da Gama Epoch of Asian History, 1498 – 1945 (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1953); Arun Shourie, Missionaries in India: Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas (New Delhi: ASA, 1994). For a positive appreciation of the BMS missionaries’ work from an Indian perspective, see Ruth and Vishal Mangalwadi, Carey, Christ and Cultural Transformation (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993).

3 Context in India

31

In considering these arguments, we should note that, whilst many scholars used to assume missionary endeavour and colonial expansion went hand in hand and were mutually supportive activities, this is now strongly contested.¹²⁷ Indeed, there is a growing body of scholarship challenging the older assumptions. Brian Stanley and Andrew Porter in particular have shown that the relationships between Christianity and Empire were rarely clear cut. Relations were often “temporary, grudging [and] self-interested.” Colonial authorities and missionaries were “as likely to undermine each other as they were to provide mutual support.”¹²⁸ As I will show, the relationship between the BMS and the EIC in the period under consideration fits squarely within the framework proposed by Stanley and Porter.¹²⁹ Relations between the BMS, the authorities in India, and their agents at home were uneasy from the beginning. Fuller was deeply concerned that forces within the EIC would seek to “countermand their [i. e., BMS] operations.”¹³⁰ He had good reason to be anxious. Carey, Thomas, and their families had arrived in EIC territory in 1793 without the required official licenses (which would never have been granted if the missionaries had applied for them), and so technically they were in Bengal illegally. Later in 1799, the Ward and Marshman party was expressly refused permission to settle in EIC territory—a turn of events which precipitated the whole mission relocating to Serampore, which at the time was under more sympathetic Danish control.¹³¹ The threat of expulsion was real. The Particular Baptists’ status—or more accurately lack of it—as Dissenting outsiders should not be underestimated as an important additional factor in the complicated, unbalanced relationship that developed between them and the authorities on the ground in Bengal. At home they had historically experienced significant persecution. The 1689 Act of Toleration had removed some of the legal restrictions placed on

 For an example of the older historiography, see The Cambridge History of the British Empire, Vol. III: The Empire-Commonwealth, ed. E. A. Benians, Sir James Butler, and C. E. Carrington (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967 [1959]), 344.  Andrew Porter, “Religion and Empire: British Expansion in the Long Nineteenth Century,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 20 (1992): 376 – 77; cf. Brian Stanley, The Bible and the Flag: Protestant Missions and British Imperialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1990), esp. 58 – 59. For a detailed exposition of this approach, see Porter, Religion versus Empire.  See also Ian M. Randall, “Nonconformists and Overseas Mission,” in T. & T. Clark Companion to Nonconformity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2013), 382– 83.  Andrew Fuller to John Saffery, Kettering, May 30, 1793, as cited in E. Daniel Potts, “The Baptist Missionaries of Serampore and the Government of India, 1792– 1813,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 15, no. 2 (1964): 230. Fuller was not a supporter of British colonial expansion. On the EIC specifically, he declared, there was ‘a world of iniquity attached to the affairs of [British governance in] India.’ The British authorities were guilty of systematically ‘draining and impoverishing’ India. See Morris, Fuller, 285 – 86.  It was taken over by the British in May 1801, by which point their opposition to missionaries had cooled, only to be returned to Danish control 14 months later. It passed into British hands again in 1808. For further details, see J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:150, 171.

32

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

them, but Dissenters such as Baptists remained second-class citizens who continued to experience widespread discrimination at the hands of just the sort of people who occupied positions of power in the EIC.¹³² Unsurprisingly, the EIC men in India continued to regard the Baptists as “outsiders” and as “second class.” The deeply rooted establishment prejudice against them is reflected in the barely concealed contempt exhibited by many of the pamphleteers who in 1808 would sneer at their low birth and rail against their activities. The missionaries disturbed the status quo, imperiled trading relations, and—in the hyperbole employed by the pamphleteers—risked bringing the whole institution of empire crashing down. If the BMS were somehow aiding and abetting imperial expansion, then why did the colonialists attack them so vehemently for allegedly damaging British interests? Working in this challenging context, they sought to be as guarded and respectful as they could in their relations with company men. As a general principle, the missionaries sought to live peaceably with the British governing authorities and encouraged converts to do the same, with the relevant passage in the SFA implying Romans 13:1– 7 as their guiding text. The “civil magistrate” should be honoured and indeed rendered the “readiest obedience.” This ought to be their position, the missionaries insisted, whether they experienced “persecution” or “protection.”¹³³ In reality the missionaries’ political context was fluid and unstable: it tended to oscillate between these two poles without ever quite reaching either extreme. The question of what would happen if obedience to the civil authorities clashed with their fundamental loyalty to Christ as Lord would be directly addressed by the society’s secretary in the pages of his Apology. The missionaries’ basic stance—respect for and obedience to the governing authorities—did not stop them protesting long and loud about some of the practices they encountered in Bengali culture which had continued under British rule. These practices included ritual infanticide, ghat murders (in which the sick and dying were exposed on the banks of the Ganges), and sati (the custom of a widow throwing herself on her dead husband’s funeral pyre).¹³⁴ Their opposition was predicated on their belief in God’s great love for all humanity and an understanding of how the gospel should impact the whole of life. Consequently, along with others, they sought to have such practices banned in EIC territory, battling the callous indifference of company officials whose only motive appeared to be profit on the backs of the poor. Thus the missionaries could be critical of the EIC, but they also worked with the company in one particular respect. As I have previously noted, they accepted an offer of employment for Carey as a tutor (later a professor) at Fort William College in Cal-

 Recent scholarship has tended to emphasize the discrimination that remained after 1689 rather than the changes heralded by the act. Indeed, the restrictions still in place were considerable. See, for example, John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558 – 1689 (Harlow: Pearson, 2000), 197– 205.  SFA, clause 7, 133.  See George, Faithful Witness, 149 – 52.

3 Context in India

33

cutta. He was appointed in 1801 and held a post at the college until 1831. Fort William College was run by the EIC and trained men who had come to India to serve in the administration, orienting new civil servants with respect to local languages and customs. The college was self-evidently part of the EIC structures set up to govern India. Carey had agonized over whether to agree to the offer, only doing so once he had been assured he would still be regarded as a missionary, and after Marshman and Ward had urged him to take the post for the sake of the mission.¹³⁵ He came to believe his teaching there was of real benefit to the BMS work in India. It made the missionaries’ expulsion from the subcontinent less likely, allowed him to hone his language skills, and made it possible for him to access translation help from a wider range of Indian pandits than would have been possible otherwise.¹³⁶ The financial benefits—initially 500 rupees a month for two days’ work per week—gave the mission a new stability.¹³⁷ This formal relationship with the college clearly went beyond peaceful coexistence. Yet although this undoubtedly constituted “cooperation,” it was cooperation very much along the lines articulated by Stanley and Porter: “self-interested” in the sense that the missionaries believed the relationship furthered the cause of the gospel in various ways. This was the only reason the trio agreed to it. Of course, Carey’s work also benefitted the colonial authorities, and the relationship was symbiotic. The missionaries themselves were acutely aware of this. We can draw a further link between the BMS and colonialism. The BMS personnel believed colonial expansion—specifically the British capturing new territory—afforded them the opportunity to leave their shores and share their faith in other lands. This had been their view in the years immediately prior to the formation of the BMS, as we have already seen in Fuller’s Clipstone sermon on The Pernicious Consequences of Delay and in Carey’s Enquiry. Their country’s colonialism served to increase their awareness of the world and its peoples and to expand their horizons as they considered what might be possible with regard to mission (if traders can trade, why can we not share the far more precious commodity of the gospel?).¹³⁸ Fuller’s comment in The Pernicious Consequences of Delay concerning the new opportunities the Particular Baptists had due to “the maritime and commercial turn of this country [i. e., Britain]” is especially suggestive.¹³⁹ It is no accident that many of the early mission fields chosen by the BMS—such as Bengal, Sierra Leone, and Jamaica—were territories under British rule.¹⁴⁰ This is clearly a further link between empire and missionary

 Marina Ngursangzeli Behera, “William Carey and the British East India Company,” American Baptist Quarterly 29, no. 4 (Winter 2010): 8.  J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:165 – 66, 180; Behera, “William Carey and the BEIC,” 10 – 11, 18.  J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:148.  Cf. Fuller, Pernicious Consequences of Delay, 147.  Fuller, Pernicious Consequences of Delay, 147.  BMS work in Jamaica began in 1813. This point does need to be nuanced a little, given Serampore was often under Danish control. However, it was of course still under colonial rule.

34

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

work, albeit one which needs to be carefully delineated. The missionaries were studying their Bibles as they reflected on overseas mission, but at the same time they were also “reading” the rapidly developing colonialism of their own nation, seeing in it a providential opportunity to share the gospel globally and cross-culturally. This does not mean they saw colonial expansion as a good thing. Fuller himself was clear it was not. Even so, as they studied these two “horizons”—Scripture and the developing colonial context—they believed it was their duty to to seize the opportunity they believed they had been afforded to share the gospel. How then should we summarize the material in this section? Norman Etherington’s general verdict on mission and empire is fair when we apply it to Fuller and the Serampore trio specifically: they were willing (albeit reluctantly) to use their relationship with government officials to aid their evangelistic agenda. When this agenda was hindered, however, they were quick to stand against those officials as necessary.¹⁴¹ The BMS missionaries in India did not campaign against the EIC authorities, nor did they actively seek to overthrow British rule. Nevertheless, their overarching goal was emphatically not the extension of the British Empire, but the extension of Christ’s kingdom through evangelism. Their publications, private diaries, and letters—a sampling of which I have cited in this introduction—provide overwhelming evidence to support this basic contention. This overarching goal—the promotion of evangelistic mission—was the keynote of both Fuller’s ministry and the work of the BMS. It was also the keynote of the trio’s work in India. It is this central concern which pervades the BMS secretary’s argument in the Apology from beginning to end.

3.2 Culture and religion in India What were the beliefs and practices of the people the BMS worked among in Bengal? The answers to this question provide further essential context for understanding the Apology. It is vital to address the question, as the reality was complex and has often been misunderstood, not least in many of the popular nineteenth- and twentiethcentury biographies of Carey. Unwarranted assumptions have been made about the terms “Hindu” and “Hinduism.” “Hinduism” has always resisted generalizations: there is no one founder, no single holy book, no standard way of life. Rather, there are a vast array of beliefs and practices, as well as an openness to assimilating further ideas. Even so, though Hinduism in the twenty-first century is diverse, certain broad features can be identified. The majority of Hindus believe in a supreme being from whom a multitude of deities emanate. Various festivals are celebrated, with Diwali—the “Festival of Lights”—probably the best known in the west, and

 Norman Etherington, “Introduction,” in Missions and Empire, ed. Etherington, 3 – 5.

3 Context in India

35

Holi—“the Festival of Colours”—especially significant in Bengal.¹⁴² Reincarnation is important for most adherents, involving an ongoing cycle of birth, death, and then rebirth. The Vedas are the main texts of Hinduism, and they contain certain codes of conduct. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, however, the picture was significantly different, with even greater levels of complexity and diversity. When the British used the term “Hinduism” in the late eighteenth century, it was not usually with regard to a religion they thought they had identified, or even a family of religions. Rather, a “Hindu” was simply a native of Hindustan: it was more an ethnographic and cultural marker than a religious one.¹⁴³ As far as religious practice was concerned, there was no unified, clearly demarcated religion called “Hinduism.” What existed was a heterogeneous array of ideas and systems which varied greatly from region to region, and indeed within regions.¹⁴⁴ Even if we limit our investigation to the Serampore missionaries’ Bengali sphere of operations, there nevertheless existed a complex patchwork of beliefs expressed through a multiplicity of special days, festivals, and rites. Within this diversity there were significant internal tensions. There were conservative voices and more reformist ones: Ram Mohan Roy (1772– 1833), with whom the trio would later have contact when he moved to Calcutta in 1814, was an example of the latter.¹⁴⁵ There is an argument that it was British colonial forces and—some scholars contend—the missionaries themselves who “invented” Hinduism by codifying what for them were a bewildering assortment of practices, arranging them into a single system which could then be explained in neat western categories. The question posed by Brian Pennington—“Was Hinduism invented?”— is one we will return to at the end of this section.¹⁴⁶ The situation is further compounded by the presence of a significant number of Muslims in Bengal, whom the missionaries referred to as “Musselmans.” These were descendants of Muslim invaders who had previously ruled much of northern India,

 Whilst Diwali is well known in the west, it is less significant in Bengal as it coincides with Kali Puja, one of the most important Hindu festivals in the region. Whilst no reference to Diwali has been traced in either Carey’s or Ward’s writings, the popular spring festival Holi is mentioned in William Ward’s, A View of the History, Literature, and Religion of the Hindoos… in Two Volumes (2nd ed.; Serampore: Mission Press, 1815), 2:157– 158, as the dolŭ festival held at Phalguna Purnima (First Full moon in middle of March, Gregorian calendar).  On the development of the terms “Hindu” and “Hinduism,” see Geoffrey A. Oddie, “Constructing ‘Hinduism’: The Impact of the Protestant Missionary Movement on Hindu Self-Understanding,” in Christians and Missionaries in India: Cross-Cultural Communication since 1500, ed. Robert E. Frykenberg (London: Routledge, 2003), 156, 160 – 61.  Robert Frykenberg, “Christian Missions and the Raj,” in Missions and Empire, ed. Etherington, 108.  See Shyamal K. Chatterjee, “Rammohun Roy and the Baptists of Serampore: Moralism vs. Faith,” Religious Studies 20, no. 4 (December 1984), 669 – 80.  On this question, see Brian K. Pennington, Was Hinduism Invented? Britons, Indians, and the Colonial Construction of Religion (New York: Oxford Press, 2005).

36

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

together with some converts. Once again, awareness of the specific context is vital here. Islam in Bengal had taken on a particular character following centuries of assimilation. As J. Ryan West shows, it had been thoroughly “permeated” by the beliefs and practices of those the Muslims lived among. For example, it was rare for Muslims in Bengal to believe in eternal punishment; rather, they accepted cyclical reincarnation.¹⁴⁷ They remained monotheists, and so there was a difference between them and the majority of their neighbours. Yet West’s conclusion is surely correct: “The worldview of Bengali Muslims was shaped more by [the] pluralistic […] society in which they lived than the Qur’an.”¹⁴⁸ Furthermore, Muslims had been integrated—at least in practice—into the caste system, as illustrated by the fact that a group of them refused to help bury Carey’s son Peter for fear of losing caste. The caste system as a whole was pervasive in Bengal. The rigid stratification of society reminded the missionaries of the British class system, which had discriminated against them in their home country and which they saw reflected in their relationships with EIC officials. The missionaries viewed the influence of caste in India as baleful. They believed it held many Indians in an iron grip and made the work of conversion much harder. How did Carey and his colleagues understand the complex collection of beliefs and behaviours they encountered? The key text in answering this question is William Ward’s multivolume Account of the Writings, Religion, and Manners of the Hindoos. First published in 1811, the Account of the Hindoos went through multiple editions in subsequent years, as Ward continued to investigate and refine his work.¹⁴⁹ He sought to understand what he observed using the Judeo-Christian categories which shaped his own worldview. Pennington helpfully surveys the Baptist missionary’s thinking under three headings: sacrifice, idolatry, and eroticism.¹⁵⁰ Regarding sacrifice, Ward analysed a wide range of practices, including the aforementioned sati and ghat murders. He had witnessed sati firsthand, recording in his journal: “A horrible day […] three women burnt with their husbands on one pile, near our house.”¹⁵¹ Ward contrasted such “sacrifices” with the evangelical Protestant understanding: Christ’s sacrifice, once and for all time, provided sufficient atonement for the sins of all who put their faith in him.¹⁵² Second, the category of idolatry was deployed to describe “a multiplication of the godhead and the worship of material form.”¹⁵³

 J. Ryan West, “Evangelizing Bengali Muslims, 1793 – 1813: William Carey, William Ward, and Islam” (PhD diss., Louisville, KY, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014), here 85, cf. 87.  West, “Evangelizing Bengali Muslims,” 88.  Published in 4 volumes by: Serampore: Mission Press, 1811. Ward’s multi-volume work went through three editions in just nine years. Note it was sometimes published with variations in the title. For further details, see Oddie, “Constructing Hinduism,” 158 n. 10.  For this reading, see Brian K. Pennington, “Reverend William Ward and His Legacy for Christian (Mis)perception of Hinduism,” Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 13 (2000): 5 – 11, esp. 7.  J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:182. Sati was finally outlawed in 1827, and pressure from the missionaries was one of the factors in this change.  See, for example, Hebrews 10:1– 18.  Pennington, “Ward and His Legacy,” 7.

3 Context in India

37

This was contrasted with worship of the one whom the missionaries believed was the invisible God who revealed himself through his Son, Jesus Christ.¹⁵⁴ The third and final category was that of eroticism. Here the missionary conveyed an impression of widespread cruel, licentious behaviour. This was then contrasted with a biblical, Christian ethic. Ward’s conclusion was blunt and dismissive. He not only denied Hinduism any salvific value (which was unsurprising given his Particular Baptist and evangelical commitments), but further stated: “there is not a vestige of real morality in the whole of the Hindu system.”¹⁵⁵ Although the Account of the Hindoos did not appear until 1811, his ideas had already substantially formed in the early years of his time at Serampore. They are especially important for our purposes, as it was his detailed observations, sent back to Fuller and the home committee in letters and extended extracts from his journal, which substantially shaped the depiction of Hinduism which appears in the Apology. Unsurprisingly, Ward’s work has been critiqued by many.¹⁵⁶ Yet he brought something new to Indology (that is, Indian studies). Up to that point, beliefs and practices had been understood in the West primarily through English translations of some of the ancient texts, such as the Bhagavad Gita,¹⁵⁷ and books that drew directly from those texts, for example the English philologist Nathaniel Brassey Halhed’s (1751– 1830) codification of “Hindu law.”¹⁵⁸ Ward’s approach was different. He sought to observe and chronicle a host of popular practices, bringing the sharp eye of a former journalist to his work. He was motivated by a desire to see conversions and also by a deep compassion for the people he encountered, however strong his criticisms might seem to modern readers. He especially wanted to represent the experiences of women and those he believed were trapped by the caste system’s rigid social stratification, such as the Sudras (workers) and “outcastes” (later known as Dalits or untouchables). The other missionaries shared his concerns. As I have already noted, what they saw in indigenous Indian culture seemed like an extreme form of the British class system, which had discriminated against them as low-born Dissenters. A comment made by John Clark Marshman, who described women oppressed by Brahmins as victims of the “native gentry,” is especially suggestive.¹⁵⁹ Partly as a result, and to an extent that is not always acknowledged, Ward and his fellow missionaries championed the marginalized and the oppressed.  See, for example, Colossians 1:15 – 20.  Ward, Hindoos, 2:lxxxiv, as cited in Pennington, “Ward and His Legacy,” 7. Pennington is citing from an edition produced in 2 volumes by: Serampore: Mission Press, 1815.  See, for example, Cox, British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, esp. 129 – 31.  First translated in 1786. See Andrew C. Ross, “Christian Encounters with Other World Religions,” in Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. VII, ed. Brown and Tackett, 483 – 84.  Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, A Code of Gentoo Laws; Or, Ordinations of the Pundits (London, 1776). See Ross, “Christian Encounters with Other World Religions,” 483 – 84, for this and details of other publications.  J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:182. Cf. the comment by Landau in “Language,” 203.

38

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

However, it is also true that Ward’s use of reportage made particular and limited excesses appear as if they were the norm. The practices he described—often in unsparing detail—did not take place throughout India, nor even across the whole of Bengal. His approach represented the multifaceted matrix of Hinduism as universally evil on the basis of particular episodes described in lurid detail without offering proper context.¹⁶⁰ Moreover, there were voices within Hinduism calling for reform based on a return to the “purer” way of life advocated by sacred texts. These voices found no place in Ward’s account, which was not a fair reflection of the complex reality he set out to describe. His understanding of Hinduism is resolutely negative throughout. Yet his passion for justice is also apparent. He believed he had collected ample evidence to show the poor suffered lifelong repression at the hands of the high-born in Hindu society, and he was determined to shine a light on this. Even if Ward’s journalistic storytelling creates a one-sided picture, one should emphasize he did not invent the incidents he describes on page after page of his Account. The aforementioned Ram Mohan Roy considered the Serampore missionaries to be “the best qualified and the most careful observers of the foreign countries in which Europeans have settled.”¹⁶¹ Ward’s writing represents an unbalanced and unfair reflection of Indian culture and “religious practice.” Yet it also true that in the pages of the Account, the marginalized and the oppressed find a voice. We return to the question: Did British interests invent Hinduism? The answer, unsurprisingly, is not straightforward. The British who documented Hindu culture, beliefs, and practices contributed to the systematization of multiple “ways of life” into something more unified, bounded, and understandable to the western mind. Hinduism became—in western eyes—a religious system which could be compared to Christianity or Judaism. Ward’s work was part of this process—indeed an important part.¹⁶² So, in a much smaller way, was Fuller’s largely unfiltered use of the Serampore missionary’s observations in the Apology. Yet the codification of certain beliefs and practices observed on the Indian subcontinent was a process that was well underway before the British started to write about Hinduism. Particularly in response to Islam, indigenous “insiders” had already been seeking to define themselves over and against the “incomers” from the north.¹⁶³ Therefore British documentation of what came to be known as “Hinduism” did not initiate the trend towards understanding

 Pennington, “Ward and His Legacy,” 7– 9; cf. Pennington, Was Hinduism Invented? 79 – 85.  As cited in Potts, British Baptist Missionaries in India, 7.  Cf. Robert E. Frykenberg, “Christians and Religious Traditions in the Indian Empire,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. VIII: World Christianities c. 1815–c. 1914, ed. Sheridan Gilley and Brian Stanley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 474; Brian Stanley, “Christianity and Civilisation in English Evangelical Thought,” in Christian Missions and the Enlightenment, ed. Brian Stanley (London: Routledge, 2014 [2001]), 175.  Oddie, “Constructing Hinduism,” 160; Cynthia Talbot, “Inscribing the Self: Hindu-Muslim Identities in Pre-Colonial India,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 37, no. 4 (October 1995): 692– 722, esp. 699.

4 The mission’s difficulties: 1806 – 1808

39

diverse practices in more unified ways, for Hindu cultural and religious consciousness was already beginning to develop.¹⁶⁴ Moreover, the codification which did take place under EIC rule was only achieved through the active collaboration of many high-caste pandits and scholars. So while a variety of complex religious systems were brought together under a single rubric in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Hinduism was not a British, still less a missionary “invention.” Rather, Europeans’ observations and documentation of indigenous practices accelerated a trend which had already begun in the days before EIC rule, with the further process achieved only through a collaborative effort.¹⁶⁵ Having considered a range of broader themes and issues, we are now ready to consider the immediate context in which the Apology was written.

4 The mission’s difficulties: 1806 – 1808 4.1 The Vellore Mutiny and the restrictions placed on the mission As I have already shown, the Indian mission had to operate in a difficult, inherently unstable political context. In 1806 the threat posed by those who wanted the BMS missionaries expelled from India began to intensify. The catalyst for this upsurge in opposition was a mutiny among the EIC’s Indian troops stationed at Vellore in the Madras presidency. Some EIC men attributed this to missionary interference with the religious views of Indian sepoys.¹⁶⁶ The missionaries had to operate under severe restrictions for a time, and the acting EIC governor, Sir George Barlow (1763 – 1846), forbade them to preach to the “natives” or distribute pamphlets.¹⁶⁷ Opponents of the BMS made plans to introduce a motion in the company’s Court of Proprietors in London which would lead to the expulsion of Carey and his colleagues from Bengal. Carey wrote to Fuller, urging the home committee to “try to engage men such as Mr. Grant, Mr. Wilberforce and others to use their influence to procure for us the liberty we want, viz. liberty to preach the gospel throughout India.” “Do your utmost,” Carey urged, “to clear our way.”¹⁶⁸ “Mr. Wilberforce” was William Wilberforce (1759 – 1833), the famous campaigner against the trade in enslaved Africans  Oddie, “Constructing Hinduism,” 161.  Frykenberg, “Christian Missions and the Raj,” 108; “Christians and Religious Traditions in the Indian Empire,” 474. For an especially strong and perhaps over-argued case that Hinduism was not invented by the British, see David N. Lorenzen, “Who Invented Hinduism?” Comparative Studies in Society and History 41, no. 4 (October 1999): 630 – 59.  See J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:117– 18.  “A Brief Account of the Late Interruption from the Government in Calcutta,” in PA, 3:276 – 80. Serampore was under Danish control, of course, but in reality the British held sway in Bengal. In any case, much mission activity took place in territory that was under direct EIC control.  William Carey and others, “Letter to BMS Home Committee,” September 2, 1806, “BMS MSS,” Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford.

40

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

who had advocated on behalf of the BMS on previous occasions. The other man Carey named was Charles Grant (1746 – 1823), one of Wilberforce’s confidantes and, like his friend, a member of the evangelical Anglican “Clapham Sect.” Grant himself had served with EIC and experienced evangelical conversion while on the subcontinent. He returned to England in 1792 and soon became prominent in the EIC’s governing structure, trying—with mixed results—to encourage EIC chaplains and speak up for missionaries working in India.¹⁶⁹ Fuller would depend on Grant in particular as he sought to deal with the developing crisis. Fuller’s response at this critical juncture was careful but thorough. He headed to London in order “to sound the depth of the danger.”¹⁷⁰ With Grant’s help, he visited a number of the EIC directors bearing a carefully prepared statement, which he had written and which the BMS home committee had endorsed.¹⁷¹ This document mounted a staunch defence of the Indian mission.¹⁷² The aim had also been to distribute this statement at the EIC meeting on June 7, 1807, at which the possible recall of the missionaries was to be discussed. However, Grant persuaded Fuller it would be better to leave the matter to him and to some other directors who were sympathetic to the cause, especially Edward Parry (ca. 1750 – 1827), who was the chair of the Court of Directors. This restrained approach paid off and, with Fuller watching anxiously from the gallery at India House, the motion failed.¹⁷³ Some of those involved with the London Missionary Society had been critical of Fuller’s “diplomatic” way of handling the situation while he was in London, describing Grant as “timid and irresolute” and urging Fuller to disregard his advice and instead to “act on the offensive.”¹⁷⁴ But the BMS secretary’s tactics were almost certainly correct, given that all the power, humanly speaking, was in the hands of the EIC men who would make the decision. Consequently, relying on Grant and Parry as “insiders” made sense. Even so, the image of Fuller watching helplessly from the gallery at Leadenhall Street surely illustrates a lack of any real political influence. The inequalities which shut Dissenters out of the corridors of privilege and power are once again in evidence here.

 See DEB, 2:1186 – 89 (on Wilberforce) and 1:466 (on Grant). On Grant, see also Henry Morris, The Life of Charles Grant (London: John Murray, 1904).  Morris, Fuller, 141. According to Morris, these are Fuller’s own words.  PA, 3:374.  The statement is reproduced in Joseph Ivimey, A History of the English Baptists (London: Isaac Taylor Hinton/Holdsworth and Ball, 1830), 4:94– 107.  Morris, Fuller, 141– 43; Ryland, Fuller, 156 – 57; Stanley, BMS, 24– 26.  Gunton Fuller, Fuller, 119; J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:124.

4 The mission’s difficulties: 1806 – 1808

41

4.2 The “Persian Pamphlet” Despite this temporary reprieve, the attacks against the missionaries continued; indeed, in India they had already been renewed. The immediate catalyst was a small, thirteen-page tract printed by William Ward at Serampore, which became known as the “Persian Pamphlet.”¹⁷⁵ In writing it, Ward had drawn from two main sources. The first was an evangelistic tract by Samuel Pearce, originally written for Muslim dockworkers in England.¹⁷⁶ The second was a well-known English commentary on the Qur’an from the early eighteenth century.¹⁷⁷ Ward’s aim was to use the tract in outreach work among Bengali Muslims. The thrust of the pamphlet was clear, and the language it deployed was strong: men and women could only be saved through faith in Christ, and those who rejected this message faced God’s impending judgment.¹⁷⁸ Yet the mission literature produced at Serampore had always dealt in straightforward language, as had their preaching. One should also point out this is how the evangelical Particular Baptists spoke to people in England. Their evangelism was forthright, predicated on their deeply held theological principles. This unequivocal approach—whether in England or in India—was informed by their belief that without Christ, people were eternally lost. While some of their preaching and writing might seem harsh and “unloving” to some modern readers with a different worldview, for the missionaries themselves the “unloving” approach would have been to remain silent or to water down their message. Even so, the question remains: Why did this new tract cause such problems? The primary issue was the translation of Ward’s work into Bengali. The translator, who was a recent Christian convert from Islam named Hadatullah, had inserted the word “tyrant” before each mention of Mohammed’s name.¹⁷⁹ By mid-1807 the mission presses at Serampore were producing vast quantities of literature—not just Bibles and sections of the Bible, but also, as I have already noted, tracts which sought to explain and apply the gospel message. With his heavy workload, it appears Ward had not properly checked this particular pamphlet before running it off.¹⁸⁰ It was a bad mistake. Carey knew nothing of the tract and was deeply alarmed when parts of

 For coverage of the dispute surrounding the pamphlet, see West, “Evangelizing Bengali Muslims,” 201– 7. This is now the authoritative treatment of the subject, but see also Potts, British Baptist Missionaries, 183 – 91.  For the text, see Samuel Pearce, “Letter to the Lascars,” in The Baptist Annual Register, vol. 3, ed. John Rippon (London: Button, Conder, Brown, et al., 1801), 433 – 38.  George Sale, The Koran […] Translated into English Immediately from the Original Arabic […] to Which Is Prefixed a Preliminary Discourse (London: C. Ackers for J. Wilcox, 1734). Ward culled material from Sale’s “Preliminary Discourse.”  See the summary in West, “Evangelizing Bengali Muslims,” 203 – 4.  Ward, journal entry for August 2, 1807, in PA, 3:393; West (“Evangelizing Bengali Muslims,” 205) names the translator.  Ward, journal entry for August 2, 1807, in PA, 3:393.

42

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

it were read to him.¹⁸¹ Here was intemperate, inflammatory language indeed. What is more, the timing could hardly have been worse, with tensions running high following the Vellore Mutiny. The missionaries promptly withdrew the pamphlet, but significant damage had already been done. The newly appointed British governor, Lord Minto (1751– 1814),¹⁸² was alarmed by the tract, believing—not unreasonably—that it had the potential to provoke serious religious tension. He demanded the missionary printing presses be handed over to him. Moreover, he insisted the preaching which had been taking place in Calcutta be “immediately discontinued.”¹⁸³ Fuller appears to have written to the trio, advising them to refuse these demands. He believed it would be better for the missionaries to go to jail than to agree.¹⁸⁴ The fact that Serampore was in Danish-controlled territory afforded them some protection and bought them some time, as the new Danish governor, Colonel Krefting (d. 1828),¹⁸⁵ was much more sympathetic to their cause than Minto. In fact, Krefting’s bravery in standing up to Minto’s initial demands was a significant factor in saving the missionaries.¹⁸⁶ Carey’s prompt action in withdrawing the pamphlet also helped. A new commitment to submit future publications to both the Danish and the British governors for approval further mollified the authorities.¹⁸⁷ This would have been a difficult concession for the determinedly Nonconformist trio to make, and it further illustrates the complexities of engaging in Christian mission in colonial Bengal. The demand for the presses to cease operating was dropped, and the tensions began to ease slightly—on the ground in India, at least.

4.3 Further attacks: Fuller’s principal opponents in the “Pamphlet War” In Britain, a series of pamphlets, letters, and “reviews” attacking Carey and his colleagues were published. These began to appear towards the end of 1807 and flowed from the presses in increasing numbers from the beginning of 1808, with anti-missionary sentiment perhaps reaching its height in the summer of that year.¹⁸⁸ These attacks did not refer to the Persian pamphlet in any obvious way; rather, they revisited the previous attempt to blame the missionaries for the unrest at Vellore and al-

 Morris, Fuller, 143 – 44.  Minto (Gilbert Elliot) was governor general of India from July 1807 to 1813.  Letter from the governor’s office to William Carey, in J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:315.  Ward, journal entry for September 12, 1807, “BMS Missionary Correspondence,” Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford (IN/17 A). Cf. West, “Evangelizing Bengali Muslims,” 217. Fuller’s letter to the missionaries was probably destroyed.  Jacob Krefting succeeded Olave Bie as governor of Serampore.  For further details, see West, “Evangelizing Bengali Muslims,” 218 – 19.  Morris, Fuller, 145.  A helpful resource for following the intricacies of the Pamphlet War is Jörg Fisch, “A Pamphlet War on Christian Missions in India, 1807– 1809,” Journal of Asian History 19, no. 1 (1985): 22– 70.

4 The mission’s difficulties: 1806 – 1808

43

lied this with more general “anti-missionary” feeling. It was as if a dam had broken, and antagonism against overseas mission poured forth from the presses, much of it focused on BMS work in Bengal. Fuller wrote his Apology to combat this slew of pamphlets. Three authors were especially important to the Apology, and I will note each of them here, along with a brief summary of their arguments. 4.3.1 Thomas Twining (1776 – 1861) The first of the pamphleteers was Thomas Twining, whose publication provided the spark which ignited the so-called “Pamphlet War.” His Letter to the Chairman of the East India Company, on the Danger of Interfering in the Religious Observances of the Natives of India first appeared in October 1807. It went through three editions before the end of the year, with the third including some new material by way of a preface.¹⁸⁹ The Letter has been wrongly attributed to Richard Twining (1749 – 1824), an EIC director.¹⁹⁰ But it was his second son, Thomas, who wrote four open “letters” on the “danger of interfering in the religious opinions of the natives in India” between 1795 and 1808, of which his 1807 pamphlet was the most significant. These Twinings were the famous tea-trading family, whose business and fortunes were closely bound up with the prosperity of the EIC. In a letter to Joshua Marshman, Fuller described his opponent as “the son of an opulent tea-dealer near Temple Bar” who had spent time in India.¹⁹¹ Thomas had indeed spent time on the subcontinent. He had entered the EIC’s Bengal service in 1792, the same year the BMS was founded. He had worked in finance before returning to Britain in 1805. His opposition to the missionaries’ work was long standing and widely known. He was a leader of the antimissionary party at the company’s Court of Proprietors and had considerable influence in the wider EIC constituency, as Fuller himself recognized.¹⁹² Twining’s Letter sought—without presenting any credible evidence—to rekindle the accusation that the missionaries were in some way responsible for the Vellore massacre (despite Vellore being located over 1,000 miles from Serampore). Twining also had broader points to make, setting himself against what he termed the “religious innovation” the BMS were bringing. If their work was allowed to continue, he insisted, “indignation” would “spread from one end of Hindostan [sic] to the other; and the arms of fifty million people will drive us [i. e., the British] from that

 Published by: London: J. Ridgeway, 1807. See also Fisch, “Pamphlet War,” 30, 70.  Ernest F. Clipsham, “Andrew Fuller and the Baptist Mission,” Foundations 10, no. 1 (January 1967): 13.  Andrew Fuller to Joshua Marshman, February 12, 1808, “Fuller Letters to Joshua Marshman, 1801– 1812,” Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford (H/1/2).  Fuller to J. Marshman, February 12, 1808, “Fuller Letters to J. Marshman.” For further information on Thomas Twining, see J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:333 – 34; Clipsham, “Andrew Fuller and the Baptist Mission,” 13; Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), online edn., October 2009, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ 27912.

44

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

portion of the globe.”¹⁹³ Twining not only attacked the BMS, he also took aim at the work of the British and Foreign Bible Society. In general, the Letter deals in alarmist assertions rather than reasoned argument based on evidence. Jörg Fisch describes it, not unfairly, as a “poor, but nonetheless provoking pamphlet.”¹⁹⁴ Twining’s comment about the British being driven from India surely reveals his primary motive in writing. The family had their vested commercial interests to protect. Fuller replies to Twining in Part I of his Apology. 4.3.2 John Scott Waring (1747 – 1819) The second and in some ways the most important opponent was John Scott Waring, who had entered EIC service in about 1766 and served as a major in Bengal. He became close to Warren Hastings (1732– 1813), who was the de facto British governor general in India between 1773 and 1785.¹⁹⁵ Handsomely rewarded for his work for the EIC, he returned to England and entered Parliament in 1784. According to Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800 – 1859), as an MP Scott Waring was “always on his legs” and “very tedious,” soon considered “the greatest bore of his time.” As a writer he was far more prolific than profound. Hardly a month passed, said Macauley, without the major producing “some bulky pamphlet.”¹⁹⁶ Scott Waring had already published his Observations in July, ahead of Twining’s Letter. At that stage his comments concerning the missionaries were relatively mild. He believed it was vital that British authorities did not encourage Christian missionaries and were not implicated in their work in any way. Even so, according to Scott Waring, Carey and his colleagues should be permitted to operate in EIC territory.¹⁹⁷ However, Scott Waring’s content and tone changed dramatically with the publication of the third edition of the Observations in December 1807. This contained a new and lengthy “preface” in which he supported Twining’s Letter and added some further strictures of his own. He now urged the “immediate recall of every English missionary” from India. Moreover, the distribution of religious tracts should be strictly prohibited. This was a ban which, he contended, must extend to the circulation of the Bible or any part of it.¹⁹⁸ Scott Waring also attacked the characters and ministries of the Baptist missionaries directly, repeatedly dealing in inflammatory language. For instance, they were “dangerous maniacs” who were guilty of “puritanical rant of the most vulgar

 Twining, A Letter […] on the Danger of Interfering in the Religious Observances of the Natives, 30, as cited in Fisch, “Pamphlet War,” 30 – 31.  Fisch, “Pamphlet War,” 31.  Again Fuller is well informed regarding his opponent. See Fuller to J. Marshman, February 12, 1808, “Fuller Letters to J. Marshman.”  Thomas Babington Macauley, Critical and Historical Essays, Contributed to the Edinburgh Review (5 vols.; Leipzig: Bernard Tauchnitz, 1850), here 4:311. See pp. 311 and 342 for references to Scott Waring’s substantial financial “rewards” for his service in India.  Fisch, “Pamphlet War,” 29 – 30.  Fisch, “Pamphlet War,” 31, citing Scott Waring (3rd edn.), xvii.

4 The mission’s difficulties: 1806 – 1808

45

kind.”¹⁹⁹ He claimed the reason for this change of approach was new information he had received privately, which came directly from India.²⁰⁰ One wonders what this new information was, for Scott Waring does not seem— fortunately for the BMS—to have been aware of the Persian pamphlet. His criticisms of Carey and his colleagues were based in the main on the published reports in the Periodical Accounts. Despite his claim to be reflecting the views of sources in India— all of whom he declined to name—his knowledge of what was actually happening on the ground in Bengal appears remarkably thin. This lack of information did not stop him from writing and publishing, however. By the end of 1808 he had produced five different pamphlets on the controversy, nearly 700 pages in total.²⁰¹ He wrote more than anyone else on either side of the debate. His motives were similar to Twining’s: he aimed to preserve EIC rule in India at all costs. This was essential to national honour, and especially to ensure goods and profits would continue to flow. In the mind of someone like Scott Waring, such considerations trumped all else. Fuller responds to some of these different pamphlets and to Scott Waring’s repeated assertions in each of the three parts of the Apology, spending the most time addressing Scott Waring’s “preface.” 4.3.3 Charles Stuart (1757/58 – 1828) Fuller’s other main opponent was Charles Stuart. His Vindication of the Hindoos appeared in two parts over the course of 1808. Although the pamphlet was published anonymously and some attributed it to Scott Waring, there is no doubt Stuart was the author.²⁰² He had sailed for India in 1777 and served in the EIC armies, and had been promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel in 1803. He was on furlough in Britain between 1804 and 1809, the period during which he wrote his two-part Vindication. He would return to India for a further term of service in December 1809, and while there he amassed a significant collection of Indian art.²⁰³ What is remarkable about Stuart’s writing—for a British officer—is his resolutely positive estimate of “Hinduism.” Like Twining and Scott Waring he wanted to defend British interests, but unlike  Fisch, “Pamphlet War,” 31, citing Scott Waring (3rd edn.), lv, lxv.  Fisch, “Pamphlet War,” 31, citing Scott Waring (3rd edn.), iii, liv.  Fisch, “Pamphlet War,” 33.  Fisch (“Pamphlet War,” 33 – 34 n. 38) offers much evidence. Probably the first to ascribe the Vindication to Stuart in print was John Clark Marshman (Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:354), although the name is misspelled “Stewart.” The identity of the “Bengal Officer” was “unknown” to Fuller in February 1808 (Fuller to J. Marshman, February 12, 1808, “Fuller Letters to J. Marshman”), but by July 1809 he was writing to William Ward stating that his opponent was “Colonel Stewart” (Andrew Fuller to William Ward, July 16, 1809, “Fuller Letters to Ward”). Thus the identification of Stuart, together with the misspelling of his name, probably came to the missionaries in India direct from Fuller himself. For more on Stuart, see Jörg Fisch, “A Solitary Vindicator of the Hindus: The Life and Writings of General Charles Stuart (1757/58 – 1828),” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1 (1985): 35 – 57.  Fisch, “Solitary Vindicator,” 36 – 42.

46

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

them he sought to vindicate Hindu culture, spirituality, and practices on their own terms. Ward’s argument was that “Hinduism” was characterized by idolatry and superstition; by contrast, for Stuart it was spiritual, sophisticated, and moral, not just with respect to its sacred texts, but also its popular expression. Furthermore, instead of oppressing marginalized groups–—for example, women and the poor—the rigid stratification of the caste system engendered stability.²⁰⁴ So while Stuart’s approach could be described as “radical” in some ways, in others it was deeply conservative and protective of the status quo. Again, the preservation of British interests and the extraordinarily unbalanced and exploitative trading arrangements were his overriding concerns. Fuller wrote much of Part II of his Apology in response to this opponent. One of the surprising things about the Pamphlet War and the attempts opponents at India House made to undermine the BMS was the lack of reference to the Persian pamphlet—something I have already noted in the cases of Twining and Scott Waring. The pamphlet affair would have provided much ammunition for Fuller’s opponents, yet none of them mentioned it—a fact that surely indicates how poorly informed they were of the details of BMS operations in India. Fuller himself was not about to open up the events surrounding the Persian pamphlet’s printing to public scrutiny. He included some brief and rather opaque comments in the Periodical Accounts, but nothing more.²⁰⁵ This minimalist approach showed great wisdom. Fuller’s Apology was an important work in support of the BMS presence in India. Yet it may well be that his most significant piece of writing for the mission was the very careful and extremely brief commentary he offered on the Persian pamphlet. As a result, this potentially inflammatory material was not placed into the public domain, where it could have been used by the mission’s enemies. Even so, this approach would not have worked if a man like Scott Waring—the missionaries’ most vituperative adversary—had received details of the pamphlet and the problems it had caused by another route; indeed, the missionaries could have been accused of a cover-up. There is little doubt that Fuller and the Serampore trio alike would have seen this lack of reference to the Persian pamphlet by any of their critics in the Pamphlet War as providential.

 See the summary in Fisch, “Solitary Vindicator,” 43.  PA, 3:392– 94, 397.

5 Writing and publishing the Apology

47

5 Writing and publishing the Apology 5.1 The events of December 1807 The events which occasioned the writing of the Apology, together with the process of writing itself, caused Fuller “great trouble and perplexity.”²⁰⁶ It is not easy to establish a precise timeline of when Fuller researched and wrote the different parts of the Apology and when they were published. However, working from the available evidence, I submit that the following is a plausible reconstruction. Close consideration of the primary material, especially unpublished letters written to the missionaries in India, indicates Fuller completed his work in a short space of time, working under great pressure. In December 1807 Fuller felt compelled to head once more to London, as he put it, to “fight again with beasts”—an allusion to the persecution faced by the early church.²⁰⁷ Twining had published his Letter, and there were renewed pleas to recall the missionaries.²⁰⁸ John Owen (1766 – 1822) replied to Twining on behalf of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and his work was published almost immediately—a reflection perhaps of the superior financial resources available to the BFBS.²⁰⁹ Fuller arrived in London on December 15 and wrote his own response, both to Twining and to Scott Waring’s opening salvo, while staying at a friend’s home.²¹⁰ This was possibly William Burls (1763 – 1837), a merchant who was a crucial London supporter of the BMS and who accompanied Fuller on some of his visits to EIC directors in London.²¹¹ Astonishingly then, it appears Part I of the Apology was written, at least as a first draft, in the space of a week in mid-December 1807.²¹² Before Fuller returned to Kettering from London, he would once more watch from the gallery at India House as Twining gave a ten-minute speech at an EIC Court of Proprietors meeting on December 23, 1807.²¹³ Twining renewed his call for all missionaries to be expelled from the Indian subcontinent. Edward Parry, who was in the chair, gave a general, noncommittal response, basically asking those as-

 Morris, Fuller, 141.  Andrew Fuller to William Ward, December 10, 1807, “Fuller Letters to Ward.”  Fuller to Ward, December 10, 1807, “Fuller Letters to Ward”: some were seeking “letters of authority to bring you [i. e., the BMS missionaries] to England.”  John Owen, An Address to the Chairman of the East India Company, Occasioned by Mr Twining’s Letter […] (London: J. Hatchard, 1807).  Andrew Fuller to William Ward, January 11, 1808, “Fuller Letters to Ward.” Fuller told Ward of a “new opposition to the Mission,” which had called him to London. There were some who had been trying to “spread the alarm” and get the missionaries recalled. They had “thus commenced a literary war [and] I was told I must answer them.” The evidence in this letter indicates that Fuller read both Twining’s and Scott Waring’s early pamphlets, including the latter’s preface, prior to December 19.  For Burls, see DEB, 1:170.  J. C. Marshman, Carey, Marshman, and Ward, 1:346; Cox, BMS, 1:162– 63.  Fuller to Ward, January 11, 1808, “Fuller Letters to Ward.”

48

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

sembled to trust him and the executive to handle the matter. He allowed no discussion on either side and, to the consternation of Twining and his supporters, proposed closing the session. This proposal was carried on a show of hands. The anti-missionary party had effectively been outmaneuvered, and the decision to end the session without debate indicated they were not the majority in the court.²¹⁴ However, Parry’s way of handling the meeting left Twining and his colleagues greatly disgruntled. Further attempts to recall Carey and his colleagues remained very much a possibility.²¹⁵ The matter was far from closed.

5.2 The events of January–March 1808 As new pamphlets appeared in 1808, Fuller tried to mobilize others in the BMS constituency to defend the mission in print. None were able or willing, however. Robert Hall, Jr. at least attempted to compose something but did not complete his work.²¹⁶ Under the circumstances, Fuller believed he had no option but to respond further to the growing list of publications against the BMS. Thus, even though he had written to Ward on January 11, 1808, declaring he had “nearly finished [his] pamphlet,”²¹⁷ on January 27 he was confiding to Ryland: “My Apology for the Mission would have been finished by this time; but there are new pieces come out […] which I am told I must notice. I am really distressed with public and private labours.”²¹⁸ However, it appears Fuller had essentially completed his work on parts I and II—at least as they were originally conceived—by February 11. The crucial piece of evidence is a letter to Joshua Marshman, dated February 12, 1808, which includes the line: “Last night finished an apology for the late Xn missions to India in 2 parts.” Fuller told Marshman his Part II contained “remarks on 4 more pamphlets, viz. Major Scott Waring’s Letter to the Rev. Mr. Owen—a vindication of the Hindoos by a Bengal Officer—a letter to the President of the Board of Control—and Dr. Barrow’s sermon.” It also car-

 As Fuller notes in Fuller to Ward, January 11, 1808, “Fuller Letters to Ward”: “[W]e had a decided majority of proprietors.”  Morris, Fuller, 142– 43.  Cf. Cox, BMS, 1:163 – 64. Cox records that he saw Hall, Jr. working on a manuscript, and early printings of Part I of the Apology carry an advertisement for a forthcoming pamphlet by Hall on the subject of the India mission. See, for example, the copy of Part I bound together with other “Miscellaneous Tracts” and pamphlets in the Angus Library (Tracts LII). The advertisement is on the very last page, after the appendix. Hall could be an extremely effective writer, but sadly this work was never completed. Later in 1808 Fuller wrote to Ward that “poor R. H.” was “sinking into melancholy […] He had nearly written a pamphlet in favour of the Mission, but it is given up.” See Andrew Fuller to William Ward, August 27, 1808, “Fuller Letters to Ward.” Hall struggled with mental health issues for much of his life.  Fuller to Ward, January 11, 1808, “Fuller Letters to Ward.” The comment comes on the second sheet of this long letter, which is extremely helpful in tracing Fuller’s process of writing the Apology.  Fuller to Ryland, January 27, 1808, in Ryland, Fuller, 348.

5 Writing and publishing the Apology

49

ried “an appendix in answer to a third piece of Scott Waring’s,” although he did say “this is not yet finished.”²¹⁹ This work had been completed despite the fact that he had been extremely unwell for several weeks. “One week I had a fever—another an attack of the bile,” he declared.²²⁰ The fact that he wrote the bulk of the Apology in such a short space of time, and under such difficult circumstances, represents a remarkable achievement. However, once again a change of plan delayed publication. On a second sheet dated March 5, which was presumably enclosed with his February letter to Marshman and sent to India as a packet, Fuller declared: “My Apology in 2 Parts are [sic] become three—as you will find.” Some of the material which had been provisionally placed in Part II would be relocated to Part III in the final, published version—for example, the response to Barrow. With new pamphlets written against the missionaries, Fuller was expanding the material in the Apology, and the structure was changing as a result.

5.3 Publication of the Apology and further work for the BMS When the Apology finally appeared, it was published in three parts which were initially sold separately for the price of two shillings and sixpence each. According to a “list of monthly publications” in the review periodical the British Critic, Part I was published in March 1808.²²¹ Fuller wrote to the young missionary William Moore (1776 – 1844) on May 1: “I have lately published an Apology for the Mission in which I have vindicated you […] against the Reproaches of Major Scott Waring.”²²² This is Part I, in which Moore is mentioned explicitly.²²³ The final revisions and publication of parts II and III were delayed until the summer, partly due to further health issues. In mid-March Fuller had fallen from his horse, thus suffering a “violent contusion” to the left side of his body.²²⁴ He wrote to Ryland on May 4 that, because of his fall, he was “obliged to keep very still, and refrain from all violent motion.”²²⁵ The BMS secretary was engaged in vital work which required great concentration and at-

 Andrew Fuller to Joshua Marshman, February 12, 1808, “Fuller Letters to J. Marshman.” For more information on Fuller’s responses to the “President of the Board of Control” and to “Dr. Barrow’s sermon,” see the notes on the text of the Apology.  Fuller to J. Marshman, February 12, 1808, “Fuller Letters to J. Marshman.”  The British Critic and Quarterly Theological Review 31 (London: F. C. and J. Rivington, 1808), 333.  Andrew Fuller to William Moore, May 1, 1808, Angus Library, Regent’s Park College Oxford (H2/ 6).  For further details, see the editor’s footnotes on the original text of the Apology. The July number of the Monthly Review includes a review of Part I of the Apology as a standalone piece, with parts II and III yet to appear. See The Monthly Review; Or, Literary Journal Enlarged 56 (London: T. Becket, 1808), 317– 18.  Morris, Fuller, 79; see also Fuller to Ryland, March 19, 1808, in Ryland, Fuller, 348.  Fuller to Ryland, May 4, 1808, in Ryland, Fuller, 348.

50

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

tention to detail, yet his recovery from his serious accident was proceeding slowly. Thus parts II and III of the Apology were not ready for the press until the summer of 1808. Astonishingly, the work of finalizing the text was sandwiched between a three-week tour of Yorkshire and Lancashire on behalf of the BMS in July²²⁶ and a major tour of Scotland in the autumn—his fourth visit there—with a full programme of preaching and collecting for the mission.²²⁷ It is likely that Part II was published and in the hands of booksellers in late October or early November of 1808, and that Part III appeared separately in November.²²⁸ The three parts of the Apology were bound together and published as a whole before the year was out. This detailed survey of Fuller’s work from December 1807 to the autumn of 1808 further illuminates his extraordinary commitment to the cause of overseas cross-cultural mission, and to the pioneering work of the BMS in particular. In the midst of major health concerns he engaged in two missionary tours on the society’s behalf, sought to defend the missionaries’ interests in London, and wrote the Apology. It was a remarkable set of achievements. This survey also underlines the difficulties Fuller experienced in producing the finished work—difficulties which help to account for some of the flaws in the final publication.

6 The leading arguments of the Apology 6.1 Introduction When it appeared, the Apology was warmly received by friends of the mission. It was also praised by subsequent generations. Francis A. Cox, writing in 1842, declared: “These productions [i. e., the three parts of the Apology] are characterised by [Fuller’s] usual felicitous method in controversy, and rival, perhaps any from his pen, in calmness, clearness, and point.”²²⁹ I disagree. One can still appreciate the work as a remarkable achievement while recognizing a number of issues with it, surely due in significant degree to the trying circumstances surrounding its writing and publication, as I have outlined in the previous section. There is some repetition, and the writing is uneven in quality. In particular there is a tendency to rely heavily on quota-

 Andrew Fuller to William Ward, August 27, 1808, “Fuller Letters to Ward”: “In July I set off for a three-week excursion into Yorkshire and Lancashire. I preached about 20 sermons, got £240 for the Mission.”  Morris, Fuller, 79. In late August Fuller was still working on the translation of a tract which appears in Part II of the Apology. See Fuller to Ward, August 27, 1808, “Fuller Letters to Ward.”  James Savage, The Librarian, Being an Account of Scarce, Valuable, and Useful English Books, Manuscript Libraries, Public Records (London: William Savage, 1808), 1:282, lists Part III of the Apology as having been published in November 1808. Part II announces that Part III will appear in “a few days,” so it may be that both were released in November.  Cox, BMS, 1:163.

6 The leading arguments of the Apology

51

tions of other works. This is most obvious in Fuller’s depictions of “Hinduism,” although it is present in other sections of the Apology as well. Such copious use of quotation was not Fuller’s usual style, but as one who had no first-hand experience of India, the secretary had little option but to rely on the reports sent back by the missionaries, especially Ward. Yet he also drew large amounts of material from other sources, including EIC employees when their comments were favourable to his argument. He did this with little or no attempt at evaluation. Given his audience, he probably thought the comments of these so-called “authorities” would add weight to his case. Taken as whole, Ward’s observations and those offered by people linked to the EIC in various ways combine to produce a one-sided and inadequate survey of the customs and religious practices of the subcontinent, as I have already noted. This failing is significant, and students of Fuller should not gloss over it, but acknowledge it openly. I would add a further comment: the BMS secretary is too readily drawn into rebutting the slew of unsubstantiated and at times frankly ridiculous charges made by his opponents, especially Scott Waring. When he steps away from point-by-point rebuttal and focuses on the main issues, as he does more often in Part III, his argument is much the better for it. Despite its weaknesses, the Apology contains some profound passages, including important arguments in favour of Christian cross-cultural mission. Fuller had thought about these issues deeply and incisively over a number of years. In some ways his arguments anticipate more recent missiological thinking. The Apology occupies a vital place in the Fuller canon. By 1808 the Kettering pastor had stopped writing apologetic treatises like this one; his work for the BMS did not leave him enough time for the sustained reflection such writing required, and he was now also regularly beset by health issues. I am convinced that nothing but an attack on his beloved BMS could have provoked him to produce what was, when everything was added together, a substantial book-length publication. Offering Christ to the world through the BMS had become a crucial part of his raison d’être, and it is possible that of all his publications, it is the Apology—for all its faults—that most reveals his heart. A proper appreciation of its central arguments is vital to any understanding of the mature Fuller. Once again, we should note that writing this work in the midst of the white heat of controversy and under multiple pressures represents an extraordinary achievement. We now turn to an outline of this important book in the Fuller corpus, together with a consideration of its main themes.

52

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

6.2 Part I: The nature of toleration Part I of the Apology is divided into two sections. The first takes the form of an “Address to Edward Parry as chair of EIC” and focuses on Twining’s pamphlet.²³⁰ This section includes sharp criticisms of “Hindu” culture and religion, as experienced by the missionaries and as fed back to Fuller via their communications, especially Ward’s. It is here that the practices of sati and the ghat murders are described and denounced, but there is further material covering a range of beliefs and behaviours. For balance, Fuller also has strictures to offer on many of the Europeans who are present in India. He quotes Carey: “India swarms with Deists,” men who exhibit an antipathy to Christian outreach based on a distaste for evangelical religion and a concern that the missionaries might upset trading relations. Fuller argues the British authorities have nothing to fear from BMS activities in Bengal. Quoting liberally from those on the ground in India, the Apology presents the view that those who convert to Christianity will be more positively disposed to the British, not less. He also rebuts the charge—repeatedly made but never substantiated—that the Baptists were at all to blame for the Vellore uprising. The heart of the argument in this section revolves around the meaning and practice of toleration. Twining had argued the missionaries’ activities were at variance with “the mild and tolerant spirit of Christianity.” He believed Carey and his colleagues should not be allowed to make converts, insisting “our native subjects in every part of the East” should be “permitted quietly to follow their own religious opinions.” This Twining called toleration. Fuller’s answer was carefully nuanced but also clear. Any attempt to coerce Indian Hindus or Muslims to follow Christ would be quite wrong. If any so-called “missionary” tried to do this, or deliberately sought to disturb the “peace of society,” then they could have no complaints if the government dealt with them severely. Overthrowing another religion by force was anathema to Fuller, as were any “measures subversive of free choice.” As an English Nonconformist, grateful for the aforementioned 1689 Act of Toleration but still experiencing significant social and legal discrimination at home, he was committed to freedom of conscience in religion.²³¹ Fuller then proceeded to define toleration positively. In a statement crucial to his argument, the BMS secretary wrote that toleration was “a legal permission not only to enjoy your own principles unmolested, but to make use of all the fair means of persuasion to recommend them to others.” In other words, people should be free not only to hold to certain principles, but also to propagate those principles through peaceful means, such as printing and distributing literature, making reasoned arguments, and preaching. This was a right that should be extended to Hindus and Chris-

 Fuller’s approach mirrors that of John Owen for the BFBS in An Address to the Chairman of the East India Company. Cf. Owen’s “To Edward Parry, Esq. Chairman of the East India Company,” 1.  For Fuller’s views on “civil and religious liberty,” see Gunton Fuller, Fuller, 197– 203.

6 The leading arguments of the Apology

53

tians alike. Only this view of toleration, Fuller believed, was worthy of the name. By contrast, the BMS secretary believed Twining’s understanding was actually corrosive of religious freedom. Turning the tables on his opponent, Fuller argued Twining was himself being “intolerant” by saying that Christians in India “must not be allowed to make proselytes” or even to circulate the Bible in the Indian languages. This was not “toleration” but “persecution.” Fuller argued that a free and truly tolerant society would allow space for vigorous evangelistic activity and claims to absolute truth; indeed, allowing such activity would be one of the markers of true tolerance. In the second section, Fuller pivots to engage with Scott Waring. He begins by pointing out some of the inconsistencies between Scott Waring’s “preface” and his much milder original pamphlet, which was nevertheless printed together with the new piece, without revision. One inconsistency Fuller highlights relates to the question of whether the missionaries should be recalled: according to the preface, yes; according to the rest of the pamphlet, no. The preface itself is replete with misinformation and obvious mistakes. One paragraph of the Apology, in which Fuller cites Scott Waring at length, will provide a taste of these, as well as of the BMS secretary’s detailed manner of rebutting them. The paragraph begins with Fuller quoting his opponent and interposing a comment of his own. It then continues in this vein: “We have now a great number of sectarian missionaries spread over every part of India,”—p. xii. Those whom Major Scott Waring is pleased to honour with this appellation may amount to fifteen or sixteen, the greater part of whom reside at Serampore, near Calcutta, directly under the eye of the supreme government. “Mr. Carey, the head of the Baptist mission in Bengal, and his assistant missionaries, have been employed, since the year 1804, in translating the Scriptures into the various languages of India.” It may have been from that period that the work of translating has been conducted on so extensive a scale; but for many years before that time Mr. Carey was engaged in the same undertaking. An edition of the New Testament, in Bengalee, was printed at Serampore in 1801, a copy of which is now in his Majesty’s library. “Mr. Carey is employed in translating the Scriptures into the Chinese language,”—p. xv. The Chinese translation is not the work of Mr. Carey, but of Mr. Johannes Lassar, a learned Armenian Christian, with other assistants. “As the different parts are translated, they are printed, as I understand, at the Company’s press, attached to the College at Calcutta.” If this were true, while no man is forced to read them, no danger could arise from it; but there is very little, if any, truth in it. The translations of the missionaries have been printed at Serampore. “Specimens of these translations have been sent home by the provost.” It seems, then, that they were not engaged in anything of which they were ashamed. “The natives of India cannot be ignorant of these novel and extraordinary proceedings:”—Especially while their most learned pundits assist in the work. “They can form no other conclusion than this, that if we cannot persuade, we shall compel them to embrace Christianity.” So long as no compulsion is used towards them, they have more sense than to draw such conclusions, or even to believe them when drawn for them by others whom they consider as men of no religion.

Fuller’s method is to cite Scott Waring, expose the confused or prejudicial thinking or factual error, and then move on to the next quotation and repeat the process. This is the approach he follows in a number of paragraphs in this section of the Apology. Scott Waring does seem remarkably ill-informed, evincing an inability to engage

54

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

with either the detail of an argument or its broad sweep: “I do not know exactly what are Baptist missionaries,” he says at one point. When he does refer to information given in the Periodical Accounts, Fuller is able to demonstrate with little difficulty that his opponent consistently misunderstands and misrepresents. The BMS secretary continues to press his central contention: true toleration leaves ample space for peaceful proclamation; indeed, it insists on it. Seeking to extend “religious principles by the sword” is anathema, yet the freedom to extend true Christianity “without the sword” is vital. He believes BMS missionaries only engage in peaceful proclamation and persuasion, and it is this alone for which he contends. By the time Fuller closes this section, he is more than ready to take his leave of Scott Waring: I wonder whether this writer ever read a book called the Bible […] I presume the reader has had enough; and as all that follows is little else than a repetition of what has already been answered, interlarded with the usual quantity of low abuse, I shall pass it over unnoticed. I have seldom seen a performance, by a writer calling himself a Christian, so full of barefaced infidelity. May God give him repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.

The BMS secretary would come to believe that Scott Waring’s “low abuse” (Morris speaks of “invective”)²³² plumbed new depths in his second pamphlet. We now turn to Fuller’s answer to this.

6.3 Part II: The cause of God and truth After a brief introduction, Part II follows a similar structure to Part I and is divided into two sections. The first section deals with Scott Waring’s new pamphlet, which, although ostensibly a reply to John Owen of the BFBS, also continues his attack on the BMS. There is not much new here. Fuller declares: “As to the Letter itself [i. e., Scott Waring’s pamphlet] it contains little more than a repetition of things which have no foundation in truth, and which, I trust, have been already answered […] No new facts are adduced, nor new arguments from the old ones: almost all is repetition.” It is not too strong to say that Fuller is disgusted by some of the personal attacks on the missionaries. He believes Scott Waring commits “calumny” on the memory of John Thomas, who died in 1801. As I have already noted, Thomas could be unstable, and he certainly experienced struggles with mental health; doubtless Scott Waring had heard of this and twisted these issues into a personal attack on the deceased missionary. Fuller suffered from depression himself and had previously written to Thomas to encourage him, sharing something of his own experience as he did so.²³³ It is unsurprising that he responds to the accusations against Thomas with

 Morris, Fuller, 278, cf. 279.  On Fuller’s depression, see Morden, Fuller, 106 – 9; for the letter, see Fuller to John Thomas, May 16, 1796, in Ryland, Fuller, 159.

6 The leading arguments of the Apology

55

some heat. He introduces a long, favourable testimony from a former EIC employee in Bengal to defend the missionary’s character. Scott Waring wants to prohibit all Christian outreach work in India although, as an Anglican Churchman, he is willing to allow EIC chaplains to be present (unsurprisingly, he would prefer them not to be evangelical). Fuller deals with this line of argument by pointing out once again that Scott Waring’s views amount to intolerance, however much his opponent has dressed them up in the language of “toleration”: Such is the notion of liberality and toleration which I ventured to denounce in my Letter to the Chairman of the East India Company; and I wish I were able to draw the serious attention of every friend to religious liberty in Britain to the subject. These men talk of liberty, while they are razing it to its foundation.

Overall, Fuller seeks to be careful in what he says. It has to be acceptable to the government: his aim is to stave off calls for the expulsion of the missionaries and to establish clear grounds for their long-term presence in Bengal and, by implication, elsewhere in the British colonies. Therefore he focuses on rebutting false charges and arguing that the peaceful evangelistic endeavours of the Serampore missionaries should be tolerated. However, as he brings the section to a close, he once more warns Scott Waring of God’s judgment to come. His language is not vindictive but springs from his worldview, which includes the reality of future punishment for all who reject the gospel: “he who revileth the words of Christ revileth Christ,” he tells Scott Waring, “and he that revileth Christ revileth Him that sent him.”²³⁴ In the second section of Part II, Fuller deals with the third of his main opponents, “a Bengal Officer”—that is, Charles Stuart (although Fuller did not know at the time of writing that Stuart was the author, as the pamphlet was published anonymously). As I have already noted, whereas both Twining and Scott Waring had sought to identify themselves as “Christian,” the Bengal Officer, who ascribes Christianity to “reason” rather than “revelation,” does not identify as such. Moreover, he makes a different argument, contending the Hindu system is moral, and consequently there is no need to challenge the “religion” of Hindustan. As far as the missionaries are concerned, their conduct has been poor and insulting, as has the behaviour of those who have converted from Hinduism to Christianity. Fuller admits the missionaries may have committed “instances of indiscretion,” although he insists none of the charges made by the Bengal Officer, or indeed by Twining or Scott Waring, have been substantiated. He rebuts any specific charges by recourse to the Periodical Accounts, letters from missionaries, and testimonies from others who have known them in India. The Bengal Officer has accused the missionaries of “the bigot anathema of intolerance” on account of their work. Fuller dismisses this as “cant,” given the author’s own intolerant attitude towards the mission Cf. Luke 10:16.

56

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

aries. As far as the Hindu system is concerned, Fuller does not believe it is moral. Again here he is dependent on the reports made by missionaries and others, and he tends to heap up quotations rather than engaging in argument. Even so, this section still contains a passage which gets to the heart of his thinking. Fuller declares that even if “Hinduism” could be shown to be “moral,” this would not be a “solid objection to Christian missions.” Morality and civilization, he insists, are not “the chief end of man.” This echoes the Shorter Westminster Catechism, which was part of Fuller’s Calvinistic heritage. Its most famous question is the one the BMS secretary alludes to, namely: “What is the chief end of man?” The answer the Catechism gives is well known: “to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”²³⁵ It is “enjoying God forever” in the life to come that Fuller especially wants to focus on at this point in the Apology. He declares, “If there be an eternal hereafter, it must be of infinitely greater moment, both to governors and governed, than all the affairs of the greatest empire upon earth.” This is bold. The Bengal Officer is focused on what, in his view, produces a civil society. Fuller is concerned about this too, but for him this consideration is not central. His primary interest, he declares, is in the “cause of God and truth.” This was another redolent phrase for Particular Baptists, being the title of a treatise by John Gill (1697– 1771),²³⁶ the doyen of English Calvinistic Baptist theologians from the early to the mid-eighteenth century.²³⁷ Fuller believed Christianity not because it was a satisfying system of morality, but because, in his terms, it was the revealed truth of God. How a person responded to the gospel in the here and now would have eternal consequences. This was the case whether that person was born in India or the British Isles, and whether they were the “governed” or a “governor.” There was no distinction. Certainly he believed the gospel was infinitely moral, but this was not the fundamental point. Fuller and The Bengal Officer’s dispute arose out of their radically different worldviews. Indeed, this was the case with Scott Waring as well. Both Stuart and Scott Waring were committed to the maintenance of empire, and to a very real degree their guiding principles revolved around the exaltation of nationhood and personal self-interest. Scott Waring showed almost no interest in revealed religion, Stuart a little more, although his interest in Hindu practices was closely linked to his desire for a stable society which would support empire. By contrast, Fuller’s concern was for the kingdom of God, and his authority was Scripture, which he believed to be the re-

 The Westminster Shorter Catechism was written by the Westminster Assembly in 1646 – 1647. There are 107 questions in total, intended to help with instruction in the Reformed (Calvinistic) tradition. “What is chief end of man?” is the first question in the Catechism.  As already noted, Gill is often associated with the High Calvinism I have described in the first section of this introduction. Fuller respected Gill but broke decisively from High Calvinism. For further details, see Morden, Fuller, 17– 18.  See John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth […] Part I (London: Aaron Ward, 1735). This is probably Gill’s best-known work.

6 The leading arguments of the Apology

57

vealed word of God. Fundamental differences in worldview between the BMS secretary and his opponents are further evidenced in the final part of the Apology.

6.4 Part III: Obedience to the great commission Fuller begins Part III with a preface in which he notes another anonymous piece, published in the Edinburgh Review. The “review” in question, essentially an article in its own right, was written by Sydney Smith (1771– 1845). Fuller was stung by this further attack. Moreover, the Edinburgh Review was a heavyweight publication and was widely read, likely to be more influential than the sort of pamphlets he had previously answered. The author of the “review” sets his sights on evangelical “fanatics.” Fuller quotes his denunciation. According to the article in the Edinburgh Review, evangelicals maintain: “[T]he absurd notions of a universal providence, extending not only to the rise and fall of nations, but to the concerns of individuals; the insufficiency of baptism, and of a participation in the customary worship of the country, without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, to denominate men Christians;” and what is worse, it seems, “making a marked and dangerous division of mankind into the godly and the ungodly!”

Smith was an Anglican Churchman who promoted “rational religion” and disliked evangelicals intensely. His article is full of biting satire, and by any standards he treats his opponents unfairly. Yet he was a far abler thinker and writer than any who had yet challenged Fuller’s ideals. While attacking evangelicalism, he manages to distil much of its essence in the quotation just cited, namely: belief in the providence of God, the indispensability of regeneration and conversion (for which the rite of baptism and attendance at worship were no substitute), and the division (dangerous in Smith’s eyes) of humanity into the godly and the ungodly. Fuller would have added more, wanting to assert the centrality of the atonement as the fulcrum of God’s saving work and—especially relevant to our present concerns—the vital importance of engaging in evangelistic mission. But Smith had done a good job of identifying some key themes. His negative assessment of evangelical principles reveals, once again, a radical difference in worldview between Fuller and his opponent. There was a chasm between them. In the first section of Part III, Fuller responds to another pamphlet by Scott Waring. It is possible he would not have done so if the Baptist missionaries had not by now become Scott Waring’s main target. Scott Waring’s writing is full of misinformation, misstatements, and non sequiturs interlaced with establishment condescension towards Dissenters and straightforward abuse. The missionaries are “hot-headed maniacs,” “madmen,” and “mad Calvinists.” “It would seem as if the gentleman himself was scarcely sober,” Fuller wryly observes. It is evident the BMS secretary has had enough of reading and responding to Scott Waring. “I am weary of contending with this foul opponent,” he says at one point.

58

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

Even so, this section contains some of the most effective writing in the Apology. This comes when Fuller shifts his focus from detailed point-by-point rebuttal and builds a positive case for mission work in Bengal and further afield. Scott Waring is outraged at those who believe the missionaries are simply following in the footsteps of the biblical apostles. How can these “sectaries” be mentioned in the same breath as the men who spoke in tongues and worked miracles? To this charge Fuller gives a sustained biblical response, returning once again to the great commission in Matthew 28:19 – 20. The commission, he says, is the “principal ground” on which the BMS acts. Scott Waring has declared he does not believe this command extends to Christians in the present day. Fuller, who had grown up in his own denomination surrounded by a version of this argument, has had plenty of time to reflect on it, and now he begs to differ. He points out that God’s promise to be with his people “to the end of the world” is explicitly tied to the commission. Therefore, he reasons, the commission must have continuing validity as a command, since the end of the world had evidently not yet come. And since the commission continues to be Christ’s command to his people, every true Christian is obliged to do their “utmost in the use of those means which Christ has appointed for the discipling of all nations.” As for Scott Waring’s comments about the miraculous gifts, they completely miss the point: If our being unable to work miracles be a reason why we should not preach the gospel to all nations as far as opportunity admits, it is a reason why we should not preach it at all; or, which is the same thing, a proof that the Christian ministry, as soon as miracles had ceased, ought to have terminated. The institution of the Christian ministry is founded in the commission, even that commission which enjoins the teaching of all nations. And if we leave out one part, we must, to be consistent, leave out the other. We ought either not to teach at all, or, according to our powers and opportunities, to teach all nations.

This is Fuller’s most developed argument for the continuing validity of the commission as a command and a duty for Christians in his own day. “The institution of the Christian ministry is founded on the commission” is a bold statement, and not one I believe Fuller would have made earlier in his ministerial career. Indeed, even within the material considered in this introduction, we have seen some movement of his thought on the commission, from the cautious and limited comments in The Pernicious Consequences of Delay in Religious Concerns to the far bolder and more farreaching commentary on and application of Matthew 28:19 – 20 he sets out in the Apology. In summary, to the extent they had “powers and opportunities,” the key BMS thinkers were now united in their determination to fulfil God’s call on their lives, and Jesus’s commission, recorded at the close of Matthew’s Gospel, was at the heart of that call. Fuller further insists the BMS will seek to obey the great commission even if the civil authorities attempt to stop them. His argument here is careful and subtle, yet also clearly articulated. He uses the apostles as an example. First, he seeks to show they respected civil authority. For example, as Paul stands before Felix, Festus,

6 The leading arguments of the Apology

59

and Agrippa, he consistently shows them respect.²³⁸ The missionaries, he believes, have followed in his footsteps: respect has been and will continue to be shown to the EIC authorities. However, the apostle’s ultimate allegiance was to Christ, and the missionaries must follow him in this too. Fuller sums up his own position thus: The apostles were commanded to break no laws but such as were inconsistent with their allegiance to Christ; and in breaking them they never acted with contumacy, but merely as impelled by a superior authority; bearing at the same time the consequences with meekness and fortitude, as their Lord had done before them. The principle on which they acted was that which He had laid down for them when tempted by certain “hypocrites,” with the intent of rendering him obnoxious to government (not that they cared for government, but were desirous of making it the instrument of their malice); namely, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”²³⁹

This is carefully expressed, but it also courageous—not least in a publication like this one, which is clearly intended to be read by government officials. Fuller here answers the question of what the missionaries should do if their desire to obey the civil authorities and their allegiance to Christ clash. Put simply: Jesus is Lord, not the British authorities. The apostles (and the missionaries who came after them) are under a “superior authority” to that of the civil power. Their desire to obey the civil government as far as possible remains. Such a desire is not a limitation of Christ’s ultimate lordship, but flows from it, for Jesus himself commanded the people to give to Caesar “the things that are Caesar’s.” The apostles, especially Paul, took these principles —respect, submission, and obedience as far as possible—to heart, and they modelled them in their ministries. Even so, when obedience to earthly power conflicts with ultimate “allegiance to Christ,” it is absolutely clear for them what must come first.²⁴⁰ This was a foundational principle—allegiance to Christ above all—which the BMS missionaries were determined to follow, and in this they enjoyed the full support of their home committee. When Fuller told Carey and his colleagues to accept imprisonment rather than give up their printing presses to the EIC authorities in Calcutta, it was an outworking of this foundational tenet of Christian discipleship. Ultimately, in this instance the BMS personnel were not put to the test, as the governor did not seek to carry out his threat. Still, Fuller had drawn a line in the sand: when government acted in a way that conflicted with the fulfilment of Christ’s command and commission, it was their sworn duty to follow Jesus as Lord. Under Fuller’s guidance, the BMS would seek to do so, whatever the cost. At this point, Fuller’s arguments in the Apology had largely been made. In the second and final section of Part III, the closing section of the book, he answers four further opponents, dealing with each briefly. The most important of the new publications was a printed sermon by William Barrow, which proposed limiting all

 Acts 24– 26.  Matthew 22:21.  Cf., for example, Acts 4:18 – 20.

60

Editor’s introduction Andrew Fuller’s Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India

missionary work on the Indian subcontinent to the Anglican church.²⁴¹ Fuller responds clearly but carefully, not wanting to offend his evangelical Anglican friends. He rebuts Barrow’s proposal as a matter of principle, but he also has a practical point to make. The Anglican SPCK in the south of India were regularly appealing for new recruits, yet few from England were answering the call. Fuller hopes more will offer to go and more will be sent, but given this is not currently the case, Barrow’s arguments are hollow. In any case, any new Anglican recruits should be sent to supplement those already on the ground, not to replace them. There was more than enough work for Anglicans and Baptists, indeed for those of any denomination. He concludes his reply to Barrow with a “humble, respectful, and most earnest entreaty […] Hinder us not!” In a sense, this is what he has wanted all along. The practical thrust of the Apology is this: the missionaries should be left to do their work without hindrance. Yet Fuller has made these points on the basis of profound applied theology and incisive missiological reflection. The Apology stands as perhaps Fuller’s most flawed extended piece of writing, but also one of his most important.

7 Editorial Principles This present critical edition is prepared from the first (1808) edition of the three-part work held in the Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford, compared with the text as it appears in the London edition of the Collected Works, edited by Fuller’s son, Andrew Gunton Fuller (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1847). Gunton Fuller made the corrections proposed in the 1808 edition’s list of errata and I have followed him by also making these alterations. In addition, he made some minor changes in punctuation and I have accepted these as well. There are no substantive differences between the text of the Apology as printed in 1808 and that printed in 1847. The Collected Works does append two short Fuller pieces on cross-cultural mission to the Apology which were not part of the original work. Because of their relevance I have included these as well. I have preserved all Andrew Fuller’s footnotes and these are marked as [AF]. All other footnotes are my own and are included to help elucidate the text.

 For further details on Barrow, see the editor’s footnotes on the original text of Fuller’s Apology.

AN APOLOGY

FOR THE LATE

CHRISTIAN MISSIONS TO INDIA IN THREE PARTS

WITH AN APPENDIX

Part I “There are no such things done as thou sayest; but thou feignest them out of thine own heart.” — nehemiah¹ “And now, I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel, or this work, be of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against god.” — gamaliel²

Section I An address to Edward Parry, Esq., Chairman of the East India Company³ Sir,

As in a letter lately addressed to you by Mr. Thomas Twining,⁴ on the danger of interfering in the religious opinions of the natives of India, there is a reference to the labours of the Baptist missionaries in that country, you will not consider me, I hope, as obtruding myself on your attention while I offer a few remarks upon it, and upon the important subject which it embraces. It is true, the principal part of Mr. Twining’s pamphlet is directed against “The British and Foreign Bible Society,”⁵ and that this has been sufficiently answered from another quarter; but though he affects “not to know these missionaries,” yet their undertaking, particularly in the work of translating the Scriptures, has, no doubt, contributed to excite his alarm.

 Nehemiah 6:8.  Acts 5:38 – 39.  Edward Parry (ca. 1750 – 1827) was chair of the EIC Court of Directors in both 1807 and 1808. Parry was a member of the evangelical Anglican Clapham Sect and a close friend of Charles Grant (who often stayed at Parry’s home in Norfolk). He worked in concert with Grant to oppose those who wanted the BMS missionaries in India recalled. See Joseph Ivimey, A History of the English Baptists (HEB) (London: Isaac Taylor Hinton, and Holdsworth & Ball, 1830), 2:856 – 57; Henry Morris, The Life of Charles Grant (London: John Murray, 1904), 160 – 61, 195 (on Grant and Parry’s friendship); 300 – 305 (on their work on behalf of the missionaries). See also the editor’s introduction to this volume.  Thomas Twining, Letter to the Chairman of the East India Company, on the Danger of Interfering in the Religious Observances of the Natives of India (London: J. Ridgeway, 1807). For biographical details on Thomas Twining (1776 – 1861), one of Fuller’s principal opponents in the “Pamphlet War,” see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  The British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) was established in 1804 to facilitate the printing and distribution of Scripture. The society sought to be non-sectarian and was a vehicle for cooperation between Dissenters and Anglicans. For further details, see John Owen, The History of the Origins of the First Ten Years of the British and Foreign Bible Society (2 vols.; London: Tilling and Hughes, 1816). See also the editor’s introduction to this volume. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110420487-004

64

Part I

If, by “interfering in the religious opinions of the natives of India,” Mr. Twining means nothing more than the dissemination of the Christian faith by the fair methods of persuasion, the Baptist missionaries, and those of every other denomination, must be acknowledged to have interfered; but if he include under that term violence, unfair influence, or any measures subversive of free choice or any addresses, either in speech or in writing, which have endangered the peace of society—they have not interfered, nor have they any desire of so doing. Whether Mr. Twining has chosen this ambiguous term, that he may with the greater ease insinuate, as occasion requires, the obnoxious idea of a design to overthrow the pagan and Mahomedan religions by force, I shall not determine; but that such is the use that is made of it, throughout his pamphlet, is clear. “As long,” he says, “as we continue to govern India in the mild and tolerant spirit of Christianity, we may govern it with ease; but if ever the fatal day shall arrive when religious innovation shall set her foot in that country, indignation will spread from one end of Hindostan to the other”—p. 30. Is giving the Scriptures then to the natives in their own languages, and offering to instruct them in their leading doctrines, opposed to the mild and tolerant spirit of Christianity? If it be, sir, neither the Founder of the Christian religion, nor his followers, have yet understood it. Be this as it may, it is not an “innovation;” the fatal day has arrived more than a century ago. Mr. Twining “hopes our native subjects in India will be permitted quietly to follow their own religious opinions”—p. 31. We hope so too; but if this gentleman’s wishes could be realized, We should not be permitted to follow ours, nor to recommend what we believe to be of eternal importance to our fellow men and fellow subjects. Yet this is all we desire. If missionaries, or any other persons on their behalf, should so far forget the principles of the gospel as to aim at anything beyond it, I trust the government will always possess wisdom and justice sufficient to counteract them. The question, sir, which Mr. Twining proposes to submit to a general court of proprietors, whatever be the terms in which it may be couched, will not be, whether the natives of India shall continue to enjoy the most perfect toleration, but whether that toleration shall be extended to christian missionaries. I have observed with pain, sir, of late years, a notion of toleration, entertained even by some who would be thought its firmest advocates, which tends not only to abridge, but to subvert it. They have no objection to Christians of any denomination enjoying their own opinions, and, it may be, their own worship; but they must not be allowed to make proselytes. Such appear to be the notions of Mr. Twining and his friends. They do not propose to persecute the Christians of India, provided they would keep their Christianity to themselves; but those who attempt to convert others are to be exterminated. Sir, I need not say to you that this is not toleration, but persecution. Toleration is a legal permission not only to enjoy our own principles unmolested, but to make use of all the fair means of persuasion to recommend them to others. The former is but little more than might be enjoyed in countries the most distinguished by persecution; for few would wish to interrupt men so long as they kept their religion to themselves. Yet this is the whole of what some would wish to allow,

Section I: An address to Edward Parry, Esq., Chairman of the East India Company

65

both in the East and West Indies. In former times, unbelievers felt the need of toleration for themselves, and then they generally advocated it on behalf of others; but of late, owing perhaps to the increase of their numbers, they have assumed a loftier tone. Now, though for political reasons all men must be allowed to follow their own religion, yet they must not aim at making proselytes. Men who have no belief in the Christian religion may be expected to have no regard for it; and where this is the case, the rights of conscience will be but little respected. So far as my observations extend, these remarks are applicable to deists in general;⁶ and where situations are favourable to their views, they may be expected to rise in their demands. In a letter from Mr. Carey,⁷ now before me, of a late date, he writes as follows: “India swarms with deists; and deists are, in my opinion, the most intolerant of mankind. Their great desire is to exterminate true religion from the earth. I consider the alarms which have been spread through India as the fabrications of these men. The concurrence of two or three circumstances in point of time; namely, the massacre at Vellore, the rebellious disposition of the inhabitants in some parts of Mysore,⁸ and the public advertisements for subscriptions to the Oriental translations; have furnished them with occasion to represent the introduction of Christianity among the natives as dangerous.”⁹ While Mr. Carey was writing this letter, sir, he might not be aware that a number of these men were preparing to embark for Europe, with a view to spread the alarm at home. Assuredly they have a cause in which they are engaged, as well as the Bible Society; and are not wanting in zeal to support it. Mr. Twining would be thought a Christian; but if so, in what cause is he engaged! He may pretend that he is only pleading for toleration; but, in fact, he is pleading for the exclusion of what he acknowledges to be light and truth, and for the refusal of toleration to the religion of his Maker. As “the religious opinions and customs of the natives of India” are a subject on which Mr. Twining’s feelings are so “particularly alive,” it may not be amiss to state what a few of these opinions and customs are. It may not be necessary, sir, for your information; but some persons into whose hands this pamphlet may fall may be the better able to judge of the question at issue.

 Deism is essentially a rationalistic theology which exalts reason over revelation. John Tolland’s Christianity Not Mysterious, Or, a Treatise Shewing, That There Is Nothing in the Gospel Contrary to Reason, Nor Above It, and That No Christian Doctrine Can Properly Be Called a Mystery (London: S. Buckley, 1696) was a key deist text, and the long title nicely illustrates some important dimensions of Deism. Deists tended to reject notions of God’s supernatural intervention in the world, whether in biblical times or their own day.  William Carey (1761– 1834) was the pioneering Baptist Missionary who arrived in India in 1793. He never set foot in England again, spending the rest of his life on the subcontinent. For biographical details on Carey, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  The district of Mysore was in the south-central region of the Indian subcontinent.  William Carey to Andrew Fuller, February 13, 1807. The letter is printed in Eustace Carey, Memoir of William Carey, DD (London: Jackson and Walford, 1836), 492– 494, here 493.

66

Part I

In the first place, then, the Hindoos acknowledge one supreme God; they do not appear, however, to worship Him, but certain subordinate powers, which, they say, proceeded from him.¹⁰ Of these, the three principal are denominated birmha, the creator of all; vishnoo, the preserver of all; and seeb, the destroyer of all.¹¹ Birmha is not worshiped at all; Vishnoo only by a few; but Seeb (the destroyer) by almost all; their worship, therefore, is chiefly the effect of superstitious fears. The foulest vices are ascribed to these subordinate deities in their own Shasters; but that which is sin in men, they say, is not sin in the gods. Besides these, they worship innumerable inferior deities, called debtas, chiefly, if not entirely, under an idea that it is in their power to do them harm. The lusts, quarrels, and other vices of these debtas ¹² also fill their Shasters,¹³ as their images do the country. The chief use that they seem to make of the one Supreme God is to ascribe to him all the evil that they commit, and to persuade themselves that they are not accountable beings. They have a most firm faith in conjuration, in lucky and unlucky days; and in almost all their civil concerns act under its influence. A considerable part of their religion consists in self-torment. One will hold up a hand till it is grown stiff, and he is incapable of taking it down again; another will lie upon the points of iron spikes, just so blunt as not to pierce him to death, and this for years together; others, on certain days at the beginning of the new year, are suspended in the air by sharp iron hooks stuck through the skin on each side of their back, and continue swinging round in that position from five to fifteen minutes. At the worship of Juggernaut,¹⁴ whose temple is in Orissa, this massy wooden god is borne in a carriage, drawn by the multitude; and, while the air resounds with their shouts, happy are those who throw themselves under the wheels to be crushed to death! This, and every other species of self-torment and self-murder, gains admiration from the spectators. Besides this, it is well known to be a part of their religion to favour the burning of widows with the bodies of their deceased husbands. Their Shasters pronounce this to be a great virtue, and to render them a kind of celestial beings. And, lest the circumstance of absence at the time of the husband’s death should prevent it, their laws

 As noted in the editor’s introduction to this volume, Fuller drew his material on Hinduism from the observations which the BMS missionaries sent to him in their letters and journal extracts. He relied especially on William Ward’s work. See, for example, Andrew Fuller to William Ward, May 6, 1808, “Andrew Fuller Letters to William Ward,” Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford (H/I/ 1): “I thank you for your Journal […] by it I learn more than by most other communications; though I am obliged to all the brethren for their Journals or Letters.”  “Birmha” (Brahmā) is “the creator;” “Seeb” (Shiva) is the destroyer, who also has the power, in many of the diverse traditions of Hindu thought, to recreate; “Vishnoo” (Vishnu) is “the preserver.” Together these three make up a sacred triad.  “Debtas” (Devatas) meaning: “the gods.”  “Shaster” (Shastra) is a sacred text used for instruction.  Juggernaut is the Anglicized form of Jagannath, meaning “lord of the universe,” one of an important triad of deities in Hinduism, along with Balabhadra and Devi Subhadra.

Section I: An address to Edward Parry, Esq., Chairman of the East India Company

67

prescribe as follows: If the wife be within one day’s journey of the place where her husband dies, the burning of his corpse shall be deferred one day for her arrival. If he die in another country, the virtuous wife shall take any of his effects, a sandal for instance, and, binding it on her thigh, shall enter the fire with it. Thus careful are these sacred laws to secure their victim. And as if it were meant to outrage every vestige of humanity, and to refine upon cruelty, it is an established law that the eldest son, or nearest relation, shall set fire to the pile! Great numbers of infants also are thrown into the river, as offerings to the goddess; and others, who refuse their mothers’ milk, are frequently hung up in baskets on the branch of a tree, etc., to be devoured by ants or birds of prey! Whether all these customs be proper objects of toleration may admit of a doubt. The British government in India seems to have thought otherwise. The governor-general in council, on August 20, 1802, is said to have passed a decree declaring some of them to be murder. We leave this, however, to the civil authorities. Our object is confined to remonstrance, persuasion, and the exhibition of truth; and surely, if it be possible by such means to induce a people, or any part of a people, to cast away these practices, it must be so far favourable to human happiness. If, sir, there were no hereafter, and we were merely to consult our own national interest, it were worthwhile, as far as possible, to endeavour to mitigate these evils; but if the good of the governed be allowed to have place in a government, it is still more so; and if there be a judgment to come, where governors and governed must each appear and give an account, it must be an object of the first importance. At that bar, sir, the adversaries of those who peaceably endeavour to bring off the Hindoos from these abominations will be ashamed to show their face! I may be told that the particulars above referred to are the most offensive parts of the system, and that other parts of it may be very good. It is true that there are degrees in evil. All things pertaining to Hindooism may not be equally shocking to the feelings of an enlightened mind. I might safely affirm, however, with Dr. Buchanan, “The Hindoos have no moral gods;”¹⁵ neither does any part of their religion produce a moral impression on their minds, but the contrary. As men, they are not worse than other men; but, by their superstitions, they are become exceedingly corrupt. “The natives of India,” Mr. Twining tells us, “are a religious people; and in this respect they differ, he fears, from the inhabitants of this country.” If, by the inhabitants of this country, he means those Christians who are alarmed at the progress of Christianity, I fear so too. If the religion of the natives of India, however, have no influence on their morals, unless it be to corrupt them, it will argue nothing in

 Claudius Buchanan (1766 – 1815) was a Scottish theologian who was ordained into the Church of England and served as an EIC chaplain. He became vice provost of Fort William College, in which capacity he knew Carey. He was an important advocate of missionary endeavour and Bible translation, although he antagonized the Serampore missionaries by suggesting their work could be placed under Anglican supervision. See Dictionary of Evangelical Biography 1730 – 1860 (DEB), ed. Donald M. Lewis (2 vols.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 1:158 – 59.

68

Part I

its favour. And that this is the case, every friend to the morality of the New Testament, who has resided in India, can bear witness. I have read enough, sir, of the communications of men of this description, to make me disregard the praises bestowed on the virtues of these people by others. I find these praises proceed either from deistical writers, whose manifest design is to depreciate the value of Christianity, or from persons residing in the country, who, “despairing,” as Dr. Buchanan says, “of the intellectual or moral improvement of the natives, are content with an obsequious spirit and manual service. These they call the virtues of the Hindoo; and, after twenty years’ service, praise their domestic for his virtues.” “I know not,” says Bernier, an intelligent French traveller, “whether there be in the world a more covetous and sordid nation. The brahmins keep these people in their errors and superstitions, and scruple not to commit tricks and villainies so infamous, that I could never have believed them if I had not made an ample inquiry into them.”¹⁶ “A race of people,” says Governor Holwell, “who from their infancy are utter strangers to the idea of common faith and honesty. This is the situation of the bulk of the people of Hindostan, as well as of the modern brahmins; amongst the latter, if we except one in a thousand, we give them over measure. The Gentoos,¹⁷ in general, are as degenerate, superstitious, litigious, and wicked a people, as any race of people in the known world, if not eminently more so, especially the common run of brahmins; and we can truly aver that, during almost five years that we presided in the judicial cutcherry court of Calcutta,¹⁸ never any murder, or other atrocious crime, came before us, but it was proved, in the end, a brahmin was at the bottom of it.”¹⁹ “A man must be long acquainted with them,” says Sir John Shore, governor-general of Bengal, “before he can believe them capable of that barefaced falsehood, servile adulation, and deliberate deception, which they daily practice. It is the business of all, from the ryott to the dewan,²⁰ to conceal and deceive; the simplest matters of

 Voyages de Francois Bernier, Tome I, pp. 150, 162, et Tome II, p. 105. [AF]. Francois Bernier (1620 – 1688) was a French physician who travelled extensively, including in Kashmir and Bengal. For an English-language edition of the records of his travels on the subcontinent, see Francois Bernier, Travels in the Moghul Empire 1656 – 1668 (trans. Irving Broch; rev. trans. Archibald Constable; Westminster: Constable and Co., 1890).  “Gentoo” (sometimes “Jentue” or “Gentue”) was a term Europeans historically used to describe native inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent.  “Cutcherry court” is a term for government offices and law courts in India.  Holwell’s Historical Events, vol. 1. p. 228; vol. II., p. 151. [AF]. John Zephaniah Holwell (1711– 1798) was a surgeon employed by the EIC who was briefly acting governor of Bengal in 1760. For Holwell’s “Historical Events,” see John Z. Holwell, Interesting Historical Events, Relative to the Provinces of Bengal, and the Empire of Indostan (London: T. Becket and P. A. de Hondt, 1765). Fuller appears to be citing from the second edition, “corrected with a supplement” (London: T. Becket and P. A. de Hondt, 1766). See part 1, 228; part 2, 151– 52.  A Ryot (ryott) is someone who works the soil and is often poor; a dewan (or diwan) is an official in a royal court. By using the phrase “from the ryott to the dewan,” Shore probably intends something

Section I: An address to Edward Parry, Esq., Chairman of the East India Company

69

fact are designedly covered with a veil, through which no human understanding can penetrate.”²¹ “Lying, theft, whoredom, and deceit,” says Mr. Carey, “are sins for which the Hindoos are notorious. There is not one man in a thousand who does not make lying his constant practice. Their thoughts of God are so very light, that they only consider him as a sort of plaything. Avarice and servility are so united in almost every individual, that cheating, juggling, and lying are esteemed no sins with them; and the best among them, though they speak ever so great a falsehood, yet it is not considered as an evil, unless you first charge them to speak the truth. When they defraud you ever so much, and you charge them with it, they coolly answer, ‘It is the custom of the country.’ Were you to charge any company of ten men with having amongst them liars, thieves, whoremongers, and deceitful characters, however improper it might be, owing to your want of proof, yet there would be little probability of your accusing them falsely. All the good that can with justice be said in favour of them is, they are not so ferocious as many other heathens.”²² I have said nothing of the Mahomedans; but it is well known that they are not behind the Hindoos in superstition, and greatly exceed them in ferocity, pride, and intolerance. In short, sir, to every European who places virtue in the fear of God and a regard to men, and not in that which merely contributes to his own interest and inclination, the introduction of the means of Christianity, among both Hindoos and Mahomedans, must appear a matter of national importance. Christianity might not be embraced, at first, by the greater part; but it would, nevertheless, have a powerful in-

like “from the poorest to the richest” or “from the least to the greatest.” He thus makes a sweeping, negative statement about Hindus.  “Parliamentary Proceedings Against Mr. Hastings,” Appendix to vol. II, p. 65. [AF]. Sir John Shore (1751– 1834) was an EIC official who was governor of Bengal from 1793 to 1798. In 1798 he was created Baron Teignmouth, largely in recognition for his services to the company. He was a president of the BFBS from 1804 and was linked with the Clapham Sect. He was sympathetic to the missionaries’ cause. See Penelope S. E. Carson, “Soldiers of Christ: Evangelicals and India 1784– 1833” (PhD diss., London, University of London [King’s College], 1988), 135. The appendix Fuller cites is entitled “Observations on the State of Society among the Asiatic Subjects of Great Britain, Particularly with Respect to Morals; and on the Means of Improving It. Written Chiefly in the Year 1792.” It is printed in full in Reports from Committees […] East India Company’s Affairs: Report and General Appendix (London: n.p. [“ordered by the House of Commons, to be printed”], 1832). Note that Fuller is almost certainly citing Bernier and Holwell from this appendix, rather than from the original works. The quotations he uses, together with Shore’s, are all closely grouped together in the appendix. The relevant material from Bernier, Holwell, and Shore is on pp. 26 – 27 of the general appendix, as printed in the 1832 edition.  See William Carey’s journal entry for January 11, 1796 (printed in E. Carey, William Carey, 257) for some very similar, although not identical language. Note especially the comments about “liars, thieves, whoremongers and men filled with deceit,” and also the material in the footnote. For other comments in Carey’s journals that are closely mirrored in Fuller’s quotation, see E. Carey, William Carey, 192, 213.

70

Part I

fluence on society; not only on those who believed it, but, by way of example, on those who believed it not. But Mr. Twining professes to be alarmed at the measure, as dangerous to the British interests in India. He asserts this again and again; but what has he done beyond asserting it? Has he produced a single fact that can bear upon the subject; or proferred a single charge against the conduct of the missionaries? Neither the one nor the other. It is rather surprising, indeed, that he should not have discovered something on which to found the appearance of a charge; for I am not ignorant, sir, that the missionaries have on some occasions felt much, and spoken in strong language. They have frequently seen females burnt alive, and have remonstrated against the horrid deed, as an act of murder; taking occasion also from thence to prove to the people that such a religion could not be of God. If at such times there had been somewhat of a local tumult, there had been nothing surprising in it. But the truth is, no such tumult has ever occurred; nor have any means which they have used so much as endangered their own safety. Mr. Twining speaks of alarms among the natives; but what are they? When or where did they manifest themselves? If, by “alarms,” he means a conviction that their principles will gradually fall before the light of the gospel, there is some foundation for what he says; for considerable numbers of them have calmly acknowledged as much as this. But if he mean that, on account of anything done or doing by the missionaries, they are apprehensive of their religion being suppressed by authority, there is no proof of the fact, nor so much as an attempt to prove it. Nothing can furnish stronger evidence of Mr. Twining’s want of materials of this kind, than his reference to “the recent catastrophes of Buenos Ayres, Rosetta, and Vellore”—p. 27.²³ You need not be told, sir, that none of these catastrophes were produced by an attempt to recommend our religious principles. That alarms may exist in India is very possible; but if such there be, they are of a date posterior to the Vellore mutiny, and must be traced, it is probable, to the causes which produced that melancholy event. That the labours of the missionaries, either in Bengal or on the Coast, have been productive of any such effect, remains to be proved. The only alarms which they have excited will be found in the minds of Europeans, who, passing under the name of Christians, are tremblingly alive to the danger of Christianity making progress in the earth. If, by “the light and truth into which the omnipotent power of Heaven may some time lead these people,” Mr. Twining means Christianity, his pamphlet exhibits, to say the least, an awkward association of ideas. Of Mr. Twining I know nothing but from the part he has taken in this business, and therefore can have no personal dis This is indeed a strange comment for Twining to make, and it weakens his argument yet further. Buenos Ayres is, of course, Buenos Aires in Argentina, and Rosetta is on the Nile Delta in northern Egypt. 900 British troops were killed at Rosetta in September 1807. The British attacked Buenos Aires twice, in 1806 and 1807, on both occasions failing to take the city. Clearly these defeats had nothing whatsoever to do with Baptist missionaries.

Section I: An address to Edward Parry, Esq., Chairman of the East India Company

71

respect towards him: but I cannot understand, sir, how a Christian could be disgusted with the idea expressed by a Suabian Catholic, of “the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls gathering together his sheep from all nations and religions, languages and kingdoms” (pp. 9, 10);²⁴ how, in searching for something which the British nation values as the Hindoos do their Shasters, and the Mahomedans their Koran, he should overlook the Bible, and instance in “Magna Charta” (p. 30);²⁵ how he can be shocked at the downfall of Mahomedism (p. 17); how his feelings can be so “particularly alive” on the religious opinions of the natives of India (p. 29); and, above all, how he can be so alarmed at the progress of Christianity. It is true he professes to feel on this subject chiefly from his “extreme apprehension of the fatal consequences to ourselves.” But if so, why do his alarms extend to Turkey, and even to China?—pp. 15, 17. Is he afraid that, if the Mahomedism of the one and the paganism of the other should give place to the gospel, they would refuse to trade with us? Surely, sir, there can be but little doubt of this gentleman’s being “of a party,” nor of what that party is!²⁶ May I not take it for granted, sir, that a British government cannot refuse to tolerate Protestant missionaries; that a Protestant government cannot forbid the free circulation of the Scriptures; that a Christian government cannot exclude Christianity from any part of its territories; and that if, in addition to this, the measures which have of late years been pursued in India, without the least inconvenience arising from them, can be proved to be safe and wise, they will be protected, rather than suppressed? I trust I may. Permit me, sir, to copy an extract or two from the letters of the missionaries on this subject. “No political evil,” says Mr. Carey, “can reasonably be feared from the spread of Christianity now; for it has been publicly preached in different parts of Bengal for about twenty years past, without the smallest symptom of the kind. Within the last five years, an edition of the New Testament, of two thousand copies, nearly one of the Pentateuch of a thousand,²⁷ one of Matthew of five hundred, and one of the Psalms and Isaiah of a thousand, besides many copies of a second edition of the New Testament, and of the poetical books of Scripture from Job to Canticles, and many religious tracts, have been distributed among the natives without a single instance of disturbance, unless the abusive language of a few loose persons may be so called. To this might be added the experience of the missionaries on the coast, who have taught Christianity

 Suabia (Swabia) is a region in southwestern Germany which had a strong Roman Catholic presence.  The Magna Carta (medieval Latin, the title of which can be translated as “Great Charter of Freedoms”) was the famous charter of rights which King John agreed to (under duress) at Runnymede, just outside Windsor, on June 15, 1215.  This paragraph highlights Twining’s and Fuller’s divergent worldviews. Twining is focused on British colonial interests, and especially on imperial trade and the wealth which accrues from this for families such as his own. Fuller’s priorities are clearly quite different.  The phrasing here is a bit awkward, but Fuller meant “one edition with a print run of a thousand is nearly completed.”

72

Part I

for a hundred years, and reckon about forty thousand persons to have embraced it. Such long-continued exertions to spread the gospel, carried on to such an extent and in such different situations, without producing the smallest inconvenience, may, we presume, furnish a course of experience sufficient to remove every suspicion of political evil arising from the introduction of Christianity.”²⁸ “The tongue of slander itself,” says Mr. Marshman,²⁹ “has not been able to charge us, nor any of the native converts, with the least deviation from the laws and government under which we live. How should it, when we are devoted from our very hearts to the British government, and this not from a blind partiality, but from a firm conviction of its being a blessing to the country? Had we been sent hither for the sole purpose of conciliating the natives to it, and of supporting it by every means in our power, we could not have been more cordially attached to it, nor have pursued a line of conduct more adapted to the end. Nothing will so effectually establish the British dominion in India as the introduction of Christianity, provided it be merely by persuasion; and nothing is more safe, and, under the Divine blessing, more easy.³⁰ “With regard to safety, there is nothing to be feared from the attempt. The Hindoos resemble an immense number of particles of sand, which are incapable of forming a solid mass. There is no bond of union among them, nor any principle capable of effecting it. Their hierarchy has no head, no influential body, no subordinate orders. The brahmins, as well as the nation at large, are a vast number of disconnected atoms, totally incapable of cohesion. In this country, sin seems to have given the fullest sample of its disuniting, debilitating power. The children are opposed to the parents, and the parents to the children; brother totally disregards brother; and a brahmin will see another brahmin perish with the greatest apathy. Yea, for the sake of a little gain, a brahmin will write against his gods, satisfying himself with this, that the sin belongs to his employer, and that he only does something to support himself. When to this are added their natural imbecility, and the enervating influence of climate, it will be evident that nothing is less to be apprehended than a steady, concerted opposition to the spread of Christianity. Nothing will ever appear beyond that individual contempt and hatred of the gospel which are inseparable from the vicious mind.³¹

 For this paragraph, see Carey, “The Missionaries to the Society,” September 2, 1806, printed in E. Carey, William Carey, 485.  Joshua Marshman (1768 – 1837) was one of the Serampore trio who established the Serampore mission with Carey and William Ward in 1800. For biographical details on Marshman, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  This paragraph, together with several of the following paragraphs, is taken from the earlier “Statement” made by the BMS home committee, which was circulated privately to sympathetic EIC directors in London and to other men of influence. The statement includes lightly edited representations from the missionaries themselves. It is printed in Joseph Ivimey, A History of the English Baptists (HEB) (London: Isaac Taylor Hinton, and Holdsworth & Ball, 1830), 4:94– 107. For this particular paragraph, see pp. 102– 3.  This paragraph is taken from the BMS statement printed in Ivimey, HEB, 4:103.

Section I: An address to Edward Parry, Esq., Chairman of the East India Company

73

“Instead of the introduction of Christianity endangering the safety of the state, the danger arises from the other side. No one unacquainted with the natives can know the heart of an idolater. We have about a hundred servants in our different departments; and they have been treated with a kindness which, in England, would have conciliated affection, and created attachment. But so far are these effects from being produced in them, that not an individual can be found amongst them who would not cheat us to any extent, or who would not plunder us of everything we have, were it in their power. How can it be otherwise? Their religion frees them from every tie of justice. If their own benefit can be secured by any action, this renders it lawful, or at least venial, though it were fraud, robbery, or even murder. Often have we heard it affirmed that a robber who should spend the whole night in the most atrocious deeds, and secure plunder to the amount of a hundred rupees, would wipe off all the stain in the morning by giving one of them to a brahmin! Attachment to a master, a family, or a government of a different religion, is that which cannot be produced in the mind of a Hindoo while under the power of his gooroo³² or his debta. But if they lose caste, and embrace Christianity, not by force, but from pure conviction, they become other men. Even those who, as it may prove, have not embraced it cordially, are considerably influenced by it. If once they lose caste the charm is broken, and they become capable of attachment to government.³³ “These remarks are abundantly proved by what is seen in our native converts. We have baptized above a hundred of them; and we dare affirm that the British government has not a hundred better subjects and more cordial friends among the natives of Hindostan. The gloomy and faithless demon of superstition is dethroned. They cannot fear a brahmin nor a debta as heretofore. While they feel an attachment to us to which they had been strangers, they are also cordially attached to the governors who protect them in the exercise of their religion, and whom they consider as their friends and brethren.³⁴ “Such is the ease with which Christianity, under the Divine blessing, could be disseminated, that it may seem to some incredible. No public acts of government are necessary. It is not necessary that government should appear in the business; and much less that it should be at any expense whatever. If it be only understood that no one shall be forbidden to teach Christianity, and no one but the evil-doer receive interruption from the magistrate, the work will go on in the most gradual and yet effectual manner. God is raising up native converts of character and talents suited to it. It is possible for ten of these brethren to enter a district, to go unobserved through the principal towns, sit down in a private circle, gently reason, convey ideas of Divine truth, and turn persons from darkness to light, nearly unobserved.

 “Gooroo” (also guru) is an individual’s spiritual teacher.  This paragraph is taken from the BMS statement printed in Ivimey, HEB, 4:103 – 4.  This paragraph is taken from the BMS statement printed in Ivimey, HEB, 4:104.

74

Part I

Thus a town, a district, a country, could be leavened with the blessed gospel, almost without the knowledge of the wealthy and great, even of their own countrymen.³⁵ “The only thing necessary for European missionaries is that, as long as they deserve the confidence of government, they be permitted to fix their residence in those places which will enable them to exercise a necessary superintendence, and administer support to these native brethren; to visit the societies which are formed; and, as occasion offers, dispense with prudence the word of life. It were the easiest thing imaginable for government to obtain from European missionaries the most ample pledges of good behaviour, and to withdraw its protection the moment they ceased to deserve it. A good man would feel a pleasure in giving such security; and what is more, his being a good man would itself be a security. What security could have been exacted from a Schwartz, equal to that which his own wise and benevolent heart afforded?³⁶ Nor is this peculiar to Schwartz; it is the feeling of every real missionary.³⁷ “A permission to itinerate and form missionary stations in the country, so far from being injurious to the British government, would advance its essential interests. In every missionary it would have a friend; a friend whose influence and capacity of rendering service would be constantly increasing. What were the advantages which the English derived from one Schwartz in the Mysore country! And what would be the effect of their having at this moment a hundred Schwartzes in India, each with his train of pious, peaceable, loyal, and faithful disciples! These messengers of peace and love (and all others we give up) would endear to the inhabitants the very nation to which they belonged. Who are these, they would ask, that so manifestly seek our good, and not their own? The answer, that they are English, must exhibit an idea of the government and nation which the natives can never have displayed before their eyes too often.³⁸ “But if a missionary could so far forget himself and his object as to cherish a spirit inimical to government, still, one would suppose, his own interest would correct

 This paragraph is taken from the BMS statement printed in Ivimey, HEB, 4:104. Cf. Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20 – 21. Note the similarities between the principles expressed in this paragraph and the Serampore Form of Agreement (see the editor’s introduction to this volume).  Christian Friedrich Schwartz (1726 – 1798) was the most significant Halle-trained eighteenth-century Pietist missionary to India. He joined the Danish Lutheran mission at Tranquebar in the southern part of the subcontinent in 1750. In 1766/77 he established his own base of operations at Tiruchchirappalli, under the auspices of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK). He had a great gift for languages and prioritized education and discipleship, emphases which would later characterize the trio’s work. BMS personnel respected him deeply, a respect Fuller shared. See William Carey to C. F. Swartz [sic], Mudnabati, November 21, 1797, in Periodical Accounts Relative to the Baptist Missionary Society (PA) (5 vols.; London: Baptist Missionary Society, 1794– 1816), 1:428 – 30. Schwartz died before he could reply to the letter. For further details on Schwartz, see Hugh N. Pearson, Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of the Reverend Christian Frederick Swartz [sic] (London: Hatchard, 1834).  This paragraph is taken from the BMS statement printed in Ivimey, HEB, 4:104– 5.  This paragraph is taken from the BMS statement printed in Ivimey, HEB, 4:105.

Section I: An address to Edward Parry, Esq., Chairman of the East India Company

75

him. To whom are he and his friends indebted for security? Without the protection of government, they would be continually in danger of being massacred. If, however, the folly of any one should render him insensible to these considerations, he must abide the consequences. Let him bear his own burden.”³⁹ Sir, I cannot persuade myself that the East India Company will adopt the principles of Mr. Twining. They have too much good sense to be alarmed at every outcry, too much justice to ascribe danger to causes from which it never arose, and too much wisdom to banish men who have always approved themselves the faithful friends of their government. Whatever be the mind of individuals, I trust that neither they nor the British government, as a body, are prepared to prohibit the free circulation of the Scriptures, or the temperate propagation of Christianity. I am aware, indeed, that persecution has of late made its appearance in our West India colonies; and, if Mr. Twining and his party could succeed, there is too much reason to fear that we should see the same thing in the East; but I am also aware that, in the first instance, it was disallowed by his majesty in council; and though it has since been revived on a narrower scale, yet I trust it will not be permitted either in the West or in the East to accomplish its ends.⁴⁰ It is not difficult, sir, to account for that aversion from religion which is so frequently found in men who have left their country at an early period in pursuit of a fortune. They neither understood nor believed the gospel when at home; and on going abroad took leave of Christian ordinances, and of all respect for them. They may wish, indeed, for certain reasons, to retain the name of Christians; but that is all: they cannot bear the thing, nor that any about them should be in earnest in the profession of it. But whatever measures may be taken by men who have become aliens from that which is the glory of their country, I trust there will be found a sufficient number of the rulers and inhabitants of this land to counteract them. If not, let us talk as we may against French atheism, we are fast sinking into it.⁴¹ If, sir, there be a God that judgeth in the earth, the danger lies in making Him our enemy.⁴² It is a principle which cannot be disputed, however it may be disregarded, that whatever is right is wise, and whatever is wrong is foolish and dangerous.⁴³ Sir, the tombs of nations, successively buried in oblivion, have this truth inscribed on  This paragraph is taken from the BMS statement printed in Ivimey, HEB, 4:105.  In different parts of the Caribbean, for example St. Vincent and Jamaica, supporters of chattel slavery made concerted attempts in the early nineteenth century to bring an end to missionary work.  This is a reference to the atheism which spread through France following the French Revolution in 1789. The British government and many Anglicans suspected Dissenters of being sympathetic to the revolution. Fuller was consistently negative in his representations of the “unprincipled infidels” who he believed led the revolutionaries. See Peter J. Morden, The Life and Thought of Andrew Fuller (1754 – 1815) (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2015), 177.  Psalm 58:11.  Possibly echoing Ecclesiastes 10:2: “A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left.”

76

Part I

every one of them. It was by “forbidding Christian ministers to speak unto the Gentiles that they might be saved, that the most favoured nation upon earth filled up the measure of its sins, and drew upon it the wrath of Heaven to the uttermost!” At a time, sir, when many and great nations are overthrown, nations which have not possessed our privileges, and therefore have not incurred our guilt—when we are engaged in the most tremendous struggle that this country ever knew, a struggle for our very existence—and when, on certain occasions, we profess to fast and to humble ourselves before Almighty God, shall we raise from its slumbers the wicked system of persecution? “Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?”⁴⁴ Mr. Twining may be disgusted at the idea of the Eastern empire being given us by Providence, for the very purpose of introducing the gospel (p. 25); but if it be so, it is no more than God’s having formerly given it to Cyrus, “for Jacob his servant’s sake,” Isa. 45:1– 4. Men may scorn to be subservient to their Maker; but whether they consent or not, it will be so. The conquests of Rome made way for the introduction of Christianity into Britain; and those of Britain may make way for its general introduction in the East. Should Britain be friendly to this object, it may be the lengthening of her tranquillity; but, as an eloquent writer⁴⁵ observes, “If we decline the illustrious appointment, God may devolve on some less refractory people those high destinies which might have been ours. ‘Who knoweth whether we are come to the kingdom for such a time as this? If we altogether hold our peace at this time, then may their enlargement and deliverance arise to them from another place, and we and our father’s house may be destroyed.’”⁴⁶ I am, sir, very respectfully yours, ANDREW FULLER

 1 Corinthians 10:22.  Mr. Wrangham’s sermon, On the Translation of the Scriptures into the Oriental Languages, preached before the University of Cambridge, on May 10, 1807—p. 11. [AF]. Francis Wrangham (1769 – 1842) was an Anglican clergyman and a classical scholar. His On the Translation of the Scriptures (Cambridge: [Cambridge] University Press, 1807) includes sermons and other reflections on Bible translation in India. Over half the quotation Fuller deploys is from Esther 4:14. Both the biblical text and Wrangham’s brief comment fit Fuller’s argument concerning providence.  In the first printings of Part I of the Apology, an appendix was included at this point: “Appendix, Containing Authorities, Principally Taken from the Reports of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,” with pages numbered i–xxvi. See, for example, the copy held in the Angus Library, bound in “Sermons etc. Fuller, 1792– 1848” (4.f.1).

Section II: Strictures on Scott Waring’s Preface

77

Section II Strictures on the Preface to a Pamphlet Entitled “Observations on the Present State of the East India Company” This performance, though anonymous, has been generally ascribed to Major Scott Waring;⁴⁷ and as I understand that that gentleman has since publicly avowed himself to be the author, I shall consider him as such in the following remarks. Mr. Twining’s performance had scarcely anything tangible about it. It was chiefly made up of quotations, with here and there a sentence distinguished by italics, or capitals of different sizes, according, it should seem, to the different degrees of suspicion and alarm which possessed the mind of the author. But Major Scott Waring attempts to reason; and as he certainly has entered into the subject with all his heart, we may hope from hence to ascertain the real strength of our adversaries. Having given his preface a cursory review, I determined, before I sat down to answer it, to read through his pamphlet; and, on looking it over, I found that though the “Observations” related chiefly to things beside my province, yet they contained passages worthy of attention; especially when compared with others, and with the general design of his performance. A few of these I shall take the liberty to transcribe. “For many centuries, we believe, Christian missionaries have resided in India, with the free consent of the native princes. These men were generally, if not universally, pure in their morals, and inoffensive in their conduct; and many of them highly respected by the princes of India, who allowed them to preach the gospel, and to make as many converts as they could to the Christian religion”—p. 9. “Missionaries can do no mischief in India, if they are treated as formerly, neither encouraged nor oppressed; but if men paid by the British government are encouraged to make converts to Christianity, our empire will be in danger”—p. 14. “The missionaries now in India, or those who may go thither in future, should be treated by our government as they formerly were by the native princes. In that case they may be as zealous as possible, without doing mischief. Mr. Buchanan says that the four Gospels have been translated, and liberally distributed. If that was done at the expense of the Bible Society in England, or of the other religious societies in Europe, the measure was laudable; but if at the expense of the Company, and from their press, it was most impolitic, and made use of, no doubt, by the sons of Tippoo Sultaun,⁴⁸ to excite the sepoys to mutiny. The true line for the British government to pur John Scott Waring (1747– 1819) was one of Fuller’s principal opponents in the “Pamphlet War” and certainly the most prolific. For biographical details on Scott Waring, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  Tipu Sultan (Sultan Fateh Ali Sahab Tipu, 1750 – 1799) is a significant figure in the history of India. He was the sultan of Mysore and won several important victories against the EIC before he was killed in battle at Seringapatam (Srirangapatna) in 1799. Tipu Sultan had twelve sons who were all taken prisoner after their father’s death and sent to Vellore. They were given an allowance in return for their loyalty to the EIC, but some, especially Moiz Ud Din (1774– 1818), Tipu’s eldest legitimate

78

Part I

sue is obvious; let missionaries make as many converts as they can, but give them no support on the one hand, nor discouragement on the other. Let us copy the example of the native princes in allowing the missionaries of this day to preach the gospel also, but there let us stop”—pp. 22, 23. “No jealousy was ever entertained, either by Mahomedan or Hindoo princes, because missionaries were settled in their countries who now and then converted one of their subjects to Christianity. No jealousy will now be entertained of their having similar success, while the British government, which stands in possession of the power formerly enjoyed by the native princes, is contented merely with following their example”—p. 25. As I have no concern in any plan which would be expensive to government, or would require their interference in any way beyond simple protection to the missionaries, and that no longer than their conduct is found to be deserving of it, I have no dispute with Major Scott Waring on what he has here advanced. If he suspects Mr. Carey to be paid by government, or the translations in which he is engaged to be printed or circulated at their expense, I can assure him it is without foundation. The salary which he receives is not as a missionary, but merely as a professor of the Shanscrit⁴⁹ and Bengalee languages. Government knows nothing of him, or his colleagues, as missionaries, any further than, when mentioning certain literary works, to speak of those works as undertaken by “the protestant missionaries at Serampore.” Mr. Carey’s salary is the due reward of his labours as a literary man.⁵⁰ It is true, he disinterestedly devotes all his savings to the work of spreading the gospel; but the same may be said of more than one of his colleagues, who have no connexion with government, and whose avocations are productive of little, if anything, less than his. And whatever has been done by the missionaries in translating and circulating the Scriptures, has been done at the expense of societies and individuals. Whether any translations have been printed at the Company’s press, I cannot speak with certainty. I think it is highly probable they have not; of this, however, I am certain, that those which are enumerated by Mr. Carey were printed at Serampore. When it was determined to translate the Scriptures into all the Eastern languages, government permitted them to advertise in their Gazette for subscriptions to the work; but, to argue from this that they had any pecuniary concern in the undertaking, is absurd; for if so, what need was there to advertise for private subscriptions? Upon the whole, it follows that what has been done is, in Major Scott Waring’s opinion, “laudable,” and was not made use of to excite the sepoys to mutiny. And here I might take leave of this gentleman, were it not for his Preface, with the satisfaction of our labours having obtained his approbation and applause. For as to what son, were suspected of inciting the uprising in 1806. They were exiled to Calcutta, and Moiz Ud Din was incarcerated at Fort William.  Sanskrit (misspelt as “Shanscrit” by Fuller) is the language used in the sacred Hindu texts.  For further details on Carey’s job as a teacher of Bengali and Sanskrit at Fort William College, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.

Section II: Strictures on Scott Waring’s Preface

79

he says of the hopelessness of attempting to convert the Hindoos, that is to ourselves. We derive hope from a book with which he may be but little acquainted; and, so long as we do “no mischief,” why should we be interrupted? But when I look into the Preface, I find a new and a contradictory publication. Whether the “Observations” were written at so distant a period that he had forgotten them, or whether the late “intelligence from Madras” proved so alarming to him as to produce an entire change in his principles—whatever was the cause, there is certainly a most violent opposition between the one and the other. Before we proceed to examine this extraordinary preface, which is nearly as large as the book itself, it may be proper to remark that Major Scott Waring knows nothing of the effects of Christian missions in India of late years but from the report of their adversaries. The reader will recollect what was quoted from Mr. Carey’s letter of February 13, 1807, and the intimation there given of a number of persons who were at that time preparing to embark for Europe, with a view to spread the alarm at home. These are the men from whom the author derives his intelligence. “Various private accounts,” says he, “from men of sense, observation, and character, mention,” etc.—p. 1. And again, “I am assured, by gentlemen lately returned from India, that,” etc.—p. xlii. These, or some gentlemen like-minded, have been endeavouring by private letters, during the whole of 1807, to excite suspicions against us. But, when told of these things, our answer has been, “Let us not be judged by private letters: let our adversaries come forward and accuse the missionaries; or, at least, give proof of their labours having been injurious.”⁵¹ I know not who these gentlemen are, and therefore can have no personal disrespect to any of them; but, whoever they be, I have no scruple in saying that their reports, as given in the performance before me, are utterly unworthy of credit. Of this the reader will be convinced, I presume, in the course of these remarks. Major Scott Waring, as if conscious that private reports were of no use, unless to fill up the deficiencies of what is public and authentic, begins with the Proclamation from the Madras Government, on Dec. 3, 1806; that is, about six months after the mutiny at Vellore. This proclamation states that, in some late instances, an extraordinary degree of agitation had prevailed among several corps of the native army of that coast—that, on inquiry into the cause, it appeared that many persons of evil intention had endeavoured, for malicious purposes, to impress upon the native troops a belief that it was the wish of the British government to convert them, by forcible means, to Christianity—that such malicious reports had been observed with concern to be believed by many of the native troops—and that they were utterly without foundation—pp. i–v.⁵²  Private intelligence is proper on some occasions; but, in cases of accusation, no man should be able to take away another’s character without risking his own. [AF].  Their opponents never produced any evidence that the Vellore massacre was connected to the activities of any missionary. However, the authorities in Madras reported that some soldiers believed it was the “wish of the British government to convert them by forcible means to Christianity.” The mis-

80

Part I

Such is “the alarming intelligence lately received from Madras.” From hence Major Scott Waring takes occasion “humbly to submit to the consideration of his Majesty’s ministers, the East India Company, and the legislature, a plan for restoring that confidence which the natives formerly reposed in the justice and policy of the British government, as to the security of their religion, laws, and local customs.” And what is it? Nothing less than “the immediate recall of every english missionary, and a prohibition to all persons dependent on the company from giving assistance to the translation or circulation of our holy scriptures”—p. xvii.⁵³ These the author thinks “the most, and indeed the only, efficacious measures.” That they would be efficacious there can be no doubt; and such would be the application of a guillotine for the cure of the head-ache; but whether it be just or wise is another question. If I had written the “Observations,” and had been afterwards convinced that the principles they contained were erroneous, I think I should not have sent out a new edition of them: or, if justice had failed to influence me, a regard to consistency would have prevented my publishing them and their refutation in the same pamphlet; but to publish that refutation in the form of a preface is beyond everything. To preface his work by contradicting its leading principles is advertising [to] his reader that he has sold him a bad commodity. Should his Majesty’s ministers, the East India Company, or the legislature, attend to this gentleman’s performance, in what part are they to regard him? In the preface they are advised “immediately to recall every English missionary;” but, as they read on, they are told that “the true line for the British government to pursue is obvious; let missionaries be as zealous as they may, and make as many converts as they can, provided they be neither encouraged on the one hand, nor discouraged on the other, they can do no mischief.” What then are they to do unless it be to disregard the whole as nugatory? And what have these English missionaries done, that they are to be immediately recalled; and these Holy Scriptures, that they are not to be translated or circulated by any one dependent on the Company? Nothing. As to the former, it is not pretended that they had any hand in the tragic event at Vellore. On the contrary, they are expressly acquitted of it—p. xi. And as to the latter, no accusation has yet been brought against them. But evil-minded men, it seems, have taken occasion, from the increase of the one, and the gratuitous circulation of the other, to misrepresent the designs of government; and, therefore, it is necessary to proceed to this extremity. The author, it must be acknowledged, has hit upon a happy expedient for suppressing the Scriptures; for if he can once get the men who are employed in translating and circulating

sionaries’ adversaries seized on this, taken out of context, and used it against them. For an example of such usage, see The Annual Register, or, a View of the History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1806 (London: Otridge & Son et al., 1806), 254. The author explicitly links the Vellore uprising with a supposed spirit of missionary “fanaticism.”  Fuller’s habit of rendering some quotations, or parts of quotations, in upper case for emphasis is in evidence here.

Section II: Strictures on Scott Waring’s Preface

81

them recalled, there is no danger of their doing any further mischief. So long as they are locked up in an unknown language, all Asia may continue from generation to generation under the dominion of imposture. But why must the missionaries be recalled immediately? It was said by a wise heathen, Ye ought to do nothing rashly. ⁵⁴ Permit us, at least, to ask a question or two before we are condemned. In the first place: when were these misrepresentations made? Is there any proof of their having existed before the mutiny, so as to have had any influence in producing it? None at all. But we are told that “it is impossible, impolitic as the measure was, that the mere change in the dress of the sepoys could have produced a general belief that the British government was resolved to compel them to embrace Christianity”—p. 1. I answer, there is no proof that such a general belief existed; no, not six months afterwards, when the proclamation was issued; for it was then alleged to have extended only to “several corps of the native army on the coast;” and at the time of the mutiny there is no proof of any other belief than what arose from the impositions. With what colour of evidence can this writer pretend that “the great increase of English missionaries of late years, and the gratuitous distribution of our sacred Scriptures throughout the whole country,” were connected with the impositions in dress, in the representations made to the sepoys, when in the same sentence he acknowledges those impositions to have affected their religion? Allowing it to be what he calls it, “a religious mutiny,” yet the impositions in dress were competent to produce it. Had he not been determined to bring in these missionaries, and these Holy Scriptures, at any rate, he would have concluded that the other causes were “sufficient to create the alarm,” without anything else being connected with them. But “various private accounts from men of sense, observation, and character mention that the great increase of missionaries, the profuse and gratuitous circulation of the Scriptures, added to the change of dress, were represented as proofs of our resolution ultimately to compel them to become Christians”—p. 1. Ah, that is it! Major Scott Waring knows of nothing antecedent to the mutiny; the proclamation knows of nothing; but “private accounts from men of sense, observation, and character,” make known everything. And what have they to say on this subject? They tell of the great increase of English missionaries of late years. It is possible there may be about fifteen or sixteen; but nine of them, by Major Scott Waring’s own reckoning, are in Bengal, where no alarm worth mentioning has existed, except in the minds of Europeans. They also tell of “the gratuitous circulation of the Scriptures, throughout the whole country”—pp. x, 1. The truth is, I believe, that the gratuitous circulation of the Scriptures has been hitherto confined to Bengal. Thus much, at present, for the private accounts of these men of sense, observation, and character, but for

 A reference to the city clerk at Ephesus. See Acts 19:36: “ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly” (KJV).

82

Part I

whose information we could not have known of any misrepresentations being made to the sepoys, prior to the Vellore mutiny. We ask, secondly: Who were the authors of these misrepresentations? The proclamation does not inform us; and probably government did not know, or they would have punished the offenders. But whether it be from the private accounts of these men of sense, observation, and character, or from some other source of information, Major Scott Waring makes it out that they were “disaffected natives of the Carnatic and the Mysore”—p. x.⁵⁵ This, if applied to what took place subsequent to the mutiny, may have some truth in it, or it may not. The evil-minded persons referred to in the proclamation, who appear to have availed themselves of the mutiny to increase the alarm, might be disaffected natives, or they might be Europeans, who, from aversion to Christianity, and a desire to get the Scriptures suppressed and the missionaries recalled, suggested such things to the sepoys as might accomplish their end. It is remarkable that, in the very passage in which this writer speaks in so positive a strain of “the disaffected men of the Carnatic and the Mysore” having taken advantage of our folly, and excited the troops to mutiny, he exonerates the sons of Tippoo Sultaun, whom he had before, with equal positivity, condemned. “We know,” he had said in his Observations, “that the mutiny was excited by the sons of Tippoo Sultaun, whose emissaries insinuated that the change which we wished to adopt in the dress of the sepoys was only a preparatory step towards the accomplishment of our great object, which was to compel them to embrace Christianity”— p. 8. But in the preface (p. x.) he says, “From later information I have reason to believe that the sons of Tippoo Sultaun are innocent of the charge preferred against them; but the disaffected men of the Carnatic and the Mysore did take advantage of our folly; and that they excited the troops to a religious mutiny is beyond a doubt.” If this gentleman’s knowledge be thus unfounded, though so very minute and particular that he would almost seem to have been an earwitness, what is to be thought of his conjectures and what to make of this last account more than conjecture I cannot tell. His eagerness to charge the disaffected natives looks as if some other people were suspected. Let us hear the other side. Mr. Carey says, “India swarms with deists; and deists are, in my opinion, the most intolerant of mankind. Their great desire is to exterminate true religion from the earth. I consider the alarms which have been spread through India as the fabrications of these men. The concurrence of two or three circumstances, in point of time, namely, the massacre at Vellore, the rebellious disposition of the inhabitants in some part of Mysore, and the public advertisements for subscriptions to the Oriental translations, have furnished them with occasion to represent the introduction of Christianity among the natives as dangerous.”⁵⁶  The Carnatic is the south-eastern coastal region of the subcontinent in the former presidency of Madras, which includes the cities of Pondicherry and Madras itself.  William Carey to Fuller, February 13, 1807. The letter is printed in E. Carey, William Carey, 372– 74, here 372. This is the second time Fuller has cited this passage in the Apology.

Section II: Strictures on Scott Waring’s Preface

83

Dr. Kerr’s Report, dated Madras, July 23, 1807, twelve months after the mutiny, confirms Mr. Carey’s statement.⁵⁷ He clearly shows that, in his opinion, the evil-minded persons, who industriously circulated reports nearly allied to the above, were not natives, but Europeans hostile to religion and its interests. “Various reports,” says he, “have been industriously circulated, by evil-minded persons hostile to religion and its interests, that the natives would be alarmed were missionaries allowed to come out to India; but I feel myself authorized, by a near acquaintance with many of the Protestant missionaries now in India, and a perfect knowledge of the respect which is entertained for them by all descriptions of the natives, to repeat what I have formerly stated to government, that these men are, and always have been, more beloved by the natives than any other class of Europeans; and it is to be accounted for on the most rational grounds—that is, they learn their language intimately; they associate with them in a peaceable, humble manner, and do them every act of kindness in their power; while, at the same time, the example of their Christian lives produces the very highest respect amongst heathens, unaccustomed to behold such excellence amongst each other. The lives of such men in India have always been a blessing to the country, and I heartily wish that all such characters may be encouraged to come amongst us.” The above statements from Mr. Carey, and Dr. Kerr, I may venture to place against the anonymous accounts of men of sense, observation, and character; and if they be true, they not only furnish an exposition to the labours of Messrs. Twining, Scott Waring, and Co., but fully account for those apprehensions which, it is said, “existed as late as March, 1807, three months after the date of the proclamation; and which induced the British officers attached to the native corps constantly to sleep with loaded pistols under their pillows”—p. xi. An event so tragic as that at Vellore would itself, indeed, suggest the necessity of such a precaution, and that for a considerable time after; and still more so when the flame was fanned by evil-minded persons. Yes, reader, if these statements be true, it follows that the enemies of Christianity, after having themselves excited these alarms, are now actually attempting to transfer the responsibility for their consequences to the missionaries. We ask, lastly, let these misrepresentations have been fabricated when and by whom they might: Is it just, or wise, to recall those persons who are acknowledged

 “Dr. Kerr” is Richard Kerr (1769 – 1808), senior company chaplain at Fort St. George in Madras. See Carson, “Soldiers of Christ,” 185 – 86. For the quotation, see Richard H. Kerr, “A Letter addressed to the Right Honourable Lord W.C. Bentinck, Governor in Council, &c.” (Madras, 1807), 12. A copy of this rare work is held at the Carey Library and Research Centre, Serampore (Pamphlet 87/8). Kerr’s “Report […] to the Right Honourable Lord William Bentinck: On the State of the Christians Inhabiting the Kingdoms of Cochin and Travancore” is printed as an appendix to Claudius Buchanan, Star in the East; A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of St James, Bristol […] for the Benefit of the Society for Missions to Africa and the East (8th American ed.; New York: Williams and Whiting, 1809) and contains some further reflections on cross-cultural mission. Kerr is broadly positive about missionary presence in India.

84

Part I

to have had no concern in them, or to suppress the circulation of the Holy Scriptures on that account? A great outrage has certainly been committed. What was the cause? According to Major Scott Waring, the Madras government acted absurdly; first, in changing so suddenly a native to an English administration, and then in imposing such alterations in the dress of the sepoys as affected their religion. And when, in addition to this, they were told, by evil-minded persons, of the great increase of missionaries, and the gratuitous circulation of the Scriptures throughout the country, they believed government intended to compel them to become Christians; and though the thing was not true, yet it was by no means irrational for them to believe it—pp. ix., x. Supposing this account to be correct, where is the justice of punishing men for their numbers being magnified, and their labours misrepresented by others? If an atonement be necessary, why select them as victims? If, indeed, the evil-minded incendiaries, who misrepresented their designs and those of government, could be detected, it might answer a good end to punish them; but if this cannot be accomplished, let not the innocent suffer. Major Scott Waring seems, indeed, to give up the justice of the measure; but yet contends for it as of “absolute necessity, seeing the proclamation had not lulled the suspicions of the people”—p. xi. Such are the Machiavellian politics of this gentleman.⁵⁸ Could we suppose him to be sufficiently acquainted with the New Testament, we might suspect that he had taken up this opinion from Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, who advised the crucifixion of our Lord, on the principle of its being “expedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not,” John 11:49 – 50. “It is necessary to convince the natives,” says this writer, “not only that we never did entertain the wild idea of compelling them to embrace Christianity, but that we have not a wish to convert them”—p. vi. It cannot be necessary to convince the natives that Major Scott Waring, and all who are like-minded with him, have not a wish to convert them; and as to others, who may entertain the idea of converting them without compulsion, it deserves to be considered whether the recalling of them would not have a contrary effect to that which is pretended. The recall of the missionaries, and the virtual suppression of the Scriptures, would furnish the natives with an important subject of reflection. It would be a tacit acknowledgment, on the part of government, that, till instructed by the Vellore mutiny, they had entertained “the wild idea of compelling them to embrace Christianity;” but that now they have become sober, and relinquished it! Whether such a measure would be attributed to respect, or to fear, and what effects it would produce on the army and the country, let common sense determine.  Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) was a Florentine diplomat and philosopher. His treatise Il Principe (“The Prince,” ca. 1513) encouraged the use of unscrupulous acts such as treachery and deception in order to gain an advantage, especially in politics. By the seventeenth century the word “Machiavellian” was in regular use to describe such premediated, unprincipled deception.

Section II: Strictures on Scott Waring’s Preface

85

As the main design of this preface was to excite “his Majesty’s ministers, the East India Company, and the legislature” against the missionaries and their labours, the author, having improved the Vellore mutiny as far as he is able, proceeds to denounce these men, and all who have been in any way abettors of their dangerous designs. The British and Foreign Bible Society, who have aided them as translators; Mr. Brown,⁵⁹ and Dr. Buchanan, who have encouraged them; and Dr. Kerr, who is engaged in the same cause with them; all come in for a share of his censures. “Dr. Buchanan conceives,” says he, “that it is by no means submitted to our judgment, or to our notions of policy, whether we shall embrace the means of imparting Christian knowledge to our subjects or not”—p. xxv. The Major probably thinks this a very wild opinion; yet it only amounts to this, that God is greater than man, and that what respects the promotion of his kingdom in the earth must not be rendered subservient to worldly interests. But this, he tells us, “was precisely the doctrine of the Spaniards and Portuguese, when they discovered the new world; and they extirpated millions of unfortunate men in propagating their doctrines by the sword.” If there be any force in this remark (which seems to be a favourite one), it is because the persecuting conduct of these nations was the legitimate and necessary consequence of the doctrine in question. But why might they not have considered themselves as under indispensable obligation to impart the means of Christian knowledge, without being obliged to follow it with persecution? Does it follow, because they were not obliged to extend their religious principles by the sword, that we are not obliged to extend ours without the sword? Many things are said on the impolicy of Dr. Buchanan’s visit to the Syrian Christians, and that of Dr. Kerr to the Malabar coast.⁶⁰ It seems to have given this writer serious offence that the governor of Madras should have given the epithet “important” to an inquiry relating to Christianity—p. xxix. He calls it “the most trifling of all possible subjects connected with the welfare of our Oriental empire”—p. xxxiii. He speaks of this empire as being “conquered by British valour”—p. xl. God and religion, therefore, it should seem, can have nothing to do with it. No, let the missionaries go to Africa, to the South Sea Islands, or to the wilds of America; but let them not come hither! “O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there but prophesy not again any more at Beth-el: for it is the king’s chapel, and it is the king’s court,” Amos 7:12 – 13. Yet this gentleman would be thought, after all, to be a Christian, and “trusts it will not be imputed to indifference for the eternal welfare of the people of India” that he advises what he does! But as Dr. Buchanan and Dr. Kerr, if they judge it necessary, are able to vindicate themselves, I shall confine my replies to those particulars which more immediately  David Brown (ca. 1762– 1812) was an EIC chaplain who arrived in India in 1786. He is generally reckoned to be the first evangelical chaplain appointed to the company. He was the provost of Fort William College from 1800 to 1807 and therefore knew Carey well. See DEB, 1:147.  The Malabar Coast is the south-western coast of the Indian subcontinent. On Kerr’s travels, see his “Report to the Right Honourable Lord William Bentinck.”

86

Part I

concern me. Many things are said against “the English, and especially the Baptist missionaries.” Such, indeed, is the quantity of misrepresentation contained in these few pages, that, to correct it, it is often necessary to contradict every sentence. On this account, the reader must frequently dispense with the ordinary forms of quoting and answering; and consider those paragraphs which are marked with reversed commas as the words of Major Scott Waring, and those which are not as the answers to them. I do not accuse my opponent of wilful errors; but if he be clear of them, his information must be extremely incorrect. “We have now a great number of sectarian missionaries spread over every part of India”—p. xii. Those whom Major Scott Waring is pleased to honour with this appellation may amount to fifteen or sixteen, the greater part of whom reside at Serampore, near Calcutta, directly under the eye of the supreme government. “Mr. Carey, the head of the Baptist mission in Bengal, and his assistant missionaries, have been employed, since the year 1804, in translating the Scriptures into the various languages of India.” It may have been from that period that the work of translating has been conducted on so extensive a scale; but for many years before that time Mr. Carey was engaged in the same undertaking. An edition of the New Testament, in Bengalee, was printed at Serampore in 1801, a copy of which is now in his Majesty’s library. “Mr. Carey is employed in translating the Scriptures into the Chinese language”—p. xv. The Chinese translation is not the work of Mr. Carey, but of Mr. Johannes Lassar, a learned Armenian Christian, with other assistants.⁶¹ “As the different parts are translated, they are printed, as I understand, at the Company’s press, attached to the College at Calcutta.” If this were true, while no man is forced to read them, no danger could arise from it; but there is very little, if any, truth in it. The translations of the missionaries have been printed at Serampore. “Specimens of these translations have been sent home by the provost.” It seems, then, that they were not engaged in anything of which they were ashamed. “The natives of India cannot be ignorant of these novel and extraordinary proceedings:” especially while their most learned pundits assist in the work. “They can form no other conclusion than this, that if we cannot persuade, we shall compel them to embrace Christianity.” So long as no compulsion is used towards them, they have more sense than to draw such conclusions, or even to believe them when drawn for them by others whom they consider as men of no religion.

 Johannes Lassar (also Hovhannes Gazaryan, 1781– 1835?) was an Armenian born in the Portuguese colony of Macao who had studied Chinese languages from his youth. He prepared a draft translation of the New Testament in 1816, working from the Greek text and also from the English King James Version. See PA, 1:504; 3:461– 62. Gazaryan joined Fort William College as a professor of Chinese in 1805 and came to work closely with Joshua Marshman. Together they published a whole Chinese Bible in 1822. See Elmer H. Cutts, “Chinese Studies in Bengal,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 62, no. 3 (1942): 171– 74, esp. 171, 173; Daniel Kam-To Choi, “The Baptist Endeavours in Biblical Translation in China before the Chinese Union Version,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 30, no. 2 (April 2020): 341– 64.

Section II: Strictures on Scott Waring’s Preface

87

“In 1781, when it was the fixed principle of the legislature that we ought never to interfere with the religion, laws, or native customs of the people of India, a proposition for free schools and Christian missionaries could not have been listened to”—p. xiii. There never was a period, since the British have had footing in India, in which either free schools or Christian missionaries were considered as an interference with the religious opinions of the natives. If they were, why were Schwartz and his contemporaries tolerated? The truth is, the term “interference” has been adopted in this controversy to answer an end, and the idea which our adversaries endeavour to attach to it is altogether novel. “The late bishop of St. Asaph, a sound and orthodox divine, and one of the main pillars of our good old Church of England, deprecated all such interference.”⁶² He did so; and Major Scott Waring, with his men of sense, observation, and character, have doubtless, in his lordship’s decease, lost an able advocate. “The command of our Saviour to his apostles, to preach the gospel to all nations, did not, as he conceived, apply to us—and his opinion in 1781 was universal.” Major Scott Waring may know that this was the opinion of the late bishop of St. Asaph; but he knows very little indeed of what were the opinions of the Christian world. “Since that period many very worthy and good men are of the opinion that, as Christians, it is incumbent upon us to spread the Christian religion as widely as we possibly can; and highly, indeed, do I applaud their zeal, when it is exercised in countries where we have no political power.” Whatever charges we may exhibit against Major Scott Waring, we cannot accuse him of not speaking out. “I do not exactly know what are Baptist missionaries. I believe they may be classed with Calvinistic Methodists, to distinguish them from the Arminian Methodists”—p. xv. We can excuse the author’s ignorance on this subject; but when he tells us, in the same page, that there are “spread over India, Baptist missionaries, Arminian Methodist,⁶³ and United Brethren missionaries,”⁶⁴ etc. etc., we see ignorance combined with something worse. The Arminian Methodists have no mission in India, and never had.⁶⁵ The United Brethren have formerly had one at Serampore;

 This is almost certainly Samuel Horsley (1733—1806), who was bishop of St. Asaph from 1802 until his death. Horsley was a leader of the High Church party in the Church of England. He was consistently negative about Dissenters, on one occasion describing them as “fanatics” who subverted the government “both in church and state.” There is a considerable amount of material on him in E. A. Varley, “A Study of William Van Mildert, Bishop of Durham, and the High Church Movement of the Early Nineteenth Century” (PhD diss., Durham, University of Durham, 1985), here 64. I have been unable to locate his comments on overseas mission, but it is not hard to imagine him being sharply critical of missionary activity, and of dissenting missions in particular. Fuller mentions Horsley explicitly towards the close of the Apology.  Presumably Scott Waring was referring to Wesleyan Methodists.  This was a phrase used of both the Moravian Brethren and Halle Pietists.  The Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society was not formed until 1813, but Thomas Coke (1747– 1814) had been promoting overseas mission among Methodists from as early as 1784 and had helped place missionaries in the Caribbean (1786 – 1787) and in Sierra Leone. Therefore Coke’s pioneering is

88

Part I

but I believe, at present, they have none.⁶⁶ Before this gentleman writes again, he would do well to consider the justness of the remark made by himself, and to apply it to other subjects, as well as politics: “In discussing political questions, a certain degree of acquaintance with the subject is supposed to be requisite”—p. 38. “I am assured, by gentlemen lately returned from India, that, notwithstanding the very great increase of missionaries of late years, the case is not changed since my time; that they have not made a single Mahomedan convert, and that the few Hindoos who have been converted were men of the most despicable character, who had lost their castes, and took up a new religion because they were excommunicated”—p. xlii. I presume these gentlemen lately returned from India are the same persons whom this writer elsewhere denominates men of sense, observation, and character. The reader will now be able to judge of the value of these boasted authorities. every particular in this paragraph is false. There has been no such great increase of missionaries of late years as is pretended. There are Mahomedans, as well as Hindoos, who have been baptized. Out of more than eighty natives who had been baptized before May 25, 1806, only three had previously lost caste, eight were brahmins, and seven Mahomedans. The whole number which had been excluded for immoral conduct might amount to eight or nine. As nearly as I can make it out, the above is a true statement. The reader may see a list of the baptized, down to Nov. 1804, in No. XV Periodical Accounts—Pref., p. xiv.⁶⁷ I can assure him that the missionaries might have had more proselytes than they have, if they would have received such characters as these men report them to have received; but their object is to make converts to Christ, and not proselytes to themselves. Indeed, so little are the assertions of this writer to be regarded, with respect to the character of the native converts, that it would be the easiest thing imaginable directly to confront them by the testimony of competent witnesses. Mr. J. Fernandez,⁶⁸ a gentleman who came from India early in another example of cross-cultural overseas mission that predates the BMS. Fuller was correct about Wesleyan mission on the subcontinent at his time of writing, but in 1813 Coke himself set out to establish a Methodist mission to India, although he died en route. For further details, see DEB, 1:238 – 39.  For the Moravian Mission that existed at Serampore from 1776 – 1792, see J. C. S. Mason, The Moravian Church and the Missionary Awakening in England, 1760 – 1800 (Woodbridge: Boydell [Royal Hist. Soc.], 2001), 81– 84.  This is “A List of Persons Baptised in Bengal, Belonging to the Church of Christ at Serampore,” PA, 3: preface, xiv–xv. The list gives significant information on those baptized, recording details such as caste, trade, and whether they were related to other converts. Of those mentioned, four Indian converts had been “suspended” from membership, and one had been “excluded.” Of two others the missionaries wrote: “of doubtful character” and “we fear gone back,” respectively. Finally, two of those baptized had “not [been] heard of lately.”  John Lewis Fernandez (b. 1786) was the son of Ignatius Fernandez (1757– 1829), who was a significant figure for the Serampore trio. Ignatius was of Portuguese heritage and was born in the Portuguese colony of Macau. He initially trained for the Roman Catholic priesthood but discontinued his training after arriving in Bengal, subsequently becoming a successful merchant. He experienced evangelical conversion through reading a Portuguese Bible in 1795 and was subsequently discipled by

Section II: Strictures on Scott Waring’s Preface

89

1806,⁶⁹ and who is now with Dr. Ryland at Bristol, makes the following declaration: “There are several Mahomedan converts among the missionaries, and some very respectable Hindoos who have embraced Christianity. To the best of my recollection, there are but two at Serampore who had previously lost caste: these had been for a long time reckoned Portuguese, and were not in worse circumstances than other people. Some of the highest class of brahmins have, to my knowledge, embraced the gospel, whom the natives call Mookoorja, Chattirja, Barridja,” etc.⁷⁰ As to what is said of their non-success, either by Major Scott Waring or the gentlemen lately returned from India, I appeal to the common sense of mankind, whether, if they themselves believed what they say, they would raise such an opposition as they do, They tell us the natives are alarmed; but the alarm is with themselves. It is somewhat remarkable that infidelity, which has of late years threatened to swallow up Christianity, should in so short a time be alarmed for itself, and for its pagan and Mahomedan allies. A small detachment from the Christian army, clad in the armour of God,⁷¹ and operating as in a way of diversion, has caused their host to tremble, and to cry out to the civil powers to assist them by recalling these men.

Carey and John Thomas (Francis A. Cox, History of the Baptist Missionary Society. From 1792 to 1842 [BMS] [2 vols.; London: T. Ward and G. & J. Dyer, 1842], 1:389; Samuel Pearce Carey, Memoir of William Carey, DD [8th edn.; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934 (1923)], 174– 75). He became pastor of the Baptist church at Dinagepore (Dinajpur [presently in Bangladesh]) and was highly regarded by the trio. Carey speaks of Ignatius as “our beloved brother Fernandez” (Cox, BMS, 1:388). His son, John Fernandez, was baptized on January 8, 1804 at Serampore (Brief Narrative of the Baptist Mission in India […] with an Appendix Bringing the Narrative Down to the Year 1811 (Boston: Lincoln and Edmands, n.d. [1811?]), 37. He travelled to England to study at Bristol Baptist Academy on the recommendation of Carey, Marshman, and Ward and was admitted as a student on January 22, 1807. There is a letter in the Isaac Mann collection which Ignatius wrote to introduce his son to Fuller. John Fernandez almost certainly brought this with him to England: “I know he will meet with tender parents in you and Dr. Ryland,” his father writes (Ignatius Fernandez [to Andrew Fuller], January 5, 1806, no. 93, “[Isaac Mann Collection] Calendar of Letters, 1742– 1831 Continued,” BQ 6, no. 6 [April 1933]: 282– 830). Bristol Academy records show that sometime between 1808 and 1809 he discontinued his studies in part because of illness. One of Fuller’s letters to William Ward (February 6, 1809, “Fuller Letters to William Ward”) shares news of John Fernandez with his friends in India, declaring: “He has had some returns of his dropsy […] He is now at Bristol.” Dropsy was an old, imprecise term describing an accumulation of fluid in a body cavity. John Fernandez returned to India in 1811 and rejoined his father at Dinajpore. He left Bengal in 1823 in hope of obtaining a teaching job at the East India Company’s College at Haileybury. See William Ward to John Dyer, Serampore, 23 January, 1823, Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford (IN/16). I am grateful to Peter de Vries and to Mike Brealey for helping me with some of the information in this note. See also the Dissenting Academies Project, qmul.ac.uk.  He sailed for England, travelling via America, on January 6, 1806; see Ward’s journal entry for January 6, 1806, in PA, 3:233 – 34.  John Fernandez probably gave this information to Fuller at the same time he provided the translation which appears later in the Apology.  Cf. Ephesians 6:11.

90

Part I

This gentleman is sufficiently aware of the prejudice which exists against Protestant Dissenters, and knows how to avail himself of it. He can condescend to call the missionaries sectaries and schismatics—pp. xliii–xlv. And would he have liked them better, if they had been churchmen? No; for he speaks of certain gentlemen as “classed under that description of our clergy who are termed evangelical,” and of their being all for “converting the Hindoos to Christianity”—p. xv. Clergymen of this description are, in his account, as bad as sectaries and schismatics. The truth is, it is as Christians that we incur his displeasure; only he judges it prudent to attack us under other names. But these missionaries are also represented as “illiterate, ignorant, and as enthusiastic as the wildest devotees among the Hindoos”—p. xliv. The following extract from the speech of Sir George Barlow, published in a Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary, on Saturday, March 8, 1806, will prove that all men are not of Major Scott Waring’s opinion.⁷² “I have received with great satisfaction the information that, under the patronage of the Asiatic Society, the Society of Protestant Missionaries at the Danish settlement of Serampore, aided and superintended by the abilities of Mr. Carey, professor of the Shanscrit and Bengalee languages, has undertaken the translation of some of the most ancient and authentic works of literature in the former of these languages.”⁷³ Of the missionaries sent out by the London Society,⁷⁴ I do not believe there is an individual who is either “ignorant or illiterate;” though doubtless, as in all other bodies of men, there are diversities of talent and learning. And with respect to enthusiasm, after what has been quoted from Major Scott Waring, no Christian need be offended at his calling him an enthusiast. This gentlemen has furnished himself with various reports from the Missionary Societies. Among others, he has met with a “Sermon,” preached in May last before “the Society of Missions to Africa and the East,” of which Society Admiral Lord Gambier is a governor.⁷⁵ It seems, then, that India is not altogether “thrown into the hands of schismatics.” But at the end of this sermon is an account of a brahmin, as given by Mr. John Thomas, in the “Baptist Periodical Accounts”—Vol. 1, pp. 22– 26. Let any one that fears God read that account, and compare it with these remarks upon it. “I had the curiosity,” says he, “to inquire after Mr. Thomas and his convert,  George Barlow (1763 – 1846) worked for the EIC as a civil servant from 1778 and was acting governor general from Cornwallis’s death in 1805 until Minto’s arrival in 1807.  Barlow’s speech, which was given on March 3, 1806, is recorded in more detail (although the passage referring directly to Carey is omitted) in Hugh Pearson, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Rev. Claudius Buchanan, D.D. Late Vice-Provost of the College of Fort William in Bengal (Oxford: Oxford University Press [printed for the author], 1817), 1:381– 84.  That is, the London Missionary Society.  James Gambier (1756 – 1833) was a naval officer who had been elevated to the peerage in 1807, the year before Fuller’s Apology was written. At the close of his career, he would be made Admiral of the Fleet. His Christian commitments were well known, and he was the first president of the Society of Missions to Africa and the East (later the CMS). See DEB, 1: 421– 22.

Section II: Strictures on Scott Waring’s Preface

91

and I heard that they both died raving mad in Bengal”—p. xlvi. We may suppose this information, as well as the preceding, was received from the gentlemen lately returned from India. It is worthy of them. Parbotee, however, is neither dead nor insane. And Mr. Thomas, though his mind was deranged for a month or two at one period of his life, yet died sane and happy. Mr. John Fernandez, the gentleman before referred to, says, “Mr. Thomas was deranged for a short time; and after his recovery lived with my father at Dinagepore for a considerable time before his dissolution, when he died very happy. As for Parbotee, I am almost certain that he is still alive. He was so, however, when I left India in 1806. I saw him myself.” It is remarkable that this gentleman is for tolerating the Roman Catholic missionaries, and all others indeed, except “those who possess this new mania for conversion, so unaccountably taken up”—p. xlix. We perfectly comprehend him; and, I hope, shall profit by the hint. It signifies but little with him how many missionaries there are, nor by what names they are called, so that they are not in earnest for the salvation of men. We will follow his example: while we adhere to that denomination which appears to us to approach nearest to the Scriptures, we will recognise the Christian, in whatever communion we may find him. We will rejoice in the good which is done by “the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,”⁷⁶ even though they are offended with their missionaries, for nothing that we can conceive but their exercising the common duties of hospitality to ours.⁷⁷ Major Scott Waring, among other missionary reports, has procured No. XVI of the “Baptist Periodical Accounts,” and proposes giving us some extracts from it. Before he does this, however, he presents us with a few particulars by way of introduction; but all, as the reader would suppose, gathered from this said No. XVI. First, he informs us that “nine English missionaries are employed by this Society in Bengal alone”—p. liii. What a number then must they employ, the reader would suppose, in all the other provinces of India! It happens, however, that in no other province of Hindostan have they ever employed a single missionary. Whether the gentlemen lately returned from India informed the author of the great numbers of these missionaries scattered all over the country, or however he came by the idea, his mind is certainly full of it, and it has led him into a curious train of reasoning. “The jealousy and the alarm,” says he, “which has pervaded the whole of the Carnatic and Mysore, has been but partially felt in Bengal, because [there] the efforts of the English mis-

 The SPCK worked closely with the Lutheran Pietist missionaries in the south of India (see, e. g., Bartholomaus Ziegenbalg, DEB, 2:1225 – 26).  See the last Report of the committee of this Society, No. IV, p. 165. They acknowledge the documents they possess to be quite insufficient to enable them to form a judgment of the true ground of certain disorders; but “Missionaries from an Anabaptist Society, and from that called the London Missionary Society,” have called upon them, and it seems received some countenance from them; and therefore this committee thinks proper to throw out a suspicion that they may have been the occasion of these evils! [AF]. For hospitality given to traveling BMS personnel by SPCK missionaries at Madras, see PA, 3:101.

92

Part I

sionaries have hitherto not extended beyond a few inconsiderable villages, and the populous city of Dacca”—p. li. They have been more extensive then, it should seem, in the Carnatic and Mysore! The truth is, I believe, that not an english missionary has entered either of these countries. Nearly the whole of what has been hitherto done is confined to Bengal; for though the London Society has five or six missionaries in other provinces, some of which may be near to the Carnatic, yet the time is so short that they have scarcely been able, at present, to acquire the languages. But in Bengal the Baptist mission has existed for a number of years, and the labours of the missionaries have been much more extensive than our author would seem in this instance to apprehend; yet there, these “alarms have been but partially felt!” Who does not perceive the consequence? these alarms are not the effect of missionary exertions. Major Scott Waring goes on to inform his reader of a number of particulars, in a manner as though he had collected them from our own Report. Among other things, he speaks of Mr. Carey as “having apartments in the college for the reception of his brother missionaries when they visit Calcutta,” and repeats the story of “Mr. Thomas and his convert Parbotee dying mad in Bengal”—p. liii. Did he learn these particulars from No. XVI, or from the gentlemen lately returned from India? It were singular indeed if a professor in a college had no apartments in it, and were not at liberty to receive any person who may call upon him. “In the Company’s list of college officers he is styled Mr. William Carey; but the Bible Society has given him the dignified title of Reverend”—p. liii. He might be called Doctor Carey, or Professor Carey. Whether either of these titles would be less displeasing to this gentleman I cannot tell. If not, whenever he has occasion to correspond with him, he may lay aside all titles, and call him, as I do, Mr. Carey. I can answer for it that it will give him no offence.⁷⁸ As to the attempts to prove from the missionaries’ own accounts that they have “caused considerable uneasiness among the people of the villages,” Major Scott Waring may make what he can of them. If he had given extracts, as he proposed, and referred to the pages, it would have appeared that no such sensation was ever produced with respect to government. It was confined, as Mr. Carey says, “to abusive language from a few loose persons;”⁷⁹ or, at most, to ill treatment of the native converts, and which, in every instance, they have borne with Christian meekness and patience. No such thing as a disturbance, endangering the peace of society, has occurred. The “alarm” which the appearance of a European is allowed to excite (p. lviii) respects him not as a missionary, but as a European; and it is for the purpose of

 Fuller’s negative views on titles such as “Rev’d” and “Dr.” were well known and shape his comments here. He was critical of his friend Ryland for accepting an honorary doctorate, something he had refused to do himself. For their exchange of views, see John Ryland, Jr., letter to Andrew Fuller, Bristol Baptist College Library (G 97 B Box A).  Carey, “The Missionaries to the Society,” September 2, 1806, printed in E. Carey, William Carey, 485.

Section II: Strictures on Scott Waring’s Preface

93

avoiding this as much as possible that the labours of the native converts are encouraged. This writer seems to think it sufficient to discredit all missionary attempts, that he can prove from our own accounts that we have strong prejudices to encounter, and judge it expedient, instead of violently attacking them, to proceed in as still and silent a way as possible. A very heavy charge is preferred against one of the missionaries, as having perverted the words of our Lord: “Think you that I am come to send peace on the earth? I tell you, Nay.”⁸⁰ Yet nothing is alleged to prove it a perversion, except that the gospel inculcates the mild doctrine of “peace on earth, and good will to men”—p. lix. The direct influence of the gospel is no doubt what he says of it; but what if, owing to the depravity of men, it should in many instances occasion the most bitter enmity and opposition? Is the gospel accountable for this? Christian compassion has been known to excite the foulest resentment in some men. What then? Is Christian compassion ever the worse? The remarks on the journey to Dacca (pp. liv, lv.) show what Major Scott Waring wishes to prove; but that is all. If what he calls “the proper line for the British government to pursue” had been pursued on that occasion, the young men had not been interrupted. I say the young men; for it was not Mr. Carey, but Mr. William Carey, his second son,⁸¹ who accompanied Mr. Moore.⁸² “They distinguished,” we are told, “between the brahmins and the people at large.” Yes, they had reason to do so; for the people were eager to receive the tracts, but some of the brahmins were offended; and this is common on almost all other occasions. “Should we be mad enough to make the same distinction, our destruction is inevitable.” One would think, then, the destruction of the missionaries themselves would not only be inevitable, but immediate. As the brahmins are displeased with none but them and the native converts, if they escape, there is no cause for others to fear. The truth is, the common people are not so under the influence of the brahmins as to be displeased with hearing them publicly confuted. On the contrary, they will often express their pleasure at it; and, when the latter remain silent, will call out, “Why do you not answer him?” But “Lord Clive and Mr. Verelst, in the year 1766, were not so mad as to advise a poor creature who had lost caste to abandon his ridiculous and idolatrous prejudices, and to em-

 Luke 12:51.  William Carey, Jr. (1787– 1853) was the second son of William and Dorothy. Together with his brother Felix he had been visiting brothels and swearing freely when William Ward first encountered him: their father had devoted little time to their upbringing. Through the influence of Ward and the Marshmans, William, Jr. came to faith and was baptized in 1803. See DEB, 1:198.  William Moore (1776 – 1844) arrived in Serampore in 1805 but struggled to learn Bengali—he displayed an “incapability” with respect to languages, according to F. A. Cox—and his relationship with the original trio became increasingly fraught. With his wife, Eleanor (née Hurford, 1776 – 1812), he moved to Digha near Patna in Bihar and was instrumental in establishing a small church there. See Cox, BMS, 1: here 417; DEB, 2:788. See also the editor’s introduction to this volume.

94

Part I

brace the true religion”—p. lvi.⁸³ If I were to say they were not so wise and so good as to do so, I should be as near the truth; and my saying would bear reflection in a dying hour, quite as much as that of Major Scott Waring.⁸⁴ “We may conceive the narrow bigotry by which these men are actuated, by the conduct of Mr. [William] Carey and Mr. Moore to some native Christian Catholics whom they met with in a village when they were driven from Dacca by the magistrate and collector.” And what was it? Why, “to these poor Catholics, they pointed out the errors of popery, and warned them of the danger of worshipping and trusting to idols”—p. lx. And this is bigotry! Such bigots they certainly were and are. To prove the absolute inutility of the dispersion of one edition of the New Testament, and of twenty thousand religious tracts, a letter from Mr. Carey is cited, which speaks of there being “but few months in which some were not baptized; of three natives having joined them in the last month, and two the month before; but of their being under the necessity of excluding several for evil conduct”—p. ix. If Major Scott Waring be not more successful in his opposition than he is in his proof, Christianity may still go on and prosper in India. I suspect it was from a conscious want of this important article, that he was obliged to fill up his pages with such terms as “bigots,” “madmen,” “mischievous madmen,” etc. etc. There is nothing so provoking, to a man who is desirous of proving a point, as the want of evidence. “In the course of several years, they have made about eighty converts, all from the lowest of the people, most of them beggars by profession, and others who had lost their castes. The whole of them were rescued from poverty, and procured a comfortable subsistence by their conversion”—p. xli. That is, reader, thus say the gentlemen lately returned from India—p. x1ii. I need not repeat the refutation of these falsehoods. Before, they were said all to have previously lost caste; but now it seems to be only some of them. Judge, reader, do these men believe what they say? But “the whole of them were rescued from poverty, and procured a comfortable subsistence by their conversion.” A considerable number of the Christian natives live many miles from Serampore, and subsist in the same manner as they did before their baptism, and without any aid from the missionaries. The subsistence of others, who reside in the neighbourhood of Serampore, is from the same employment as it was before they became Christians; and those who receive pay from the missionaries are such as are employed by them. Mr. John Fernandez says, “I have been present almost every time when the converts have professed their faith before the brethren, and have

 Robert Clive (1725 – 1774) was commander of the EIC forces for some of the company’s most important military victories, for example at Plassey in 1757 (see the editor’s introduction to this volume). He was involved in the shameless looting of precious Indian treasures, many of which are still housed in his country seat at Powis Castle. Harry Verelst (1734– 1785) was an EIC official who was governor of Bengal from 1767 to 1769.  This bold criticism of Clive shows a willingness to critique the civil power when, as Fuller believes here, gospel principles are at stake.

Section II: Strictures on Scott Waring’s Preface

95

repeatedly heard the missionaries tell them that, unless they worked with their own hands, they would receive no help from them. Inquirers were always kept for some time on probation.” Some of them were Byraggees, a sort of religious beggars; but they are no longer so when they become Christians.⁸⁵ No one is supported in idleness. If any are bettered in their circumstances, it is by being taught to be industrious and frugal. But many of those whom our author calls “beggars by profession” lived in much greater fulness by that way of life than they do now by labour; and it is not very likely that they should have relinquished the one, and chosen the other, from interested motives. What is it that kindles the wrath of this man? If a word be spoken against the character of these people while they continue heathens, he is all indignant; but if they become Christians, the foulest reproaches are heaped upon them. Is it because these beggars are become industrious, and cease to live upon the superstitious credulity of their neighbours, that he is so offended? Does he think the British government would be overturned if all the rest of the beggars were to follow their example? But “one of the missionaries writes to England that a hundred rupees a month would support ten native converts with their families, and a still greater number of single brethren; which,” he says, “is undoubtedly true, because the wages of our common servants are but three, four, and five rupees a month”—p. lxi–1xii. Why does not our author refer to the pages from whence he takes his extracts? As this passage stands in his pamphlet, it conveys the idea that every native convert with a family costs the Society ten rupees a month; but if the reader look into No. XVI, p. 171, from which the extract is taken, he will find that it is of native preachers that Mr. Marshman writes; who observes that, “while they are thus employed in disseminating the good seed, they cannot be at home supporting their families.” It is one thing, surely, to pay a man ten rupees for the support of his family, and his own travelling expenses; and another to give him the same sum as a common labourer at home. Major Scott Waring may give as many extracts from our publications as he pleases; but he should not pervert the meaning. He may think us wild and foolish to lay out money in such undertakings; he may call it “ridiculous to talk of the perishing millions of India” (p. lxii); he may reckon compassion to a great city, wholly given to idolatry, a proof of the want of common sense (p. lxv); but let him do us the justice of allowing us to think otherwise. We are not surprised at his having no compassion for perishing idolaters, nor indeed at anything else, unless it be his pretending, after all, to be a Christian; but let him not represent us as employed in bribing bad men to become hypocrites. “Some of these converts have been expelled for gross immorality.” True, and what then? “Such I am confident would be the fate of the remainder, were not the

 For examples of Byraggees (or “religious beggars,” as Fuller puts it) coming to faith, see William Ward’s journal entries for June 1, 1805, and August 18, 1805, in PA, 3:161, 172.

96

Part I

missionaries afraid of being laughed at.” But why should he imagine this? Does he think the Hindoos all bad men? Or do they become such when they embrace Christianity? And why should the missionaries be supposed to retain bad men in their society for fear of being laughed at? Had they feared this, they had never engaged in the work. Did they fear this, they would not exclude so many as they do; or, at least, would not report it in their letters. I may add, it is not long since they had a fair opportunity to have entirely desisted from their work; and that in a way that would not have incurred the laughter, but possibly the commendation of these men. They might also from that time have gone on to accumulate fortunes, instead of sacrificing everything in a cause which they knew, it seems, at the same time to be hopeless. Surely these missionaries must be worse than madmen; and the government at Calcutta, and the Asiatic Society, cannot be much better, to think of employing them in translating works of literature. Once more, “The new orders of missionaries are the most ignorant and the most bigoted of men. Their compositions are, in fact, nothing but puritanical rant, of the most vulgar kind; worse than that so much in fashion in Great Britain, during the days of Oliver Cromwell.”⁸⁶ We hope the author will furnish us with a specimen. Yes, here it is: “When Mr. [W.] Carey and Mr. Moore were at Dacca, they write on the Lord’s day as follows: What an awful sight have we witnessed this day! A large and populous city wholly given to idolatry, and not an individual to warn them to flee from the wrath to come. As soon as we rose in the morning, our attention was unavoidably excited by scenes the most absurd, disgusting, and degrading to human nature!”⁸⁷ Judge, Christian reader, what a state of mind that man must possess who can call this language vulgar rant, and adduce it as a proof of ignorance and bigotry! “Could men possessing common sense,” he adds, “have written such nonsense as this is, unless blinded by enthusiasm? Had they discovered that a single Englishman was a convert to the Hindoo or the Mahomedan religion, they would have been justified in giving their sentiments to him, as to his apostacy from the true to a false and idolatrous religion; but to pour out such unmeaning and useless abuse on an immense population, which merely observed those forms and ceremonies which had been used throughout Hindostan for above 2,000 years, is folly and arrogance in the extreme”—p. lxv. I wonder whether this writer ever read a book called the Bible, or heard of any of its language, excepting a few passages held up, perchance, to ridicule, in some history of the times of Oliver Cromwell! I presume the reader has had enough; and as all that follows is little else than a repetition of what has already been answered, interlarded with the usual quantity of low abuse, I shall pass it over unnoticed. I have seldom seen a performance, by a writer calling

 Oliver Cromwell (1599 – 1658), parliamentary commander in the English Civil War and Lord Protector of England from 1653 until his death.  For Moore and William Carey Jr’s journey to Dacca (Dhaka), see PA, 3:176 – 177.

Section II: Strictures on Scott Waring’s Preface

97

himself a Christian, so full of barefaced infidelity. May God give him repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.

Part II “We certify the king that, if this city be builded, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river.” — the adversaries of judah¹ “Now Tatnai, governor beyond the river, Shetbar-boznai, and your companions the Apharsachites, be ye far from thence: let the work of this house of God alone.” — darius²

Introduction That apologies for Christianity should have been necessary in heathen countries is easily conceived; but an attempt of the kind in this country, and at this period of time, seems itself almost to require an apology. Who would have thought that the sons of Protestant Britain would so far degenerate as to become the advocates of paganism? Or, though that were the case with a few individuals, yet who could have imagined that a number of men would be found who would have either the power or the resolution publicly to oppose the propagation of Christianity? We may be told that the greater part of our opponents profess to be Christians, and that their opposition is merely on political considerations. I might meet them upon this ground, and might deny that the progress of the gospel in any country, or in any circumstances, can be unfriendly to its political welfare. But it would be compromising the honour of the gospel to rest its defence on this principle. If Christianity be true, it is of such importance that no political considerations are sufficient to weigh against it; nor ought they, for a moment, to be placed in competition with it. If Christianity be true, it is of God; and if it be of God, to oppose its progress on the grounds of political expediency is the same thing as to tell our Maker that we will not have him to reign over us, unless his government be subservient to our temporal interests.³ Should we be reminded that we are fallible men, and ought not to identify our undertakings with Christianity, nor to reckon every opposition to us as an opposition to Christ, this we readily admit. If we be opposed in relation to any other object than that of propagating the gospel, or on account of anything faulty in us in the pursuit of that object, such opposition is not directed against Christianity, and we have no desire, in such cases, to identify our undertakings with it. Let it only be fairly proved that the missionaries are intemperate and dangerous men, and we will admit the propriety of their being recalled. But if no such proof be given, if the reports circu-

 Ezra 4:16.  Ezra 6:6 – 7.  Cf. Gamaliel’s speech in Acts 5:34– 39. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110420487-005

Section I: Remarks on Major Scott Waring’s Letter to the Rev. Mr. Owen

99

lated against them be unfounded, if the alarms which have been spread in India be the mere fabrications of evil-minded Europeans, and if they themselves be men who work the work of God, an opposition to them may be found to be an opposition to Christ.⁴ Let our adversaries, instead of declaiming against us, join issue with us on this point. Let them prove the missionaries to be intemperate and dangerous men, and their cause is gained. We have only one petition to present to our judges; which is that such effects as naturally arise from the preaching of the gospel among those who do not believe it, which always have arisen, even from the first preaching of the apostles down to our own times, and which terminate only on ourselves, may not be admitted in evidence against us. Our adversaries allege that, according to our own accounts, the missionaries occasionally excite uneasiness, and that the native Christians sometimes draw upon themselves abusive treatment. We do not deny that in a few instances this has been the case; but we say this effect is no more than what Christianity has always produced, in a greater or lesser degree, when addressed to unbelievers; and that so long as this uneasiness and abuse are merely directed against the parties, and are no more injurious to the British government than the preaching of Paul and Barnabas was to that of Rome, we ought not, on this account, to be censured.⁵ And if a few things of this kind be thrown aside, as irrelevant, we have no apprehension of a single charge being substantiated against us.

Section I Remarks on Major Scott Waring’s Letter to the Rev. Mr. Owen There is a sympathy between kindred principles which is often unperceived by the party who favours them, but which may be expected to betray itself in speaking or writing upon the subject⁶. How is it that our opponents are so anxious for the preservation of paganism and Mahomedism? They certainly have no intention of becoming the disciples of either, nor to convey any such idea to the public; but when these systems are in danger, they have a feeling for them which they cannot conceal. How

 Again, the reference is to Acts 5:34– 39.  For examples, see Acts 13 – 15.  The Rev. Mr Owen referred to in the section heading was John Owen (1766 – 1822). He was the Anglican secretary of the BFBS from April 1804 and gave significant time to this role while remaining in local church ministry, a career which in some ways parallels Fuller’s own. He sought to encourage the BFBS to be non-sectarian, and he was a supporter of the Baptist missionaries. He wrote An Address to the Chairman of the East India Company, Occasioned by Mr Twining’s Letter (London: J. Hatchard, 1807) to encourage toleration of missionary activity. See Dictionary of Evangelical Biography 1730 – 1860 (DEB), ed. Donald M. Lewis (2 vols.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 2:848; see also the editor’s introduction to this volume.

100

Part II

is it that Major Scott Waring should so readily find mottos for his pamphlets, in “Hints to the Public and the Legislature, on the Nature and Effect of Evangelical Preaching?” He professes to be no sectary, but a true orthodox churchman, believing in the doctrine of the Trinity; nay more, considering the belief of that doctrine as the only thing essential to Christianity—p. 107. Yet the author of these “Hints,” if report be true, while he calls himself “a Barrister,” is, in reality, a Socinian Dissenter;⁷ but, being so exactly of his mind with respect to evangelical religion, his wanting what he accounts the only essential of Christianity is a matter of small account. Finally, how is it that the cause of our opponents should be favoured in most of the Socinian publications, and that they should be so happily united in their wishes for government not to tolerate evangelical religion? One submits “A Plan to His Majesty’s Ministers, the East India Company, and the Legislature,” proposing to “recall every English missionary;” another suggests “Hints to the Public and the Legislature, on the Nature and Effect of Evangelical Preaching.” The language of both is: We know not what to do with these evangelical men, and therefore humbly request government to take them in hand! Yet these are the men who would be thought the friends, and almost the only friends, of reason and toleration! If the Major and his new ally have been accused of dealing too much in reason, we answer, with Dr. Owen: They have been unjustly treated; as much so as poor St. Hierome, when beaten by an angel for preaching in a Ciceronian style.⁸ So much for the motto. As to the Letter itself, it contains little more than a repetition of things which have no foundation in truth, and which, I trust, have been

 Socinianism is a Unitarian system which takes its name from the Italian thinker Faustus Socinus (1539 – 1604). Socinianism made significant progress in Dissenting churches during the Age of the Enlightenment. Fuller engaged with the unorthodox Christology and exaltation of reason above revelation which characterized Socinianism in his The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems […] Compared (Market Harborough: W. Harrod, 1793). For a critical edition of the same text, see The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Compared, ed. Thomas J. Nettles, Michael A.G. Haykin, and Baiyu Song (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2021).  “St. Hierome” is Jerome (ca. 342– 420). The legend of his being “beaten” by angels due to his partiality to Cicero is depicted in art, for example in Francisco Camilo’s St. Jerome Whipped by Angels, painted in 1651. The “Dr. Owen” Fuller refers to is not John Owen the secretary of the BFBS, despite the references to him immediately preceding, but the Puritan theologian John Owen (1618 – 1683). There is a review in the Monthly Epitome, published in 1802, of John Simpson’s Plain Thoughts on the New Testament Doctrine of Atonement (1802), a Unitarian work. The reviewer observes that Unitarians complain they are criticized because of their “adherence to reason.” He then refers to “Dr. Owen’s” sarcastic comment on such a writer in his own day, that they were “very unjustly treated, no less so than poor St. Hierome, who said he was beaten by an angel for preaching in a Ciceronian style.” See “Remarks on Simpson’s Doctrine of the Atonement,” Monthly Epitome 1, new series (London: Whittingham, 1802), 245 – 47, here 245. The context (the exaltation of reason) is essentially the same as that deployed in the Apology and the language almost identical. The likelihood is that Fuller is drawing from this source or, very possibly, that he is himself the anonymous reviewer. The sentiments expressed in the review are entirely congruent with Fuller’s published views, and there is a certain similarity of style.

Section I: Remarks on Major Scott Waring’s Letter to the Rev. Mr. Owen

101

already answered. The Major having been so ably repulsed in his first object of attack, “the British and Foreign Bible Society,” may be expected to direct his force somewhat more pointedly against the missionaries. We have his whole strength, however, in his former Preface. No new facts are adduced, nor new arguments from the old ones: almost all is repetition. Thus he repeats the base calumnies of our bribing beggars to become Christians; of our sending out thousands a year to support them; of our not having made one good convert; of the converts having lost caste before they were baptized, etc.—pp. 32, 87. And thus, seven times over, he has repeated the words of Mr. Marshman, on “an alarm being excited in a bigoted city by the appearance of a European missionary,” which, after all, respects him not as a missionary, but merely as a European. The scope of Mr. Marshman’s argument proves this; for he is recommending native missionaries, who, in conversing with their own countrymen, are listened to with attention, and excite none of that fear and reserve which are produced by the appearance of a foreigner.⁹ If the reviling conduct of the inhabitants of a certain village towards the missionaries or native converts, who bore all without resistance, proves the fault to have been with them, it will prove the same of other missionaries whom our author professes to respect, and of other native converts. If he will look into the Report of “the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge” for 1804, he will see an account of “an extraordinary conversion of several thousands, and of an extraordinary and unexpected persecution of the converts from their heathen neighbours, and particularly from some men in office, under the collector”—p. 145. Moreover, it will prove that the apostle Paul and our Saviour were accountable for the uneasiness which their preaching excited among the Jews, and for the persecutions which they met with on account of it. We may be told, indeed, that we ought not to compare ourselves with Christ and his apostles; and it is true that, in various respects, it would be highly improper to do so; but in things which are common to Christ and his followers it is very proper. Now this is the case in the present instance. The disciples of Christ were given to expect that their doctrine would draw upon them the displeasure of unbelievers, in the same manner as that of Christ had done before them. “Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his Lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also,” John 15:20. If Major Scott Waring had known anything of the gospel, and of its opposition to the vicious inclinations of the human heart, he could not have stumbled in the manner he has at Mr. Ward’s application of the words of our Saviour in Luke 12:51. He had introduced them before, and now he introduces them again and again—pp. 80, 99. “Suppose ye that I am come to send peace on the earth? I tell you,  See Periodical Accounts, No. XVI, p. 170. [AF]. This can be found in Periodical Accounts Relative to the Baptist Missionary Society (PA) (5 vols.; London: Baptist Missionary Society, 1794– 1816), vol. 3. See pp. 169 – 71 for Marshman’s full argument, which is taken from a letter (Joshua Marshman to Fuller, August 28, 1805) cited at length in the PA. Indian believers can “enter private circles, watch opportunities, and drop an effectual word where we cannot be heard” (170).

102

Part II

Nay.” “These words,” he says, “most evidently, considered with their context, apply to the destruction of Jerusalem, which our blessed Saviour predicted would happen before the generation then existing had passed away.”¹⁰ So, then, Christ came to set fire to Jerusalem! But how was it already kindled? Almost any commentator would have taught him that these words have no reference to Jewish wars, but to Christian persecutions, which were predicted to take place at the same time. Neither do they express, as I have said before, what was the direct tendency of the gospel, which is doubtless to produce love and peace, but that of which, through man’s depravity, it would be the occasion. In this sense Mr. Ward applied the text, in order to account for the persecutions which the native converts met with; and I should not have supposed that a man of Major Scott Waring’s age and talents could have construed it into a suggestion that the natural tendency of the gospel is to produce division. The Major proposes to the Rev. Mr. Owen that they should “preserve the manners of gentlemen in arguing the question”—p. 4. Is it then becoming the pen of a gentleman to write as he has done of Mr. Thomas¹¹ and the other missionaries?¹² Or does he  Quoted from Ward’s Journal, PA, 3:184.  John Thomas (1757– 1801) was, together with Carey, in the first missionary party sent out by the BMS. For biographical details on Thomas, see the editor’s introduction to this volume. The “gentleman of respectability in Scotland” whose letter Fuller cites next in his long footnote is William Cunninghame (ca. 1775 – 1849). Cunninghame was a Scottish landowner who worked for the EIC as an assistant judge in Bengal until 1804, at which point he returned to Scotland. See Grayson Carter, “William Cunninghame,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/40934. Fuller was particularly unhappy with what he believed was a scurrilous attack on Thomas’s memory. For his encouragement of Thomas and empathy with his mental struggles, see Fuller to John Thomas, December 24, 1795, and May 16, 1796, in John Ryland, Jr., The Work of Faith, the Labour of Love, and the Patience of Hope Illustrated in the Life and Death of the Rev. Andrew Fuller (2nd ed.; London: Button and Son, 1818), 158 – 61, esp. 159.  Having lately received a letter from a gentleman of respectability in Scotland, concerning the calumny on the memory of Mr. Thomas, I shall take the liberty of introducing it in this place, as a further vindication of this injured character. “Dear Sir, An anonymous pamphlet has this day fallen into my hands, which is ascribed to a gentleman who formerly held a high rank in the East India Company’s military service, and of which it is the principal object to induce the East India Company to expel every Protestant missionary from their possessions, and prevent the circulation of the Scriptures in the native languages. Among the numerous and virulent misrepresentations which this work contains, there is a most false and scandalous aspersion of the character of the late Mr. Thomas, who was the first missionary of your Society in India, which from my personal acquaintance with that gentleman, I am enabled to contradict in the most positive manner, and which, from my regard for his memory, I deem it my duty so to contradict. The author asserts, in p. 46, and again in p. 51, of the preface, that Mr. Thomas died raving mad in Bengal. It is indeed true that Mr. Thomas was once afflicted with a temporary derangement; but it was a considerable time before his death. From the summer of 1796, till May, 1801, I held an official situation in the Company’s civil service at Dinagepore; and, during the last six months of this period, I had very frequent intercourse with Mr. Thomas, and heard him preach almost every Sunday; and I most solemnly affirm that I never saw the least symptom of derangement in any part of his behaviour or conversation. On the contrary, I considered him as a man of good understanding, uncommon benevolence, and solid piety. In May, 1801, I quitted Dinagepore, and never again saw Mr. Thomas; but I had more than one letter from him between that

Section I: Remarks on Major Scott Waring’s Letter to the Rev. Mr. Owen

103

think himself at liberty, when dealing with them, to put off that character? If his own motives be arraigned, or his Christianity suspected, he thinks himself rudely treated; yet, when speaking of men who secede from the Established Church, he can allow himself to insinuate that they do not act from principle—p. 58. As to the charges of “ignorance and bigotry,” which he is continually ringing in our ears, I refer to the answers already given in my Strictures. It is allowed that “Mr. Carey may be a good Oriental scholar, and a good man; but he is narrow-minded and intemperate”—p. 33. The proof of this is taken from the conduct of his son at Dacca. The mistake as to the person is excusable; but what was there in the conduct of either of the young men on that occasion which showed them to be narrow-minded or intemperate? They felt, though they were not apostles, for a great city wholly given to idolatry; for they had read in their Bibles that “idolaters cannot enter the kingdom of God.”¹³ This was narrowness! But when Major Scott Waring proposes to exclude all denominations of Christian missionaries from India, except those of the Established Church, I suppose he reckons this consistent with liberality.¹⁴ With regard to intemperateness, I know of nothing like it in the conduct of these junior missionaries. They gave away tracts to those who came to their boat for them, and wished to have taken a stand in the city for the like purpose: but, being interrupted, they returned home; not declining, however, to do that which had been done for years without offence, during the administration of Marquis Wellesley—namely, to dis-

time and his death, which happened, I think, in October, the same year. These letters, which are still in my possession, exhibit no signs whatever of mental derangement. In the last of them he wrote (with the calmness and hope of a Christian) of his own dissolution; an event which he thought was near at hand, as he felt some internal symptoms of the formation of a polypus in his heart. After Mr. Thomas’s decease, I had an opportunity of learning the circumstances of it from the late Mr. Samuel Powell, a person whose veracity none who knew him could question; and I never had the smallest reason to believe or suspect that Mr. Thomas was, in any degree whatever, deranged in mind at the time of his death. On the contrary, I always understood that he died in possession of his faculties, and of that hope which nothing but an unshaken faith in the gospel of Christ can give. It is not my present purpose to vindicate the living from the coarse and vulgar abuse of this anonymous author. This you have undertaken, and are well qualified to do; but as he has thought it necessary to insult the character of the dead, and wound the feelings of surviving friends; and as I am, perhaps, the only person now in Great Britain who can, from personal acquaintance with Mr. Thomas during the last year of his life, do anything to rescue his memory from this unmerited insult; I should think it criminal to have remained silent on this occasion. And I am happy thus to make some return for the instructions I received from Mr. Thomas as a minister of Christ, and the pleasure I frequently enjoyed in his society and conversation. You are at liberty to make any use of this letter that you may think proper. Believe me to be, dear sir, very sincerely yours, William Cunninghame, Glasgow, Jan. 15, 1808.” [AF].  1 Corinthians 6:9.  Such is the notion of liberality and toleration which I ventured to denounce in my Letter to the chairman of the East India Company; and I wish I were able to draw the serious attention of every friend to religious liberty in Britain to the subject. These men talk of liberty, while they are razing it to its foundation. [AF].

104

Part II

tribute tracts in the villages.¹⁵ As to the Marquis Cornwallis,¹⁶ or any other person, being absent from Calcutta, it had just as much influence in causing their journey as Major Scott Waring’s being at the same time, perchance, at Peterborough House.¹⁷ But their language is cant. The Major, however, might find plenty of such cant in the communications of Schwartz and his colleagues to “the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,” if he would only look over the East India intelligence in their reports. These, he tells us, were missionaries in his time, and of them he approves; yet if their letters were printed in our accounts, they would equally fall under his censure. The truth is, the language of a serious mind, formed on Scriptural principles, will always sound like cant in the ears of such men as this author. Major Scott Waring makes a curious distinction between a gratuitous circulation of the Scriptures, and a giving them to petitioners. The former he opposes; but to the latter, he says, “no Christian can object”—p. 48. Wherein then consists the mighty difference? In the one case they are offered for acceptance, if the party please; in the other, the party himself makes the application: but in neither is there anything done but with his full consent. No difference exists as to the effects; for if an individual petition for a New Testament, as soon as the brahmins or other interested persons come to know it, they will be just as uneasy, and as likely to revile him, as if he had received it without petitioning. But, I suppose, Major Scott Waring may think that if nothing were done, except in consequence of applications from the natives, nothing in effect would be done, and this would please him! After all, I question whether the greater part of the New Testaments which have been distributed have not been given as “a dole of charity to petitioners.” An indiscriminate distribution would be throwing them away; it is therefore an object with the missionaries to give Testaments only to persons who desire them, and who are, therefore, likely to read them. So I hope we shall please better as we understand one another. It seems to grieve the Major that Christians of almost all denominations are united against him; but he and his colleagues have to thank themselves for this. Had

 Richard Colley Wellesley (1760 – 1842), 1st Marquess Wellesley, was governor general of India from 1798 to 1805. Later in his career he served as the British foreign secretary (1809 – 1812). His younger brother was Arthur, the first Duke of Wellington, who led the British forces at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.  Charles Cornwallis (1738 – 1805), 1st Marquess Cornwallis, was governor general of India from 1786 to 1793. He is especially remembered as the general who, earlier in his career, had surrendered to the Americans and the French at the siege of Yorktown in 1781, during the American War of Independence.  Peterborough House was a seventeenth-century London townhouse built by John Mordaunt, the first Earl of Peterborough. It was situated right on the boundary of Westminster, further west than any other townhouse. Scott Waring purchased the property in the early 1800s. Fuller is clearly making some sort of point by mentioning it here. He may be referencing his opponent’s pompous way of arguing, as there was a joke that the person who resided at Peterborough House lived “beyond everyone” else in the whole city—a play on its far westerly position. See, for example, Joe Miller, Joe Miller’s Jests (8th ed.; London: T. Read, 1745), 75, where the relevant “jest” is no. 70.

Section I: Remarks on Major Scott Waring’s Letter to the Rev. Mr. Owen

105

their attack been directed merely against a few Dissenters, they might have had some chance of succeeding; but it is so broad that no man, who has any feeling for Christianity, can view it in any other light than as an attempt to crush it in our Eastern possessions. It is an attempt to stop the progress of the Bible; and therefore must be absolutely antichristian. Whether Major Scott Waring perceives his error in this respect, and wishes to repair it, or whatever be his motive, he certainly labours in this, his second performance, to divide his opponents. First, he would fain persuade them that he himself is a Christian, which it is very possible he may be in his own esteem; and secondly, he would be very glad to single out these sectarian missionaries as the only objects of his dislike. It grieves him sorely that they should have been encouraged by clergymen. If they would but discard these men, I know not but they might obtain forgiveness for being evangelical. But if not, he will do his utmost to prove that they are not the true sons of the church. “I never met with an evangelical clergyman,” he says, “who had not a tender feeling for those who have deserted the Church of England, though at one time conformists.” Allowing this to be the case, he might have supposed it was for their holding evangelical principles in common with themselves, and not on account of their deserting the Church. And whatever feeling they might have toward those Christians who are not of their own communion, it is surely as pardonable as that which this author and his party have toward Mahomedans and heathens. This writer seems to think that, unless the whole population of India were converted, nothing is done. If forty in a year were to embrace Christianity, that is nothing in his account. He should consider, however, that we believe in the immortality of the soul, and in the importance of eternal salvation. We should not think our labour lost, therefore, if we could be the instruments of saving half that number. We know, moreover, that the greatest and most beneficial events to mankind have arisen from small beginnings.¹⁸ Hence we pay no regard to such objections; and even the flouts and sneers of our adversaries are far from discouraging us. We compare them with those of “Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the Ammonite,” who were grieved exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel. “What do these feeble Jews?” said the one: “Will they fortify themselves? Will they sacrifice? Will they make an end in a day? Even that which they build,” answered the other, “if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall.”¹⁹ The author still continues to revile Mr. [Wm.] Carey,²⁰ and Mr. Moore, for what they wrote in their journal at Dacca, calling it “downright nonsense;” and still speaks of them as “ignorant men,” on account of it. The reader may see what this

 Cf. Zechariah 4:10. This is crucial for Fuller: his belief in “the importance of eternal salvation” underpins and shapes his argument. The mission did indeed rise “from small beginnings” and was not having the full hoped-for impact, but every “soul” is precious.  Nehemiah 4:2– 3.  That is, William Carey, Jr.

106

Part II

nonsense was, by only turning to p. 806.²¹ Reader, can you tell us wherein lies the nonsense of this language? For we are unable to discover it. Major Scott Waring has been told that, as the language of the young men was taken from the words of Scripture, in reviling them he blasphemes the word of God. And what is his answer? As far as I can understand it, it amounts to this: The same things which were very wise in Paul, and in our Saviour, are very foolish in these young men— p. 89. But there may come a time when it shall appear, even to this gentleman, that things are the same, whether they be in an apostle or in any other man; and that he who revileth the words of Christ revileth Christ; and he that revileth Christ revileth Him that sent him.²²

Section II Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer” Since the publications of Messrs. Twining and Scott Waring, another piece has appeared, entitled, “A Vindication of the Hindoos from the Aspersions of the Rev. Claudius Buchanan, M. A.; with a Refutation of the Arguments Exhibited in His Memoir on the Expediency of an Ecclesiastical Establishment for British India, and the Ultimate Civilization of the Natives by Their Conversion to Christianity. Also, Remarks on an Address from the Missionaries in Bengal to the Natives of India, Condemning Their Errors, and Inviting Them to Become Christians. The Whole Tending to Evince the Excellency of the Moral System of the Hindoos, and the Danger of Interfering with Their Customs or Religion. By a Bengal Officer.”²³ This production surpasses all that have gone before it. Messrs. Twining and Scott Waring were desirous of being considered as Christians; but if this writer does not formally avow his infidelity, he takes so little care to disguise it that no doubt can remain on the subject. After having ascribed the Protestant religion to “reason” rather than revelation (pp. 9, 10)—pretended that the immortality of the soul was first revealed in Hindostan (p. 28)—questioned whether Christianity be at all necessary to the improvement of the Indian system of moral ordinances (p. 11)—preferred the heathen notion of transmigration to the Christian doctrine of future punishment (p. 47)—and framed a Geeta of his own in favour of purgatory (p. 48)²⁴—after all this, I say, and much more, he cannot, with any consistency, pretend to be a Christian.²⁵

 Cf. PA, 3:106 – 7.  Cf. Luke 10:16.  Although the “Bengal Officer” never revealed his identity in print, he was Major Charles Stuart (1757/58 – 1828), the third of Fuller’s main opponents. For biographical details on Stuart, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  Geeta (gita) is Sanskrit for “song,” hence Bhagavad Gita translates as “song of god.”  In the last two pages he has put marks of quotation to his own words, and represented them as the reasonings of the Hindoos! [AF].

Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”

107

If he believe in anything pertaining to religion, beyond the dictates of his own reason, it is in the revelations of his “divine menu.” He is fond of calling these institutes by the name of Scripture, and reasons from them against our endeavouring to convince and convert the Hindoos—pp. 15, 16, 22, 23. It is an unfortunate circumstance that the Hindoo religion admits of no proselytes; otherwise this writer must, ere now, have been invested with the honours of the poitou.²⁶ The gentleman complains of his want of “eloquence”—p. 3. There is, however, in his performance, much that tends to dazzle the mind of the reader. But as he professes “to decline the factitious aid of false appearances,” I shall attend only to facts, and to the reasoning which is founded upon them. I must also be allowed to confine my remarks to what immediately relates to the late Christian missions to India. With an ecclesiastical establishment I have no concern. This much, however, I will say: the treatment of Dr. Buchanan, by this writer, is most indecent. Whatever were the motives of that gentleman, he cannot prove them to have been either mercenary or ambitious. Where then is the justice, or candour, of his insinuations? But why do I complain? Candid treatment is not to be expected from any anonymous accuser. This writer’s pen appears to have been taken up on occasion of a manuscript falling into his hands, “professing to be a translation of an address to the inhabitants of India, from the missionaries of Serampore, inviting them to become Christians”—p. 1. From this address he has given several extracts; and the chief of his remarks, in the first part of his pamphlet, are founded upon it. But, before he or Major Scott Waring had thus publicly animadverted on a private translation, they should have known a few particulars concerning it. How could they tell whether it was drawn up by the missionaries? Or, if it were, whether the translation were faithful? I can assure them and the public that it was not written by a European, but by a native; and that the translation is very far from being a faithful one. In referring to the former of these circumstances, I do not mean either to disparage the tract or the writer, nor to exempt the missionaries from having a concern in it. They doubtless approved of it, and printed it, and it was circulated as an address from then. All I mean to say on this point is, that some allowance should be made for the style or manner of address as coming from a Hindoo. At the same time, it may be presumed that no Hindoo would call his own countrymen barbarians. With respect to the translation, it was done by a person who did not choose to put his name to it, and apparently with the design of inflaming the minds of the directors and of government against the missionaries. Whether we are to ascribe his errors to this cause, or to ignorance, I shall not determine; but that the most offensive ideas contained in the translation are not in the original is a fact. Nothing is said in the tract itself about “their books of philosophy;” nor are they said to be “fit for the

 The poitou (also “Poitoo”) is the sacred thread of a Brahmin, worn over his left shoulder. See William Carey to B[Abraham Booth?], November 23, 1796, in PA, 1:332. Cf. PA, 2:62, 237, 359.

108

Part II

amusement of children.” The Hindoos are not called “barbarians,” nor their Shasters “the Shasters of barbarians,” nor are they desired to “abominate them.” I have before me the translation from which this author appears to have taken his extracts, and another by Mr. John Fernandez,²⁷ a gentleman who is now with Dr. Ryland at Bristol, and who will be answerable for its fidelity.²⁸ I shall present the reader with the first 21 verses of both, in two opposite columns; and as the 14th, 15th, and 20th verses are those which contain the supposed offensive passages, I shall give in them the original words in English characters, so that any person who understands the language may judge of both the translations. I have also authority to say that any person who can read Bengalee may have one of the original tracts by applying to Dr. Ryland.

 John Fernandez, the Bristol student who had come from Bengal to join the Baptist Academy, had already engaged in some translation work for the BMS prior to Fuller penning the Apology (see “Several Hindoos” to Andrew Fuller [trans. J. L. Fernandez], January 2, 1806, no. 92 “[Isaac Mann Collection] Calendar of Letters, 1742– 1831 Continued,” 282). A footnote Fernandez added to the letter identifies the “Hindoos” as three Indian believers: Krishna Pal, Krishna Prasad, and Krishna Das. He was a natural choice as a translator for Fuller as he wrestled with “The Messenger of Glad Tidings.” The translation work was finalized in the summer of 1808 and may have been one of the last things to be added to Part II of the Apology before it was sent for publication. See Andrew Fuller to William Ward, August 27, 1808, Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford, (H/1/1): “I suspect the translations [of “Glad Tidings”] I have seen aggravate things which in their best form must be indiscreet and I wish to know whether my plea of injustice in the translations others have made for the missionaries can be fairly alleged […] I have sent all the originals I had got for Fernandez to translate.” John Fernandez’s translations confirmed Fuller’s suspicions.  Dr. Ryland is John Ryland, Jr. (1753 – 1825), who was lead tutor at the Bristol Baptist Academy from 1793. For biographical details on Ryland, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.

Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”

Translation from which the Vindicator appears to have taken his extracts: THE MESSENGER OF GLAD TIDINGS²⁹ . Hear, all ye people of the land, hear with attention, how ye may obtain salvation from hell, hard to escape! . No one is able to describe it! The thought of money and riches is vain. . All such things are calculated only for this life; let all men observe that this world is not eternal. . The enjoyment of all these goods is but for a short time; for at his death no one can take his riches with him. . He must resign all his garments, ornaments, and health to his kindred; for after that he will have no corporeal form. . Know, all ye people, that after life comes death; and after death, the going to heaven or hell. . Unless you are cleansed from evil, you will not go to heaven; ye will be cast headlong into the awful regions of hell. . What sort of place hell is, or what are its torments, no one knows; no one is able to imagine. . Hell is full of inevitable sufferings, in the midst of fire never to be extinguished; its extinction will never come to pass. . Having fallen into it, brethren, there is then no salvation; its beginning and its duration are of infinite time. . With constant meditation, fear lest hereafter ye fall into this dreadful pit of hell; into that fire which cannot be quenched.

109

Translation by Mr. John Fernandez: THE GOSPEL MESSENGER . Hear, O people of the world, hear with one mind; from hell tremendous, how will you find salvation?³⁰ . None of you are inquiring about these things; incessantly mindful of rupees and cowries.³¹ . All these things are for this world; this is a transitory world; see everyone. . These things are needful only for a short time: after death, riches will never go with you. . You will leave these riches, jewels, apparel behind you: a stop being put to these things, they will be utterly useless. . Having once been born, you know you must die; after death you must go either to heaven or hell. . Without the pardon of sin you will never go to heaven; but headlong you will fall into the thick gloom of hell . What hell is, what torments there are in it, you know not; therefore you are not concerned. . The dreadful hell is full of unquenchable fire; its extinction will never be!³² . Falling therein, brother, there is no deliverance: eternity’s bound will only be its beginning . Fear, lest you fall into this dreadful hell. Beware, O beware of this unquenchable furnace!

 In correspondence with Joshua Marshman, Fuller names the author of this tract as Ram Bashoo; see Andrew Fuller to Joshua Marshman, February 12, 1808, “Andrew Fuller Letters to Joshua Marshman, 1801– 1812” (H/1/2). Ram Bashoo professed faith through the ministry of John Thomas during Thomas’s first stay in India, but Carey and Thomas discovered him in a “backslidden” state when they arrived on the subcontinent in 1793. He recovered his Christian faith but struggled to give up his caste and associated customs. See Francis A. Cox, History of the Baptist Missionary Society. From 1792 to 1842 (BMS) (2 vols.; London: T. Ward and G. & J. Dyer, 1842), 1:93 – 96; Baptist Autographs in the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 1741 – 1845 (transcribed and ed. Timothy D. Whelan; Macon, PA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 69.  Cf. Hebrews 2:3.  A cowry was a shell used as a form of currency in Bengal and throughout the Indian subcontinent.  Cf. Matthew 3:12.

110

Part II

. Form a remedy, O people, form a remedy; for without a remedy ye shall not obtain salvation. . In other Sastras there is not any account of salvation; and yet how many discourses there are upon the rites and ceremonies peculiar to people of different countries. . Both Hindoos and Musulmans have many Sasters; most of which we have examined. . In none of them are to be found the principles of the true salvation; those your Sastras [sic] are fit only for the amusement of children, and your books of philosophy are mere fables. . Formerly we ourselves had only such Sastras; but, having obtained the great Sastra, we flung those away. . The great Sastra of religion contains glad tidings; for in it alone is to be found the way to salvation. . The great Sastra of religion had not appeared here some time since we obtained it [sic], and have now brought it here. . Hear, hear, ye people, hear with due attention! Let him who is willing come, and we will cause it to be read. . Hereafter do ye and your brethren abominate the discourses of barbarians; the Sastras of barbarians contain not the means of salvation. . If you and your brethren wish for the means of salvation, be attentive, and hear somewhat of an example, etc.

. Take refuge in christ, take refuge; without a refuge none will receive salvation.³³ . In other Shasters there is no news of redemption; they contain so many expressions of national rites and customs. . Hindoos and Musulmans have many Shasters; we have investigated them thoroughly. . True search for deliverance (from the wrath to come) there is not in them; children—enticing Shasters they are, like fabulous tales. . Ours were formerly such kind of Shasters; but, finding the great shaster, we threw away the other. . This holy book is the good news of salvation; the way of deliverance is in this alone. . The holy book was not made known here; some time ago we received it, now we have brought it hither. . Hear ye, hear ye, O people, hear with attention! Whosesoever wish it is, come—we will cause you to hear. . Lest you should hereafter call it the barbarian’s (Shaster) and should hate it (this is not the barbarian’s Shaster, but a remedy for your salvation). . A little of its contents we must declare: hear with your mind, if you wish for a remedy.

The writer of the tract then proceeds to give a sketch of Scripture doctrine, etc. The reader will here perceive that, instead of calling them barbarians, and telling them to abominate their barbarian Shasters and discourses, the missionaries merely entreat them not to abominate the Bible as being what they term the Shaster of the M’leeches, or unclean; for so they denominate all who are not of the caste. It was on this account that a brahmin urged another brahmin who had conversed with Mr. Thomas, and thought favourably of him, to go and wash his clothes; for, said he, he is M’leech (or unclean) if not filthy. The other replied, that filthy men did filthy deeds; whereas he could never say so of this Englishman, and he would not go and wash his clothes.³⁴  Cf. Matthew 11:28.  See Periodical Accounts, vol. I, p. 22. [AF]. The relevant passage (PA, 1:22– 23), written by Thomas, is as follows: “This man, having heard of our new Shaster, the Bible, was not a little displeased: and when he understood that the other Brahmin who came in had been to see me, he required of him to go and wash his clothes, for he must be defiled, and would defile, for he had been in the company of

Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”

111

Thus has this tract not only been mistranslated, and its mistranslations largely quoted and descanted upon; but our adversaries have represented its circulation in India as that which must needs have provoked the natives to rise up against the missionaries. It was this that Major Scott Waring alleged as a reason why he should not have wondered if they had thrown them into the Ganges.³⁵ Yet, when the truth comes to be stated, it appears that the inflammatory passages in the tract have been inserted by some unknown person, engaged in the same cause with himself. There is no proof that the tract itself, or any other tract, was ever known to give any such offence to the natives as to cause them to treat the missionaries ill, either in words or actions. I wonder what these men can think of a cause which requires such means to support it; and whether, when thus detected, they be susceptible of shame like other men. It is not enough for them on the authority of an anonymous manuscript translation to accuse the missionaries of calling the natives “barbarians,” etc., but Major Scott Waring must add, “this tract has been profusely circulated amongst the native troops in Bengal”—p. 117. It is impossible for me at this distance to be acquainted with every minute circumstance; but I am almost certain that there is no truth in this statement, and that the missionaries have never gone among the native troops on any occasion. If, however, it be true, let Major Scott Waring prove it. I challenge him to do so by any other testimony than that which, in a great number of instances, has been proved, I presume, to be utterly unworthy of credit. It is owing to such base representations as these, particularly in the pamphlets of Major Scott Waring, that even the friends of Christianity, and of the missionaries, have thought themselves obliged in justice to concede that the latter may have been guilty of indiscretions. It is scarcely possible, while slander is flying about, as in a shower of poisoned arrows, and before they have been repelled, not to have our confidence in some degree wounded. But while I freely acknowledge that there may have been instances of indiscretion (for the missionaries are men), I must insist that neither Mr. Twining, nor Major Scott Waring, nor the Bengal Officer, has substantiated a single charge of the kind. The substance of the Bengal Officer’s remarks may be considered under three heads: namely, the morality of the Hindoo system—the moral character of the Hindoos—and the conduct of the missionaries and of the native Christians.

an Englishman: and it is the common custom of all religious orders among them, to go out of the company of an Englishman or Mahometan, into the river, and immerse their bodies with their clothes on. I have often observed the Brahmins and Pundits do so, after holding any conversation with me. To induce this man to go and wash his clothes, Parbotee urged that I was of the Maleetch, viz. unclean, if not filthy. He replied that filthy men did filthy deeds; whereas he could never say so of this Englishman—and he would not go and wash his clothes.”  “Observations,” Preface, p. lxvi. [AF].

112

Part II

of the morality of the hindoo system. “The religious creed of the Gentoos,” says Professor White, in his Bampton Lectures,³⁶ “is a system of the most barbarous idolatry. They acknowledge indeed one supreme God; yet innumerable are the subordinate deities whom they worship, and innumerable also are the vices and follies which they ascribe to them. With a blindness which has ever been found inseparable from polytheism, they adore, as the attributes of their gods, the wickedness and passions which deform and disgrace human nature; and their worship is, in many respects, not unworthy of the deities who are the objects of it. The favour of beings which have no existence but in the imagination of the superstitious enthusiast, is conciliated by senseless ceremonies and unreasonable mortifications—by ceremonies which consume the time which should be dedicated to the active and social duties, and by mortifications which strike at the root of every lawful and innocent enjoyment. What indeed shall we think of a religion, which supposes the expiation of sins to consist in penances than which fancy cannot suggest anything more rigorous and absurd; in sitting or standing whole years in one unvaried posture; in carrying the heaviest loads, or dragging the most weighty chains; in exposing the naked body to the scorching sun; and in hanging with the head downward before the fiercest and most intolerable fire?”—Sermon 10, p. 12.³⁷ But our author tells a very different tale. He “reposes the Hindoo system on the broad basis of its own merits, convinced that on the enlarged principles of moral reasoning it little needs the meliorating hand of Christian dispensations to render its votaries a sufficiently correct and moral people, for all the useful purposes of civilized society”—p. 9. Could this be proved, it were no solid objection to Christian missions. To argue merely from what is useful to civilized society is to argue as an atheist. Civilized society is not the chief end of man.³⁸ If there be an eternal hereafter, it must be of infinitely greater moment, both to governors and governed, than all the affairs of the greatest empire upon earth. This writer, when pleading the cause of “beggars by profession” (as Major Scott Waring calls the Hindoo byraggees when they have left that profession and become Christians), can allege that religion ought not to be subservient to mere worldly interest (p. 76); but, when his cause requires it, he can turn about, and contend that that which is sufficient for the purposes of civil society is all that is necessary. The cause of God and truth requires that such an atheistical prin-

 Joseph White (1745 – 1814) gave the 1784 Bampton Lectures in the form of ten sermons. The tenth was on Mark 16:15 and was published as On the Duty of Attempting the Propagation of the Gospel among our Mahometan and Gentoo Subjects in India (London: G. and J. Robinson, 1785). White was an Anglican clergyman who later became Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford.  White, On the Duty of Attempting the Propagation of the Gospel. The quotation Fuller deploys is on pp. 39 – 40 of this edition.  The question of what is the chief end of man is the first in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. See the editor’s introduction to this volume.

Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”

113

ciple should be repelled,³⁹ otherwise I should have no objection to meet him even upon this ground, persuaded as I am that whatever is right for another life is wise for this. But let us attend to “the excellence of the religious and moral doctrines of the Hindoos,” as taught in The Institutes of MENU, and in other books.⁴⁰ From these, especially the former, we are furnished with numerous quotations, occasionally interspersed with triumphant questions; such as, “Are these tales for children?”—“Are these the discourses of barbarians?” On the Institutes of Menu, I would offer a few remarks: First, let them possess what excellency they may, they are unknown to the people. The millions of Hindostan have no access to them. Sir William Jones did indeed persuade the brahmins to communicate them to him; and by his translation, and the aid of the press, the European world are now acquainted with them, as well as with other productions to which our author refers us; but to the Hindoo population they are as though they existed not.⁴¹ The lower classes are by their law subjected to penalty for hearing any part of the Vedas read. The young are not taught principles from this work; and it never furnishes a text for discoursing to the adult. There is, indeed, no such thing as moral education, or moral preaching, among the great body of the people. They know far less of the doctrines of Menu than the vulgar pagans of ancient Greece knew of the writings of Plato. It is, therefore, utterly fallacious and disingenuous to quote this work as a standard of opinion or practice among the Hindoo people, seeing it is little more known to the bulk of them than if it had no existence. Secondly, though there are some good sentiments in these Institutes, yet they contain a large portion not only of puerility, but of immorality, which this writer has carefully passed over. Sir William Jones says of the work, that “with many beauties, which need not be pointed out, it contains many blemishes which cannot be justified or palliated. It is a system of despotism and priestcraft, both indeed limited by law, but artfully conspiring to give mutual support, though with mutual checks. It is

 The phrase “the cause of God and truth” echoes the title of the well-known book by the Particular Baptist theologian John Gill. For further details, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  Institutes of Hindu Law; Or, the Ordinances of Menu [Manu…] Comprising the Indian System of Duties, Religious and Civil, Verbally Translated from the Original Sanskrit, with a Preface by Sir William Jones (Calcutta: Printed by Order of the Government/London: J. Sewell and J. Debrett, 1796). This work was published in various editions. Manu means “lawgiver.”  William Jones (1746 – 1794) was a judge at the supreme court at Fort William, Calcutta from 1784 until his death. He was a keen scholar who founded the Asiatic Society in Calcutta in 1784 and published widely on dimensions of “Hindu” culture and language. He represented those whose view of “Hinduism” flowed from an appreciation of its ancient texts rather than observation of popular practice. William Jones, Dissertations and Miscellaneous Pieces Relating to the History and Antiquities, the Arts, Sciences and Literature of Asia (3 vols.; London: G. Nichol, 1792– 96) appears in the list of “Books in Fuller’s Library,” 1798, no. 155, listed as “Asiatic Disserta 3 Vol.” See The Diary of Andrew Fuller, edited by Michael D. McMullen and Timothy D. Whelan (The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller 1; Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2016), appendix A, 226.

114

Part II

filled with strange conceits in metaphysics and natural philosophy, with idle superstitions, and with a scheme of theology most obscurely figurative, and consequently liable to dangerous misconceptions. It abounds with minute and childish formalities, with ceremonies generally absurd, and often ridiculous; the punishments are partial and fanciful; for some crimes dreadfully cruel, for others reprehensibly slight; and the very morals, though rigid enough on the whole, are in one or two instances (as in the case of light oaths, and pious perjury) unaccountably relaxed.”⁴² The following specimen may serve as a proof of the justness of Sir William’s remark, of its being a system of “priestcraft”: Ver. 313. “Let not a king, though in the greatest distress for money, provoke brahmins to anger, by taking their property; for they, once enraged, could immediately, by sacrifices and imprecations, destroy him, with his troops, elephants, horses, and cars.” V. 315. “What prince could gain wealth by oppressing those who, if angry, could frame other worlds, and regents of worlds; could give being to new gods, and mortals?” V. 316. “What man desirous of life would injure those by the aid of whom, that is, by whose oblations, worlds and gods perpetually subsist; those who are rich in the learning of the Vedas?” V. 317. “A brahmin, whether learned or ignorant, is a powerful divinity; even as fire is a powerful divinity, whether consecrated or popular.” V. 318. “Even in places for burning the dead, the bright fire is undefiled; and when presented with clarified butter, or subsequent sacrifices, blazes again with extreme splendour.” V. 319. “Thus, although brahmins employ themselves in all sorts of mean occupation, they must invariably be honoured; for they are something transcendently divine.”⁴³ Our author would persuade us that the “Divine Spirit” is the grand object of Hindoo adoration; but he omitted to tell us that the brahmins are above Him, for that worlds and gods subsist by their oblations, and they can give being to new gods. Any person of common discernment may perceive, by this specimen, that, let these Institutes be of what antiquity they may, they are of brahminical origin; and that, in order to raise this class of men above the control of the civil powers,

 For Fuller’s quotation, see, for example, The Works of William Jones, with the Life of the Author by Lord Teignmouth (13 vols.; London: Stockdale & Walker, 1807), 2:224– 25. It also appears in a number of other places, such as in Asiatick Researches, Or, Transactions of the Society Instituted in Bengal, for Inquiring into the History and Antiquities, the Arts, Sciences, and Literature of Asia (Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1799), 5:ix–x. Jones could be much more positive about the culture and religious practices of India, so Fuller is being selective in what he cites.  Sir William Jones’s Works, Vol. III, pp. 378, 379. [AF.]

Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”

115

they not only give them “divinity,” but elevate them “above all that is called God, or that is worshiped.” Thirdly, even those parts which our author has selected and quoted are very far from being unexceptionable. On the two great subjects of the unity of God, and the expiation of sin, what do the Vedas teach? What ideas are we to attach to the following language? “Equally perceiving the Supreme Soul in all beings, and all beings in the Supreme Soul, he sacrifices his own spirit by fixing it on the Spirit of God; and approaches the nature of that sole Divinity who shines by his own effulgence.” If there be any meaning in this rhapsody, it corresponds with the atheistical jargon of Spinoza, confounding the Creator with the work of his hands.⁴⁴ That which follows is worse: “The Divine Spirit alone is the whole assemblage of gods; all worlds are seated in the Divine Spirit, and the Divine Spirit, no doubt, produces by a chain of causes and effects, consistent with freewill, the connected series of acts performed by embodied souls”—p. 26. Such is their doctrine of “One Supreme Being”! Is then the infinitely glorious God to be not only associated, but identified, with the rabble of heathen deities, all [of] which subsist in the oblations of the brahmins? Is his blessed name to be annihilated and lost in theirs? Better a thousand times were it to make no mention of Him than to introduce Him in such company. Though the last sentence cautiously guards the idea of human agency, so much indeed as to possess the air of modern composition; yet it is certain that the brahmins, on this principle, constantly excuse themselves from blame in all their deeds, as they have frequently alleged to the missionaries that it is not they, but God in them, that performs the evil. What follows is still worse: “We may contemplate the subtle tether in the cavities of his [that is, God’s] body; the air, in his muscular motion and sensitive nerves; the supreme solar and igneous light, in his digestive heat and visual organs: in his corporeal fluid, water; in the terrene parts of his fabric, earth. In his heart, the moon; in his auditory nerves, the guardians of eight regions;⁴⁵ in his progressive motion, vishnu;⁴⁶ in muscular force, hara;⁴⁷ in his organs of speech, agni;⁴⁸ in excretion, mitra;⁴⁹ in procreation, brahma.”⁵⁰ I presume the reader has had enough, and needs no reflections of mine. Let us hear the Vindicator of image worship: “It is true that in general they worship the Deity through the medium of images; and we satisfactorily learn from the Geeta

 Benedict [Baruch] de Spinoza (1632– 1677) was a Dutch Jewish philosopher whose ideas were imbued with early Enlightenment rationalism. A significant philosophical thinker and writer, he was expelled from his synagogue for his radical views.  Eight points of the compass. [AF].  The preserver. [AF].  The destroyer. [AF].  God of fire. [AF].  The sun. [AF].  The creator—p. 27. [AF].

116

Part II

that it is not the mere image, but the invisible Spirit, that they thus worship”—p. 44. And thus from Abulfazel:⁵¹ “They one and all believe in the unity of the Godhead; and although they hold images in high veneration, yet they are by no means idolaters, as the ignorant suppose. I have myself frequently discoursed upon the subject with many learned and upright men of this religion, and comprehend their doctrine; which is, that the images are only representations of celestial beings, to whom they turn themselves while at prayer to prevent their thoughts from wandering; and they think it an indispensable duty to address the Deity after that manner”—p. 47. If this reasoning be just, there never were any idolaters upon earth; for what is said of the Hindoos applies to the worshippers of Baal, and of all other heathen deities. But to call this worshipping the Deity through the medium of images is representing them as connected with Him, when, in fact, they are rivals of him in the hearts of his creatures. The invisible spirit to which their devotions are directed, according to this writer’s own account, is crishna (p. 45);⁵² who is not God, but a deified creature that takes the place of God: a demon, whose character, as drawn even in their own Shasters, is lewd and treacherous. We might know from these their records, even though an apostle had not told us, that “the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to god.” It has been common to speak of the Hindoos as acknowledging one Supreme Being, but as worshipping a number of subordinate deities; and I may have used this language as well as others. The terms supreme and subordinate, however, do not appear to be happily chosen. They might as well be applied to a lawful sovereign and a number of usurpers who had set up the standard of rebellion against him. Whatever subordination there may be among these deities with respect to each other, they are all opposed to the true God. What claims can He have, after those of Chreeshna⁵³ are satisfied, who calls his “the supreme nature, which is superior to all things?”—p. 45. Our author would wish him, no doubt, to be thought an attribute of the true God, or, as he calls him, “the preserving power of the Divinity;” but this he cannot be, for his character is immoral. He must, therefore, be a rival, taking the place of the Divinity. If it be alleged that he is merely an imaginary being, and therefore neither the one nor the other, I answer, while he claims “a supreme nature,” and is worshiped as possessing it, though he be nothing in himself, yet he

 Abulfazel was the prime minister of Ackbar, one of the Mogul emperors in the sixteenth century who, perceiving the ill effects of Mahomedan persecution, endeavoured to reconcile the different religious parties in the empire, and to persuade that of the court to think favourably of that of the country [sic]. [AF]. Abu’l-Fazl ibn Mubarak (1551– 1602), also known as Abul Fazl, was the “grand vizier” or senior ruling official to the Mughal emperor Akbar (1556 – 1605), hence Fuller’s designation of him as “prime minister.” Akbar’s empire stretched over much of the Indian subcontinent. As Fuller states, Abul Fazl sought to encourage Muslims to exhibit tolerance towards the “Hindu” people they were conquering.  “Crishna” is the popular Hindu deity, Krishna.  That is, Krishna.

Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”

117

is something to the worshippers, and answers all the ends of a conscious and active usurper of the throne of God. After this, the reader will not be surprised to hear of “repentance, devotion, and pious austerities,” as the means of expiating sin—pp. 29, 36. We cannot wonder at such notions in benighted pagans; but that a writer who has read the New Testament should think of alleging them, as a recommendation of the system to the favourable regard of Christians, is a proof of his having either never understood what Christianity is, or forgotten it amidst the charms of idolatry. As to what these “devotions and austerities” are, be they what they may, when considered as an expiation of sin, they are worse than nothing. But the truth is, they are neither aimed to propitiate the true God, nor do they consist of anything which he requires at their hands. Such are the excellences of the Hindoo system; such the arguments which the missionaries are challenged to answer; and such the faith which would be thought to erect her standard by the side of reason! Our author, after enumerating these and other glorious principles, asks, with an air of triumph, “What is it that the missionaries propose teaching to the Hindoos?” What is it, in religious concerns, which they do not require to be taught? He allows there are “many reprehensible customs among the Hindoos, the mere offspring of superstition;” but he contends that “they are not enjoined by the Vedas, and are chiefly confined to certain classes”—p. 69. “I have no hesitation,” he says, “in declaring that no branch whatever of their mythology, so far as I understand it, appears to merit, in the smallest degree, the harsh charges of vice and falsehood”—p. 97. Yet, to say nothing of things which it would be indecent to mention, Dr. Buchanan has quoted a number of authorities from their sacred books in favour of the burning of women, and in which such voluntary sacrifices are declared not to be suicide, but, on the contrary, highly meritorious.⁵⁴ And the Institutes of Menu, as Sir William Jones observes, are unaccountably relaxed in regard of light oaths and pious perjury.⁵⁵ But these things, and a hundred more, stand for nothing with our author, whose admiration of the general system leads him to forget, as trifling, all such imperfections. “Wherever I look around me,” he says, “in the vast region of Hindoo mythology, I discover piety in the garb of allegory; and I see morality at every turn, blended with every tale; and, as far as I can rely on my own judgment, it appears the most complete and ample system of moral allegory that the world has ever produced!”—p. 97. How shall we stand against this tide of eloquence? I will transcribe a passage from Dr. Tennant.⁵⁶ “It is curious,” says he, “to observe how the indifference, or rather the dislike, of some old settlers in India, is expressed against the system of  Memoir, p. 96. [AF].  Cf. William Jones’ Works, 2:225.  Rev. Dr. William Tennant was an EIC chaplain who travelled widely in Bengal, as recorded in his Indian Recreations; Consisting Chiefly of Strictures on the Domestic and Rural Economy of the Mahommedans & Hindoos (Edinburgh: G. Stewart, 1804), vol. 1.

118

Part II

their forefathers. It is compared with the Hindoo institutions with an affectation of impartiality, while, in the meantime, the latter system is extolled in its greatest puerilities and follies: its grossest fables are always asserted to convey some hidden but sound lessons of wisdom. They inveigh against the schisms, disputes, and differences of the western world, ascribing them solely to their religious dogmata. They palliate the most fanatical and most painful of the Hindoo rites, and never fail in discovering some salutary influence which they shed upon society. Wrapped up in devout admiration of the beauty and sublimity of the Vedas, they affect to triumph in their supposed superiority over the simplicity of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. This affectation is the more ridiculous, because it is indulged by those who pretend to great taste, and profound knowledge of Sanscrit learning.”⁵⁷ If the Doctor’s performance had not been written before that of the Bengal officer, we should almost have supposed he meant to draw his picture. This author may suppose that a system so good-natured as to concede the Divinity of Christ (p. 50) might be expected to receive some concessions in return; but he had better not attempt a compromise, for the systems cannot agree. If he be a heathen, let him cast in his lot with heathens. Let him, if he should get intoxicated, attend to the recipe of his “divine Menu;” let him, in order “to atone for his offence, drink more spirit in flame till he severely burn his body; or let him drink, boiling hot, until he die, the urine of a cow, or pure water, or milk, or clarified butter, or juice expressed from cow-dung”—p. 41. Let him, if he should be vicious, expect to become a dog, or a cat, or some more despicable creature; or, if he be virtuous, let him hope for his reward in the favour of Chrishna—p. 46. But we are Christians, and have learned another lesson. We have been taught to revere the authority of Him who hath said, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.”⁵⁸ of the moral character of the hindoos. This is a subject of great importance in the present controversy; for if Hindooism produce as good fruits as Christianity, the necessity of attempting the conversion of its votaries must, in a great degree, if not entirely, be set aside. It is a subject, too, in which our author has the advantage of us, as it must be more agreeable to the public mind to think favourably than unfavourably of a great people who form now a component part of the empire. Nothing but truth, and a desire to do them good, can justify us in disputing these favourable accounts.⁵⁹

 Thoughts on the British Government in India, p. 141. Note. [AF]. See William Tennant, Thoughts on the Effects of the British Government on the State of India (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1807), note on pp. 141– 42.  Exodus 20:4– 5.  This is a crucial point if we are to understand Fuller’s (and the trio’s) perspective. The strictures on “Hinduism” appear harsh when we read them today. Yet as far as the BMS personnel were con-

Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”

119

Considering the importance of the subject, and the weight of testimony which our author must be aware he had to encounter, we may suppose he has brought forward all the proof of which he is capable. That the reader may be able to judge on the subject, I will first state the substance of the evidence on the other side, and then inquire what this writer has done towards overturning it. I have already mentioned three or four testimonies in my Letter to the Chairman of the East India Company.⁶⁰ These I shall not repeat. Tamerlane the Great,⁶¹ when about to die, thus addressed his sons and statesmen: “Know, my dear children, and elevated statesmen, that the inhabitant of Hindostan cultivates imposture, fraud, and deception, and considers them to be meritorious accomplishments. Should any person entrust to him the care of his property, that person will soon become only the nominal possessor of it.” “The tendency of this my mandate to you, statesmen, is to preclude a confidence in their actions, or an adoption of their advice.”⁶² “At Benares,” adds Dr. Buchanan, “the fountain of Hindoo learning and religion, where Captain Wilford, author of the Essays on the Indian and Egyptian mythology,⁶³ has long resided in the society of the brahmins, a scene has been lately exhibited which certainly has never had a parallel in any other learned society in the world. “The pundit of Captain Wilford having for a considerable time been guilty of interpolating his books, and of fabricating new sentences in old works, to answer a particular purpose, was at length detected and publicly disgraced. As a last effort to save his character, ‘he brought ten brahmins, not only as his compurgators, but to swear, by what is most sacred in their religion, to the genuineness of the extracts.’⁶⁴ Captain Wilford would not permit the ceremonial of perjury to take place, but dismissed them from his presence with indignation.”⁶⁵

cerned, they were motivated by truth (that is, a belief that the gospel of Christ was universally true for all people, in all places and at all times) and grace (a desire to offer the gospel of God’s love in Christ, which they believed was transformative and was eternally significant). Furthermore, Fuller did not believe Stuart’s own depiction of the culture and practices to be truthful. Finally, the unloving approach for Fuller, Carey, and his colleagues would have been to stand back and do nothing. For them, a commitment to grace and truth necessitated action. For more on this topic, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  See Part 1. [AF].  Timur (also Tamerlane, 1336 – 1405) founded the Timurid Empire in 1370. He was a great military strategist and warrior.  Dr. Buchanan’s Memoir, pp. 113, 114. “Marquis Cornwallis was never known, during his administration in India, to admit a native to his confidence. Under the administration of Marquis Wellesley there is a total exclusion of native counsel.” [AF].  These were published in Asiatic Researches, the journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, from 1799.  Asiatic Researches, vol. VIII, p. 28. [AF].  Francis Wilford (1761– 1822) was an EIC soldier and an Indologist associated with the Asiatic Society of Bengal. He joined the EIC’s service in 1781 but retired as a military engineer in 1794. He remained in India after his retirement and focused on his studies.

120

Part II

Dr. Tennant, late chaplain to his Majesty’s troops in Bengal, has written very explicitly on the subject, not only stating facts, but pointing out their connexion with the system. As his testimony includes the opinions of Sir James M’Intosh,⁶⁶ Sir William Jones, and some other very respectable authorities, and as he himself cannot be accused of any strong predilection for missions, I shall transcribe a few pages from his account. “The native character,” he says, “however amiable in some respects it may appear, is frequently stained with vices directly hostile to society. The crime of perjury, from the great defects of their religious system, is remarkably prevalent, and in many instances renders the execution of justice difficult and impossible.⁶⁷ “The prevalence of this vice,” says Sir James M’Intosh, “which I have myself observed, is perhaps a more certain criterion of a general dissolution of moral principle than other more daring and ferocious crimes, much more terrible to the imagination, and of which the immediate consequences are more destructive to society.”⁶⁸ “Perjury,” adds Dr. Tennant, “indicates the absence of all the common restraints by which men are withheld from the commission of crimes. It is an attack upon religion and law in the very point of their union for the protection of human society. It weakens the foundation of every right, by rendering the execution of justice unattainable. “Sir William Jones,” continues he, “after long judicial experience, was obliged, reluctantly, to acknowledge this moral depravity of the natives of India. He had carried out with him to that country a strong prejudice in their favour, which he had imbibed in the course of his studies, and which in him was perhaps neither unamiable nor ungraceful. This prejudice he could no longer retain against the universal testimony of Europeans, and the enormous examples of depravity among the natives which he often witnessed in his judicial capacity.”⁶⁹ Again, Having described the state of the country previously to its falling into the hands of the British, Dr. Tennant says, “Thus, within the short space of a man’s life, and almost in our own remembrance, the empire of India fell into anarchy and ruin; not from the external violence of foreign enemies, but from the inveteracy and extent of corruption which pervaded the whole of its members.”⁷⁰ Again, “The boasted humanity of the Hindoo system, to all sentient beings, is but ill supported, when we come to a close examination of the customs which it toler-

 Sir James Mackintosh (1765 – 1832) was a Scottish politician and historian. He was a judge in Bombay (Mumbai) from 1804 to 1811.  Fuller explicitly indicates that he is drawing Mackintosh’s quotations and Jones’s reflections directly from Tennant’s own Indian Recreations: Consisting of Thoughts on the Effects of the British Government on the State of India, Accompanied with Hints Concerning the Means of Improving the Condition of the Natives of that Country (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1808), vol. 3. For this paragraph, see p. 54.  Cf. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3:54.  Thoughts on the British Government in India, p. 54. [AF]. Cf. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3:54– 55.  Ibid. 77. [AF]. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3:172.

Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”

121

ates, the precepts which it enjoins, or the actual conduct of its votaries. Though it be admitted that some of the above horrid customs are a violation of their written code, yet there are other practices equally shocking to which it affords its immediate sanction. The public encouragement held out to aged pilgrims who drown themselves in the Ganges, under the notion of acquiring religious merit, is equally repugnant with the practice already noticed to reason and humanity. No less than four or five persons have been seen drowning themselves at one time, with the view of performing a religious sacrifice of high value in their own estimation, and that of many thousands who attend this frightful solemnity. The recommendation given to a favourite wife to burn herself on the same funeral pile with the dead body of her husband affords not an infrequent spectacle of deliberate cruelty, which cannot, perhaps, be equalled in the whole annals of superstition.⁷¹ “The cruel treatment of the sick, the aged, and dying, if not a precept, is a practical result of this degrading system, far more universal than any of those already mentioned; it is of a nature which the most moderate share of humanity would prompt any person to use very zealous efforts to remedy. As soon as any mortal symptoms are discovered in the state of a patient by his physician, or by his relations, he is, if in Bengal, removed from his bed, and carried to the brink of the Ganges, where he is laid down with his feet and legs immersed in the river: there, instead of receiving from his friends any of the tender consolations of sympathy, to alleviate the pain of his departing moments, his mouth, nose, and ears are stuffed with clay, or wet sand, while the by-standers crowd close around him, and incessantly pour torrents of water upon his head and body. It is thus, amidst the convulsive struggles of suffocation, added to the agony of disease, that the wretched Hindoo bids farewell to his present existence, and finally closes his eyes upon the sufferings of life.⁷² “But waving these particular usages, some of which are perhaps abuses which have sprung out of their primitive institutions, it may be contended, on good grounds, that the general spirit of the system has itself a tendency, in many instances, to promote ignorance and encourage vice.⁷³ “In the Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire, Mr. Orme has presented the public with a laborious and detailed exposition of all those defects of the Hindoo system.⁷⁴ The author, in this work, conveys no very favourable impression of the Indian character; but his ideas are the result of personal observation; they are clear, forcible, and correct. Towards the close of his interesting disquisition, he thus

 Cf. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3:250.  Cf. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3:251.  Cf. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3:252.  Robert Orme (1728 – 1801) entered the EIC’s service in Bengal in 1743. He returned to England in 1760 and was appointed official historian of the EIC in 1769. See his Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire, of the Morattoes, and of the English Concerns in Indostan (London: F. Wingrave, 1805 [1782]). This 1805 edition also includes a short life of the author.

122

Part II

sums up the general impression which the subject left upon his mind. ‘Having brought to a conclusion this Essay on the Government and People of Hindostan, I cannot refrain from making the reflections which so obviously arise from the subject. Christianity vindicates all its glories, all its honours, and all its reverence, when we behold the most horrid impieties avowed amongst the nations on whom its influence does not shine, as actions necessary in the common conduct of life; I mean poisonings, treachery, and assassination, among the sons of ambition; rapine, cruelty, and extortion, in the ministers of justice. I leave divines to vindicate, by more sanctified reflections, the cause of their religion and of their God.’⁷⁵ “The Hindoo system makes little or no provision for the instruction of the great body of the people; a defect the more remarkable when we advert to the number and authority of its priesthood, and the great multiplicity and size of its sacred volumes. Their Vedas, Poorans, and other books held sacred, contain, it is said, a copious system of sound morality; and, from the specimens already translated, this must be partly admitted; but the truths contained in these writings are almost totally obscured and rendered useless by a vast mixture of puerile fictions and frivolous regulations. And, besides, the canonical books of the Hindoos have always been regarded as a bequest too sacred to be committed to vulgar hands; to the far greater part of the community their perusal is strictly forbidden; closely guarded in the archives of the learned, to the great body of the people they remain, in the most emphatic sense, ‘a dead letter.’⁷⁶ “Of the ceremonies of Brahminism, some are showy, many are absurd, and not a few both indecent and immoral. Its temples were formerly in some districts richly endowed; they are represented by all travellers as maintaining a number of priests, and, what seems peculiar, a number of women consecrated to this service, who are taught to sing and dance at public festivals in honour of the gods. The voluptuous indolence in which they are destined to spend their lives renders them totally useless to society; while the indecency of their manners gives room to suspect that they may injure it by their example.⁷⁷ “The temples themselves, which in other countries excite sentiments of reverence and devotion, are in India plenished with images of fecundity, and of creative power, too gross for description. Similar representations are also displayed by those images which, at certain times, are drawn through the streets amidst the dancing, noise, and acclamations of the multitude. The ruth jatra, or riding of the gods, is a ceremony at once cruel and indecent. The carriages on which their deities are then placed are of immense height, and supported on sixteen wheels; the whole drawn along by thousands of fanatics, some of whom fall down before these wheels,

 Cf. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3: note on p. 252. Cf. Orme, Historical Fragments, 10:454.  Cf. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3:253.  Cf. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3:257.

Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”

123

and, being instantly crushed, are, as they believe, put in possession of immortal bliss.⁷⁸ “It would be perhaps rash, after all, to affirm that the Hindoos are immoral and depraved in a degree proportioned to the melancholy extent of their superstitious system, though their minds are strongly withdrawn by it from feeling the due weight of moral obligations. Those [however] who are concerned in the police know well the frequency of fraud, robbery, and murder, as well as the great number of delinquents which have always rendered the prisons more crowded than any other habitations in India. It has not been from them, nor indeed from any class of men intimately acquainted with their manners, that the Hindoo character has received so many encomiums for its innocence and simplicity.”⁷⁹ Speaking of their wandering religious devotees, he says, “Mr. Richardson,⁸⁰ author of the Persian and Arabic Dictionary,⁸¹ has characterized these vagrants, under the article Fakeer, in the following manner: ‘In this singular class of men, who in Hindostan despise every sort of clothing, there are a number of enthusiasts, but a far greater proportion of knaves; every vagabond who has an aversion to labour being received into a fraternity which is regulated by laws of a secret and uncommon nature. The Hindoos view them with a wonderful respect, not only on account of their sanctified reputation, but from a substantial dread of their power. The fakeer pilgrimages often consist of many thousands of naked saints, who exact, wherever they pass, a general tribute; while their character is too sacred for the civil power to take cognizance of their conduct.’”⁸² Many other testimonies might be produced. If the reader wish to see them systematically stated, he may find much to his purpose in Cuninghame’s Christianity in India, Chap. II.⁸³ We have now to examine what our author has advanced on the other side. Has he attempted to weaken this body of evidence, or to overcome it by testimonies more

 Cf. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3:258  Cf. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3:260 – 61.  John Richardson (1740/41– 1795) was a fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society. His Dictionary was the first Persian–Arabic–English dictionary to be published. See P. J. Marshall, “Richardson, John” [styled Sir John Richardson, ninth baronet], Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/23563.  John Richardson, A Dictionary, Persian, Arabic and English: With a Dissertation on the Languages, Literature, and Manners of Eastern Nations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1777). Richardson’s work went through multiple editions. The quotation Tennant (and then Fuller) deployed is part of the definition of Fakir. See the revised edition (London: Bulmer and Co., 1806), 1:102.  Thoughts on the British Government in India, I IX, X. [AF]. Tennant, Indian Recreations, 3:239 – 40.  John W. Cunningham (1780 – 1861) was an evangelical Anglican clergyman who was a close friend of Charles Grant and a prominent supporter of both the CMS and the BFBS. The book Fuller refers to is Christianity in India: An Essay on the Duty, Means, and Consequences, of Introducing the Christian Religion among the Native Inhabitants of the British Dominions in the East (London: J. Hatchard, 1808). See DEB, 1:280 – 81.

124

Part II

numerous or more credible? Neither the one nor the other. He takes no notice of anything that has been said by others; not even by Dr. Buchanan, though he was professedly answering his Memoir. And as to the testimonies which he produces, lo, they are Two … viz. himself and abulfazel! From his own knowledge he writes many things. He resided in India many years; has been much acquainted with the people; has gone into their temples, and never saw anything indecent in them; has entrusted money and liquors to a great amount in the hands of Hindoo servants, and never found them unfaithful—but stop: we know not who this witness is: we cannot admit of anonymous testimony. No man, while he withholds his name from the public, has a right to expect credit any further than what he advances may recommend itself. I must take leave, therefore, to set down all that he has related from his own knowledge as nugatory. Let us examine the next witness. Abulfazel might be a great and enlightened statesman, and might be aware that the persecutions carried on against the Hindoos in the preceding reigns were impolitic as well as cruel. He might wish to praise them into attachment, and to soften the antipathies of the Mahomedans against them. Hence he might endeavour to persuade the latter that the former were “not idolaters,” but, like themselves, “believers in one God, and withal a very amiable and good sort of people.” But whatever proof this may afford of Abulfazel ’s talents for governing, the truth of his statements requires to be confirmed by more disinterested testimony; and where the whole current of European experience is against it, it can be of no account. The reader will draw the inference, that the evidence of Hindoo depravity is not weakened in the least degree by anything this writer has advanced. of the conduct of the missionaries and the native christians. On this part of the subject our author is less profuse than his predecessor. There are a few passages in his performance, however, which require notice. He says, “If the conduct of the missionaries has here so unwisely forced itself on the attention of the public, and thus rendered them obnoxious to the displeasure of our government in the East, in having, unsanctioned by its authority, assumed the dangerous province of attempting to regulate the consciences of its native subjects, to the manifest tendency of disturbing that repose and public confidence that forms at this moment the chief security of our precarious tenure in Hindostan—if men, thus labouring for subsistence in their vocation, and under the necessity of making converts at any rate, in order to insure the continuance of their allowances and the permanency of their missions, rashly venture to hurl the bigot anathema of intolerance at the head of the ‘barbarian Hindoos,’ and unadvisedly to vilify the revered repositories of their faith—we may find some colour of excuse in the seeming necessity under which they act; but that a member of the English Church,” etc.—pp. 3, 4. On this tedious sentence, or rather part of a sentence, I would offer a few remarks: 1) If the conduct of the missionaries has been forced on the attention of the public, it is their adversaries that have forced it. Nothing has been done by them or their friends but in self-defence. 2) I do not understand how the private re-

Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”

125

quest of the governor-general for Mr. Carey and his colleagues, at a certain critical period, to desist from preaching to the natives, can be attributed to displeasure, when the acting magistrates who delivered the message acknowledged that “they were well satisfied with the character and deportment of the missionaries, and that no complaints had ever been lodged against them.” 3) If, at the first outset, their undertaking was not sanctioned by authority, and if on that account they settled in the Danish territory; yet government, having known them, and being satisfied that they acted not from contumacy,⁸⁴ but from the most pure, upright, and peaceable principles, has always been friendly to them. Under the administration of Marquis Wellesley they lived secure. 4) There never was an idea of their labours disturbing the confidence which the natives place in the British government, till European adversaries suggested it. 5) The missionary labour of the men referred to is not for their own subsistence; nor do they subsist by “allowances” from England. At all times this has not been the case; but, at present, the remittances sent from this country are for another use. It is by their own literary labours that they subsist, which not only supply their wants, but enable them to devote a surplus for the propagation of the gospel. Did they act from mercenary motives, they might lay by their thousands, and return, as well as their accusers, in affluence to their native country. 6) If “the bigot anathema of intolerance,” which this writer endeavours to hurl at the missionaries, hurt them no more than theirs does the Hindoos, there is no cause for alarm. But who could have imagined that an address to the conscience could have been represented as “assuming to regulate it;” and that a writer with the cant of toleration in his mouth could advocate the cause of intolerance? This author tells us of “a circumstance having recently come to his knowledge, that exhibits proof superior to a hundred arguments of the impropriety and dangerous consequences of injudicious interference with the Hindoos on the score of their religion”—p. 54. This “circumstance” must surely, then, be of importance, especially at a time when arguments are so scarce. And what is it? A native of Calcutta had lost caste; he went to one of the missionaries, and was immediately baptized; soon after this he became a preacher; in addressing his countrymen, he provoked their resentment; and, after being assaulted with clods and brick-bats, narrowly escaped with his life. But here I must again take the liberty of reminding the gentleman that he is out of his province. An anonymous writer has no business to obtrude himself as a witness, but merely as a reasoner. I know the first part of this story to be a fabrication, and I suspect the whole to be one; but, whether any part of it be true or not, it makes nothing for his argument. He might with equal justice accuse the missionaries of having been assaulted by him, and his friend the Major, with a volley of foul abuse.

 A stubborn, wilful refusal to comply with legal authority.

126

Part II

All our opponents declaim on the danger of tolerating missionaries, and urge the necessity of an immediate suppression of their labours.⁸⁵ Yet I cannot learn that the Hindoos, as a body, are an intolerant people. There may be, and doubtless are, exceptions; but in general I have always understood that in this respect they differ widely from the Mahomedans. And if this be true, how can they be offended with government for being of the same mind? Were they themselves an intolerant people, it might be expected that a government, to be acceptable to them, must not only protect them in the exercise of their own religion, but persecute all who might endeavour to convince or persuade them to relinquish it. Such is exactly the line of conduct which our opponents mark out for the British government in India: but the Hindoos appear to desire no such thing; and if they did, who does not perceive that it would be mean and degrading for any government in this manner to render itself the instrument of their intolerance? Whether, therefore, these men, in urging such advice on the different departments of the British government, consult their honour, or their own inclination, let those high authorities decide. Such is the modesty of this writer, that he allows “it would not perhaps become him to assume the province of dictating the means of suppressing these missionaries;” but he makes no scruple of asserting that “the government in India stands pledged to the honourable Company, and to the empire at large, by every sense of imperious duty and by every consideration of safety to our countrymen abroad, by the most prompt and decisive interposition of their authority” to suppress them. He is also so good as to inform the government with what facility it may be effected, inasmuch as the Danish settlement of Serampore is now [probably] under our immediate control—p. 170. If government, whether in England or in India, be of the opinion that the accusers of these missionaries have substantiated their charges against them, they can be at no loss for the means of suppressing them; but if they should think it right to wait for better evidence than has yet appeared, I hope they may stand acquitted of violating their pledge either to the honourable Company or the empire at large.⁸⁶

 Fuller has surely identified the practical thrust uniting the mission’s otherwise diverse opponents: the recall of the missionaries is what Twining, Scott Waring, and Stuart were each aiming for. It was this possibility which provoked Fuller to publish.  In the original 1808 publications, a further pamphlet by a different author was included, bound at the back of Part II. Fuller introduced the piece thus: “After having written the above [i. e., his own Part II], the author received the following remarks from a gentleman deeply versed in Oriental literature, with a permission to make what use of them he thought proper. He conceives that he cannot do better than give them to his reader as they are” (Fuller, Apology, Part II, 80). The short pamphlet, which was printed anonymously, is entitled Audi Et Alteram Parlem, Or, A Few Cursory Remarks on a Pamphlet Recently Published, Entitled “A Vindication of the Hindus.” It is located on pages 81– 129 of both copies of the Apology held in the Angus Library. The author mounts a strong attack on Part I of Stuart’s Vindication. The identity of the anonymous author is revealed as “Adam Clarke” in the letter Fuller wrote to William Ward on July 16, 1809, which mentions “Adam Clarke’s piece in the II part of my Apology” (see “Fuller Letters to Ward”). Although Fuller provides no further in-

Section II: Remarks on “A Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer”

127

formation, this is almost certainly the Wesleyan Methodist theologian and biblical scholar Adam Clarke (1762?–1832), best known as the author of a multi-volume commentary on the Bible from a Wesleyan perspective (8 vols; 1810 – 1826). Clarke was a diligent scholar who was accomplished in a wide range of languages, including Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit. He was also a member of the Royal Asiatic Society. For additional biographical details, see An Account of the Religious and Literary Life of Adam Clarke (ed. Joseph B. B. Clarke; 3 vols.; London: T. S. Clarke, 1833), which is part autobiography, part family reminiscence. In Fuller’s letter to Ward there is evidence that Fuller had come to regret inserting Clarke’s piece after his own in Part II of the Apology. Specifically, he now believed some of Clarke’s lurid descriptions of certain religious practices were “too bad” and indeed “obscene.” For the sort of language Fuller most likely had in mind, see Audi Et Alteram Parlem p. 114, and the reference to “phallic mysteries,” with the comment: “Roman matrons were accustomed to wear their priapi in their bosoms.” The suspicion must be that Fuller had not properly checked Clarke’s short pamphlet before handing it to his publisher, J. W. Morris, for inclusion alongside his own work. Here is further evidence that the BMS secretary was producing the Apology under great pressure. Why was the tract published anonymously? It may be that Clarke had asked for anonymity. However, it is also possible that Fuller, who was not enthusiastic about Wesley or Wesleyan Methodism, did not want to publicize the fact that Clarke was the author.

Part III “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, unto the end of the world. Amen.” — Jesus christ¹

Preface It appears to be the design of Providence, by a succession of events, to effect a more marked distinction between the friends and enemies of religion than has, of late years, subsisted. Through a variety of causes they have long been confounded. As though there were no standard for either side to repair to, they have each mingled with the other in a sort of promiscuous mass. The effect of this junction has been more unfavourable to the cause of Christ than to that of his adversaries; for as holy things would not communicate holiness, but unclean things would communicate uncleanness (Hag. 2:12– 13), so it has been in respect to these commixtures. Ungodly men who have had to do with holy things have not thereby become holy; but godly men who have had to do with unclean things have thereby become unclean. Hence it appears to be the will of God, by his inscrutable providence, to effect a closer union among Christians, and a more marked separation between them and their adversaries. As though some decisive conflict were about to take place, the hosts on each side seem to be mustering for the battle.² The French revolution (that mighty shaking of the church and of the world) has been productive of this among other effects. Great numbers, who had before passed as Christians, perceiving infidelity to be coming into fashion, avowed their unbelief.³ Christians, on the other hand, of different denominations, felt a new motive to unite in defence of the common faith in which they were agreed.⁴ The same effect has been produced by the sending out of missions to the heathen. The effort itself excited a correspondence of feeling, a communication of senti-

 Matthew 28:18 – 20.  There are echoes here of Fuller’s postmillennial eschatology and his conviction that God is working providentially, with a great spiritual battle ahead, which the “godly,” newly united, will win.  Many of these, however, when the rage of French principles began to abate, perceiving that they had mistaken the road to preferment, turned about, and assumed to be the patrons of rational and orthodox Christianity! [AF].  For some comments on the evangelical ecumenism which (to a degree) accompanied the new wave of missionary voluntaryism, see Peter J. Morden, The Life and Thought of Andrew Fuller (1754 – 1815) (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2015), 167– 68, 201– 2. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110420487-006

Preface

129

ment, and a unity of action, and that to a great extent; and now that success has, in some measure, attended it, it has drawn against it a host of adversaries. As the assembling of Israel before the Lord in Mizpeh (1 Sam. 7), though they had neither sword nor spear among them, excited the jealousy of the Philistines, and drew forth their armies in the hope of crushing them at the outset, so it is at this day. It is remarkable what a tendency the genuine exercises of true religion have to manifest the principles of men, and to draw them into a union, either on the side of Christ, or on that of his adversaries. You may now perceive deists, Socinians, and others who retain the form of Christianity, but deny the power, naturally falling into their ranks on one side, and serious Christians, almost forgetting their former differences, as naturally uniting on the other. I question whether there ever was a controversy, since the days of the apostles, in which religion and irreligion were more clearly marked, and their respective adherents more distinctly organized. But is it Christianity that they attack? O no! It is Methodism, Calvinism, fanaticism, or sectarianism, etc. And is it a new thing for the adversaries of religion to attack it under other names? Was it ever known that they did otherwise? The apostle Paul was not accused as a zealous promoter of the true religion, but as a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedition, and a ringleader of an obnoxious sect.⁵ Unless we wish to be imposed upon by names instead of things, we can be at no loss to perceive that the prime object of their attack is the religion of the new testament. Among those who contribute their aid in this important struggle, we shall find the Edinburgh Reviewers just now coming forward.⁶ It is one of the professed objects of these editors to “use their feeble endeavours in assisting the public judgment on those topics to which its attention was actually directed.” The attack on missions is preceded by one on Methodism;⁷ for it would have been imprudent to have fallen abruptly upon the subject. Under this general term, the Reviewer professes to include, in one undistinguished mass, “the sentiments of the Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists, and of the evangelical clergymen of the Church of England”! These he describes as three classes of fanatics, very good subjects indeed, but “engaged in one general conspiracy against common sense and rational orthodox Christianity”!⁸

 See, for example, Acts 16:19 – 24; 17:5; 19:23 – 41.  The Edinburgh Review was a significant nineteenth-century periodical. Its “reviewers” were all Whig sympathizers. The nineteenth-century novelist and commentator Margaret Oliphant described the Edinburgh Review as the “first-born of modern periodicals.” See Dictionary of Nineteenth-century Journalism in Great Britain and Ireland (ed. Laurel Brake and Marysa Demoor; London: British Library/Academia, 2009), 190 – 91, here 190. See also the editor’s introduction to this volume.  No. XXII, p. 341. [AF].  The Edinburgh Review, or Critical Journal 11, no. 22 (Edinburgh: Archibald Constable & Co., 1808), 141– 42. The lengthy “Review” (pp. 341– 62) is ostensibly discussing Robert A. Ingram, Causes of the Increase of Methodism and Dissension, although Ingram’s work is hardly mentioned in the sustained attack on “Methodism.” The review was published anonymously, but it appears in Sydney Smith’s Essays Social and Political (London: n.p., 1877), 306 – 27, and there is no doubt that Smith was the author. For biographical details on Smith, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.

130

Part III

These fanatics are denounced as maintaining “the absurd notions of a universal providence, extending not only to the rise and fall of nations, but to the concerns of individuals; the insufficiency of baptism, and of a participation in the customary worship of the country, without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, to denominate men Christians;” and what is worse, it seems, as “making a marked and dangerous division of mankind into the godly and the ungodly”!⁹ The party seems to be extending too; and where it will end the Reviewer cannot tell, nor whether the evil admits of any cure. “All mines and subterraneous places belong to them; they creep into hospitals, and small schools, and so work their way upwards. They beg all the little livings, particularly in the north of England, from the ministers for the time being; and from these fixed points they make incursions upon the happiness and common sense of the vicinage.” The Reviewer “most sincerely deprecates such an event; but it will excite in him no manner of surprise, if a period arrive when the churches of the sober and orthodox part of the English clergy are completely deserted by the middling and lower classes of the community.” They have not only made “an alarming inroad into the church,” but are “attacking the army and the navy. The principality of Wales, and the East India Company, they have already acquired.”¹⁰ And what is more still, they have made their way into “the legislature; and by the talents of some of them, and the unimpeached excellence of their characters, render it probable that fanaticism will increase rather than diminish”!¹¹ What is to be done with these fanatics? Truly, the Reviewer does not know. He “cannot see what is likely to impede the progress” of their opinions. He is not wanting in goodwill, but what can he do! He “believes them to be very good subjects; and has no doubt but that any further attempt upon their religious liberties, without reconciling them to the church, would have a direct tendency to render them disaffected to the state.”¹² He thinks “something may, perhaps, be done in the way of ridicule;”¹³ but ridicule in some men’s hands becomes itself ridiculous. Ah, well may these Reviewers talk of their “feeble endeavours in assisting the public judgment”!¹⁴ They have gleaned from the Methodist¹⁵ and Evangelical Maga-

 Edinburgh Review 11, no. 22, 361.  Edinburgh Review 11, no. 22, 361.  Edinburgh Review 11, no. 22, 361. Fuller is paraphrasing slightly here, while retaining the sense of what is said in the review.  Edinburgh Review 11, no. 22, 341.  Edinburgh Review 11, no. 22, 361.  Edinburgh Review 11, no. 22, 430.  The Methodist Magazine began as the Arminian Magazine in 1778, adopting the title Methodist Magazine in 1798. It carried significant information on overseas mission. See Dictionary of Nineteenth-century Journalism, 670.

Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet

131

zines¹⁶ a portion of real weakness and absurdity, though several of their extracts are such only in their opinion; and with this, by their comments, they have mixed a larger portion of misrepresentation. The best use that the editors of those publications can make of the critique will be to be more cautious than they have been in some instances; but, while they pluck up the weeds, there is no need to plant the deadly nightshade in their place. The Reviewer proposes in a subsequent number to write an article on “Missions.” By the foregoing specimen we can be at no loss what to expect at his hand.¹⁷ It has been said of the Edinburgh Review that, “with a greater force of writing than the Monthly, it unites at least an equal rancour against genuine Christianity, without that suspicion of Socinian and sectarian bias under which the other labours; while the barbarity, insolence, and pride, which it displays in almost all its criticisms, is sufficient to give it a prominence amongst the works of darkness.”¹⁸ An attack on missions, from such a quarter, if not to their honour, cannot be to their dishonour, and if made by the writer of this article especially, will, it is hoped, produce no ill effects.

Section I Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet The present performance is of a piece with this author’s other productions. The quantity of repetition surpasses anything that I have been used to meet with in writers of the most ordinary talents. The foul spirit which pervades it is much the same, upon the whole, as heretofore. It is true, there is much less acrimony towards many of his opponents; but what is taken from them is laid upon the missionaries. The title of it might have been, War with the Missionaries, and Peace with All the World Besides.  The Evangelical Magazine was a monthly periodical which first appeared in 1793. In its early years it brought together Anglicans and Dissenters, carrying articles and reviews from both, and had a particular focus on evangelistic mission. See Dictionary of Nineteenth-century Journalism, 208.  This is a significant statement, as it indicates that Fuller had not seen this piece, which was published in April 1808, before he penned this sentence. In the editor’s introduction to this volume, I argue on the basis of comments in Fuller’s letters that Part II of the Apology was not published until the late summer of 1808. So how can his comment here be explained? It is of course possible the BMS secretary had simply not seen Smith’s article before he published his own work, despite it already being in print. Alternatively, he may not have had the time or the appetite to revise his own work in the light of the second “Review.” Fuller was right to be apprehensive about Smith’s writing on overseas mission. The “Anabaptist missions,” the reviewer declared, were “pernicious” and “extravagant” (see “Publications Respecting Indian Missions,” Edinburgh Review 12 [Edinburgh: Constable, April 1808], 151– 81, here 180). “Anabaptist,” i. e., “rebaptizer,” was a term of abuse. Smith would later describe the missionaries as a “nest of consecrated cobblers,” a snide reference to Carey’s former trade as a shoemaker. See Works of the Rev. Sydney Smith in Three Volumes (London: Longman, Orme et al., 1839), 1:185.  I have been unable to locate the source of this quotation.

132

Part III

The remarks on the critique of The Christian Observer are so many advances for a separate peace.¹⁹ The same may be said of his compliments to the members of the Church of Scotland, to the Arminian Methodists, to the United Brethren, and to all indeed who have not sent missionaries to India. He has found some difficulty, however, in ranking under this head the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, whom he will not allow to have sent out any missionaries to India, but merely to have given pecuniary assistance; and that only, it seems, in former times. Their own Reports, however, speak a different language; they express their desire of sending missionaries, provided any could be found to be sent. The sum is, our author and his party are aware of their having erred in their first attack. By making it on so extended a scale, they shocked the feelings of the Christian world, and drew upon themselves their united and indignant censures. But what is to be done? Having committed an error, they must repair it as well as they are able; and there is no way of doing this but by endeavouring to divide their opponents. With all his antipathy to the evangelical clergy, the Major would make peace with them, and grant them almost any terms, so that they would be neutrals in his war of extermination against the missionaries. Having requested a friend in town to furnish the Major with the first part of my “Apology,”²⁰ he had no sooner dipped into it than he proclaimed in his preface that I had “put beyond the possibility of future doubt the correctness of his private information;” that is, by publishing Mr. Carey’s letter, in which he speaks of alarms which had been spread through India. After this no person, he presumes, will venture to say that an alarm was not spread through India in 1806 and 1807, relative to missionaries —p. vi. But whoever denied that an alarm was spread among Europeans throughout India? I knew that at each of the three presidencies these alarms had been industriously circulated, and strange reports added to them, as that the missionaries, or at least Mr. Carey, were imprisoned, etc. etc. It was of these alarms that I understood and still understand Mr. Carey to have written, and not any which were entertained by the native population of India, which is the point that our author’s private information aims to establish. From the date of the Vellore mutiny, there can be no doubt of alarms having existed throughout the country among Europeans; and, in Mr. Carey’s opinion, so far as they related to the plans of Christian missionaries, they

 See “Review of Major Scott Waring on Missions to India,” Christian Observer, 8 (Jan 1808), 45 – 62. Scott Waring’s response was, “Remarks on the Review of Major Scott Waring’s Two Pamphlets, in the Last Number of the Christian Observer, Subjoined to ‘A Reply to a Letter Addressed to John Scott Waring, Esq., &c.’” A copy of the latter work has not been traced. Scott Waring was now concentrating his fire almost exclusively on the BMS missionaries, whereas his previous attacks had been more wideranging. This focus on the BMS probably made Fuller feel he had to respond to Scott Waring once again. For further details, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  This is a further indication that Part I was published separately, before parts II and III appeared. See the editor’s introduction to this volume.

Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet

133

were fabricated by deists, who availed themselves of that and other circumstances to answer an end. He adds, “On the 13th of Feb. 1807, Mr. Carey writes, A number of persons were preparing to embark for Europe with a view to spread the alarm at home.” Mr. Carey writes no such thing. Whatever merit or demerit there may be in that paragraph, it belongs to the apologist, and not to Mr. Carey. This, if our author had been a little less in a hurry, he must have perceived. Mr. Carey, instead of having communicated it, is supposed not to be aware of it. And though it is there intimated that a number of persons were at that time preparing to embark, with a view to spread the alarms at home, yet it was never imagined that this was their sole view in returning to Europe.²¹ There is no difficulty in understanding the Major, when he suggests that Mr. Carey must have included the governor of Ceylon,²² and the governor-general and council of Bengal,²³ among the deists who swarm in India, “because they have very effectually opposed the plans of the missionaries”—p. viii. Of the former I have heard nothing, except from our author, and therefore hope it may resemble many other things of his communicating. And as to the latter, if any such effectual opposition has been made as he appears to hope for, it is unknown to me. But if it have, it is no new thing for deists so far to conceal their motives as to influence public measures, even those in which men of very different principles preside. I have no inclination to follow this writer through one-tenth of his wranglings and repetitions; nor is there any need of it. It will be sufficient if, after a few general remarks, I answer his most serious charges against the missionaries. The Major intimates, that if his assertion of Mr. Ward’s having impiously perverted a passage of the holy gospel could be disproved, that were coming to an issue— p. 22. If it were in the power of evidence to convince him on this subject, he would be convinced by what is alleged by The Christian Observer. ²⁴ But the truth is, as Dr. Johnson is said to have bluntly expressed it, in answering an ignorant opponent, “We may offer evidence, but we cannot furnish men with understanding.”²⁵

 This is one of the most obvious examples of Scott Waring’s inability to grasp details.  The governor of Ceylon from 1805 to 1811 was Thomas Maitland (1760 – 1824), and presumably Scott Waring was referring to Maitland. He was certainly no friend to evangelical faith and clashed with missionaries he encountered.  The governor general at the time of writing was Minto. After the “Persian pamphlet” affair, his attitude towards the missionaries appears to have softened. For further details, see the editor’s introduction to this volume. A range of views would have been expressed within the council.  The Christian Observer was an evangelical Anglican periodical, closely associated in its early years with members of the Clapham Sect. It first appeared in 1802.  “Dr. Johnson” is Samuel Johnson (1709 – 1784), the literary critic and lexicographer. His Dictionary of the English Language (1755) is arguably the most influential English dictionary ever printed. Fuller appears to have misquoted Johnson slightly. James Boswell’s famous Life of Samuel Johnson (London: H. Baldwin, 1791), 2:514, records Johnson as saying: “I have found you an argument, I am not obliged to find you an understanding.”

134

Part III

It is still persisted in that missions, or Bibles, sent into a country where we had engaged to preserve to them the free exercise of religion, amount to a violation of the public faith—p. 8. The free exercise of one religion then, it seems, is inconsistent with the free offer of another. The next proposal to government may be for the silencing of Protestant Dissenters; for so long as they are allowed to preach in the country, the members of the National Church, according to his reasoning, have not the free exercise of their religion. When converts to Christianity are mentioned, the Major calls out, “Where are they? Who are they? I can find no account of them in the Missionary Reports”— p. 18. He speaks, however, in another place, of the “nonsense that we may read in the Missionary Reports relative to the success of the missionaries in making numerous converts to Christianity”—p. 33. If he has read the last four or five Reports of “the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,” he must there have met with the largest portion of this kind of nonsense that has appeared of late years, particularly in the communications of Mr. Gericke.²⁶ And as he has examined the “Baptist Periodical Accounts,” he cannot have overlooked the list of the baptized in No. XV, down to Nov. 1804.²⁷ He must there have seen several brahmins among them, and also several Mahomedans, and consequently have known his private accounts to be unfounded. But perhaps he will answer, as in p. 73, “This is an atrocious falsehood.” We leave the reader to judge from what has been said, and what may yet be said, to whom the charge of falsehood belongs. Meanwhile, if our author be determined to disbelieve the accounts, let him disbelieve them; but let him not say they are not to be found in the Missionary Reports, and at the same time accuse those Reports of nonsense for relating them! It is remarkable with what facility the Major picks up the discordant principles of other men, and sews them together in a sort of patch-work. One while²⁸ the bishop of St. Asaph seemed to be his oracle; now the barrister is everything. Getting hold of him he can mimic the Socinian, and declaim against John Calvin. The bishop of St. Asaph would have censured him for traducing Calvin, for whom he professed a high respect. But when a man has no principles of his own, what can he do? He had better not borrow those of others, however, till he knows how to use them.²⁹

 Christian Wilhelm Gericke (1742– 1803) was a Halle-trained Pietist and a missionary working under the auspices of the SPCK. He laboured in the south-east of the Indian subcontinent, at Cuddalore, Madras, and Vellore. A confidante of Christian Schwartz, he started a school for orphans and saw significant success in evangelism and discipling new converts. See Dictionary of Evangelical Biography 1730 – 1860 (DEB), ed. Donald M. Lewis (2 vols.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 1:436. For a letter from Gericke to William Carey (March 23, 1798), see Periodical Accounts Relative to the Baptist Missionary Society (PA) (5 vols.; London: Baptist Missionary Society, 1794– 1816), 1:428 – 30.  “A List of Persons Baptised in Bengal, Belonging to the Church of Christ at Serampore,” PA, 3: preface, pp. xiv–iv. The list includes those who were based elsewhere, for example at Dinagepore.  That is, at one time.  As I have previously mentioned, the bishop of St. Asaph referred to here is almost certainly Samuel Horsley (1733 – 1806), an Anglican high churchman. For positive references to the “venerable

Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet

135

By the frequent recurrence of such terms as hot-headed maniacs, madmen, mad Calvinists, mad Baptists, etc. etc., it would seem as if the gentleman himself was scarcely sober. Had this raving kind of diction been confined to his later publications, we might have ascribed it to the goadings of the Reviews; but as it has been his strain of writing from the beginning, it must belong to his nature. We have heard much of a certain tract, which calls the natives “barbarians, and their Shasters barbarian Shasters,” and of some thousands of it being distributed among the native troops, and other inhabitants of Bengal. At length we are told that the missionaries, with all their activity, did not visit one military station; that their abusive tracts were distributed once at Berhampore among the native troops,³⁰ and that the copy now in England was given by one of our sepoys to his officer— p. 129. We are much obliged to the Major for being so explicit. He may tell us, in his next piece, who translated it; for he seems to be quite in the secret. At present, I can only observe that, by his account, this obnoxious tract appears to have been scattered among the troops by thousands, if not without hands, yet without a single visit from the missionaries! The Major has not yet finished his labours in defaming the memory of Mr. Thomas. “A man,” he says, “whom Mr. Thomas put down as a brahmin, a man of title, was, in fact, a servant of Mr. Thomas, an outcast of society. This fellow, Parbotee, as he is called, robbed his master, Mr. Thomas, and ran away, and, as I understand, died mad at a distant period”—p. 75. For a writer, on the authority of men whom he will not name thus to abuse the memory of the dead, is an outrage on decency. Parbotee was and is a brahmin, and never was a servant to Mr. Thomas. When will this man desist from retailing falsehood?³¹ Speaking of missionary societies, he says, “There is also an Arminian Methodist Society, and a Society of the United Brethren, whose missionaries are well employed in pagan countries; but they have wisely refrained from sending missionaries to India”—p. 85. Have they? Yet we are told in the preface to the “Observations,” p. xv., that there are “spread over India Arminian Methodist and United Brethren missionaries,” etc. etc. And in the letter to Mr. Owen we are assured that, “on most accurately looking over the preface, he could not discover either a misstatement or a misrepresentation”!—p. 117. Whether he discovered this, or whether he wrote both Calvin” in his writings, see, for example, Samuel Horsley, The Charges of Samuel Horsley, Late Lord Bishop of St. Asaph (Dundee: R. S. Rintoul, 1813), here 175, also 225 – 26.  Berhampore was a cantonment town (that is, a British military station), about 130 miles north of Calcutta. It was one of the sites of the Sepoy rebellion of 1857.  Parbotee was a brahmin who converted to Christ following contact with Thomas. The missionaries accepted him as a convert on the basis of his profession and also evidence of a changed life, but he later departed from the Christian faith. His story is told at some length in Francis A. Cox, History of the Baptist Missionary Society. From 1792 to 1842 (BMS) (2 vols.; London: T. Ward and G. & J. Dyer, 1842), 1:25 – 26, 93 – 94. The missionaries eventually felt that they had no option but to exclude him from the church. Cox (BMS, 1:94) notes that the “enemies of religion” have made use of stories such as these to denigrate the missionaries’ work, a comment which is perhaps a reference to Scott Waring.

136

Part III

without discovering them to be contradictions, it is not for me to determine; but if the latter were the case, I should not be surprised, for it is easy to perceive that, in many instances, he knows not what he writes. “Mr. Marshman,” says he, “was at Saugur during a great Hindoo festival,³² where at least 200,000 Hindoos were assembled. He preached to as many as could hear him, and he told the Hindoos that ‘he did not come, like other Englishmen, to take their money, but to bring the jewel above all price, the grand offer of salvation.’ The Hindoos became clamorous on their devotions being thus disturbed, and Mr. Marshman exclaimed, ‘Well, since you decline it, remember that, as you have received the gospel, you have no longer any excuse for idolatry, but will be damned everlastingly’”—pp. 36, 98. It is the practice of this writer to make no references to the page or book from which he takes his extracts. In cases of accusation this is unpardonable, and is difficult to be accounted for on any principle but that of a desire to escape detection. The only visits to Saugur of which I have any remembrance, or can find any traces in the Periodical Accounts, are two. One may be found in No. XVI, pp. 225, 226; but in this there is no address to the Hindoos of any kind; his quotation, therefore, could not be taken from thence. The other is in No. XIV, pp. 513 – 522. Here there is an address to the Hindoos; and as some of the words which are quoted are to be found in p. 521, I conclude it must be to this address that he refers. On reading the whole account, and comparing it with that of Major Scott Waring’s, I find in the latter a much larger portion of misrepresentation than of fact. Mr. Marshman was not the missionary who addressed the Hindoos, but. Mr. Chamberlain;³³ and the circumstance of their “becoming clamorous on account of their devotions being disturbed” is not in the account, and must, therefore, either have been taken from some other account, and without regard to truth applied to this, or be absolutely a fabrication. Nor is this all: There were no such words spoken as of his being come to bring the jewel above all price, the grand offer of salvation; nor did be exclaim, “Well, since you decline it, remember that, as you have received the gospel, you have no longer any excuse for idolatry, but will be damned everlastingly.” These are Major Scott Waring’s words, and not those of the missionary. He may pretend that there were things said which are capable of this construction; but he has no right to quote his own constructions, be they just or not, as the words of another. I hoped before that the Major, notwithstanding all his misstatements, had not been

 Saugur (Saugor, Sagar Island) is located in the mouth of the Hooghly river. It is the scene of a yearly pilgrimage which culminates with thousands of devotees washing ceremonially in the river. See PA, 3:xv, 30.  John Chamberlain (1777– 1821) arrived in India in 1803. Fuller defends him here, yet he was one of the most controversial of the second wave of missionary recruits who joined the trio. When preaching, his language and belligerence—Ward described a “thundering and vehemence of style”—antagonized his hearers. Shockingly, he struck a brahmin with a cane at Katwa in 1807, after which he was told to focus on working mainly among European soldiers. See DEB, 1:212.

Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet

137

guilty of wilful errors; but really after this he hardly leaves one the power of placing any dependence on his veracity. A great deal is said about the number of the missionaries. It is introduced in this pamphlet in no less than seven places. It is said that “the London Society maintain thirteen missionaries on the coast and in Ceylon, and one at Surat; and that three of the number are women”—p. 15. Are women then to be reckoned as missionaries? If so, we have considerably more than eleven in Bengal. But why did he not take in their children too? In reckoning the whole number of both the Societies, sometimes they are twenty-three, and sometimes twenty-five, yet both are given as the number “now in India”—pp. 25, 81. To assist the gentleman in his future reckonings, I will put down the names and places of the missionaries of both Societies. Messrs. Carey, Marshman, Ward, Moore, Rowe,³⁴ Robinson,³⁵ and Felix Carey,³⁶ at Serampore; Mr. Chamberlain, at Cutwa; and Messrs. Mardon³⁷ and Chater,³⁸ at Rangoon, in Burma. Besides them, there was Mr. Biss,³⁹ but he died in 1807. Mr. William

 Joshua Rowe (1781– 1823) was another of the new generation of missionaries who struggled to integrate into the tight-knit community at Serampore, dominated as it was by the high ideals and strong personalities of the trio, especially Marshman and Ward. After he lost his wife Elizabeth Noyes (1785 – 1814), he married Charlotte White (née Atlee) (1782– 1863), an American missionary and settled at Digha. See Cox, BMS, 1:39; Baptist Magazine (1824), 223 – 35, DEB, 2:957.  William Robinson (1784– 1853) was accepted by the BMS as a missionary in 1804. He struggled with severe illness in his initial years at Serampore and was close to death on several occasions. Surprisingly, he went on to have a long missionary career, outliving all of his contemporaries. He worked in Java and Sumatra before pastoring the Lol Bazaar Church in Calcutta for 13 years. Tragically, his first four wives predeceased him. With his fifth wife he worked in Dacca from 1839. See Cox, BMS, 1:234, 253, 405; DEB, 2:949.  Felix Carey (1786 – 1822), son of William and his first wife, Dorothy, had a chequered missionary career. He was a brilliant Bengali scholar and was sent to pioneer work in Burma in 1807, only to be deflected from the core of missionary work. In December 1814 he caused consternation when he arrived back in Calcutta as the king of Burma’s ambassador. For a brief period he enjoyed an opulent and dissolute lifestyle under the noses of the trio, who were based just a few miles away in Serampore. He left his third wife and spent some time wandering around northern Bengal, but in the end returned to Serampore to assist his father in translation work. See DEB, 1:196 – 97; Cox, BMS, 1:167– 68, 179, 183 – 84, 193 – 94, 201– 2, 242.  Richard Mardon (1775 – 1812) came to India in 1805 and developed a mission not far from Malda, near the ruins of Gaur. He suffered from illness, including periodically losing his voice, and like William Robinson, he endured much family tragedy. He was predeceased by his wife, Rhoda (née Brenham) (ca. 1779 – 1811), and three of their five children. See Cox, BMS, 1:224– 25; DEB, 2:740.  James Chater (1779 – 1829) worked with Felix Carey in Rangoon, Burma from 1807. This was the mission that was taken over by Adoniram and Ann Judson in 1812. Chater went on to serve in Colombo, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), establishing Sinhala-speaking churches, working on Bible translation, and pioneering educational establishments. His wife Anne died in 1820. See Cox, BMS, 1:225, 231; DEB, 1:217.  John Biss (1776 – 1807) arrived in Serampore in 1805 and experienced severe illness throughout his short stay. He suffered greatly from liver disease, among other ailments. He was aboard a ship to Philadelphia in the hope of recovering away from India when he died at sea in 1807. His wife, Hannah (née Osmund) (1776 – 1818), had accompanied him on board but returned to Serampore and engaged

138

Part III

Carey,⁴⁰ though he accompanied Mr. Moore to Dacca, is not at present a missionary. The number of missionaries, therefore, that we have now in the Company’s territories is only eight. The following extract of a letter from the Secretary of the London Society will show what are their numbers and situations. “All the missionaries we have in India are, Messrs. Cran⁴¹ and Desgranges,⁴² at Vizagapatam; Mr. Loveless,⁴³ at the school at Madras; Dr. Taylor,⁴⁴ at Bombay; Mr. Ringletaube,⁴⁵ in Travancore; and Messrs. Vos,⁴⁶ Erhardt,⁴⁷ and Palm,⁴⁸ in Ceylon. Taylor never got to Surat, nor can

in missionary work as a single woman—a true pioneer. She married William Moore in 1813. See DEB, 1:102.  Despite Fuller’s comment that the younger William Carey “is not at present a missionary,” he was ordained in 1808 and from that point on considered as such. After assisting Ignatius Fernandez in Dinagepore, he took over from Chamberlain and settled at Cutwa (Katwa) in 1810, where he served with his wife Mary Kincey (1792– 1859) until his death.  George Cran (d. 1809) was an ordained Church of Scotland minister who served with the LMS at Vishakhapatnam, a port city north of Madras. As well as establishing a number of schools, he itinerated in the countryside surrounding the city and led services for EIC troops with a view, in part, to establishing an income. See James Sibree, London Missionary Society: A Register of Missionaries, Deputations, etc. (LMS) (4th ed.; London: London Missionary Society, 1923), 6; DEB, 1:266.  Augustus Des Granges (1780 – 1810) was an LMS missionary who, as Fuller says, worked with Cran at Vishakhapatnam. He translated the Bible into Telegu as well as assisting Cran in establishing schools. See Sibree, LMS, 6; DEB, 1:309. There were significant links between many of the LMS personnel and the BMS missionaries at Serampore. Des Granges stayed at Serampore for a “number of weeks” when he first came to India, and William Carey helped him to begin learning Telegu. See Samuel Pearce Carey, Memoir of William Carey, DD (8th edn.; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934 [1923]), 267; W. H. Carey, Oriental Christian Biography, Containing Biographical Sketches of Distinguished Christians Who Have Lived and Died in the East (Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1850), 3:92– 96.  William (Charles) Loveless (ca. 1778 – 1851) was an Independent minister who was based in Madras from 1805. The school Fuller refers to was an orphanage. He returned to England in 1824 due to ill health, becoming a pastor of Congregational chapels at Herne Bay and, finally, Canterbury. See Sibree, LMS, 6; DEB, 2:699.  John Taylor (d. 1821) was a surgeon who sailed for India under the auspices of the LMS in 1804. Through no fault of his own, Fuller’s information was already out of date. In 1807 Taylor had accepted an offer to work as a surgeon with the EIC in Bombay (Mumbai), at which point his formal association with the LMS ended. See Sibree, LMS, 6 – 7. He did, however, spend time at Serampore, where he taught Felix Carey some of the basics of medicine. See William Ward’s Journal, June 2, 1805 (Transcribed MS, CLRC, Serampore). I am grateful for Peter de Vries for this reference. See also S.P. Carey, William Carey, 267.  William Tobias Ringeltaube (1770 – 1816) was another missionary of Lutheran Pietist background who trained at Halle. He briefly served with the SPCK in Calcutta, but his most fruitful period of service was under the auspices of the LMS in the south, especially around Travancore, from 1803. By his own testimony he baptized over 1,000 people in Travancore alone. See Sibree, LMS, 6; DEB, 2:940.  Michael C. Vos (1759 – 1825) was a Dutch Reformed minister who was born in Cape Town. He helped pioneer mission to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) but ministered mainly among the Dutch and later returned to South Africa. See DEB, 2:1146.

Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet

139

he go at present; and he is not at all engaged as a missionary as yet, and never, I believe, preached one sermon to the heathen. None of those now in India have been at Ceylon; but those in Ceylon were first, for a few weeks, at Tranquebar. Loveless and Desgranges are married, as also the Ceylon missionaries; but as their wives did not preach, they ought not to be called missionaries.⁴⁹ We have heard nothing of Messrs. Vos, Erhardt, and Palm being sent from Ceylon, and do not believe it.” Now, lest the Major should again be out in his reckoning, I may inform him that the whole number of missionaries from this Society in Hindostan is five; which, with the three who are or were in Ceylon, make eight; and which, added to the eight in Bengal, make sixteen. Our author has furnished himself with the Baptist statement, which seems to have afforded him much new light upon the subject. This statement, the reader should be informed, was drawn up in the spring of 1807, not to be sold, but circulated among the directors, and the members of administration. The design of it was to counteract the influence of a number of private letters which had then arrived from India against the mission; and I have no particular reason to doubt of its having answered the end.⁵⁰ Had the Major known the particulars communicated in this statement sooner, he “should not have written one word about Bengal missionaries”—p. 60. We hope then he will learn, in future, to wait till he understand a subject before he writes upon it. It might be full as creditable to himself to do so, and some saving to the public. But we must not count too fast on the Major’s approbation. If he had not written, it had been, not from any satisfactory opinion of the missionaries’ conduct, but from their being laid under an interdiction which he hopes may be sufficient to stop them in their career. It is possible, however, he might have written notwithstanding; for since he has seen the statement he has written nearly as much as he did before. Our author, in going over the statement, finds the Baptist Society submitting to the consideration of government the following proposition, as the opinion of the missionaries: “No political evil can reasonably be feared from the spread of Christianity now; for it has been publicly preached in different parts of Bengal for about twenty

 Johann Peter Matthias Erhardt was a German who served with the LMS in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) from 1805. In 1812 he accepted a call to become the minister of a Dutch church on the island, at which point his formal association with the LMS ended. See Sibree, LMS, 6.  John (sometimes Johann) Palm was another German who served with the LMS, working in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) from 1805. His career closely mirrored Erhardt’s. In 1812 he was appointed as the minister to a Dutch congregation in Colombo, at which point his formal association with the LMS ended. See Sibree, LMS, 6.  As far as Fuller was concerned, a missionary must preach (cf. his earlier comments on Taylor). Nevertheless, women such as Hannah Biss and Hannah Marshman surely deserve the epithet “missionary.” For biographical details on Hannah Marshman, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  See the BMS statement printed in Ivimey, HEB, 4:94– 107.

140

Part III

years past,⁵¹ without the smallest symptom of the kind.” “But are the Baptist missionaries,” he asks, “or their Society at home, authorized by law to determine whether or not a political evil is to be reasonably feared from the spread of Christianity in India?”—p. 69. Unless our being Baptists deprives us of the right of all other subjects, we have just the same authority as Major Scott Waring, who also has said a great deal to government on what is reasonable and unreasonable. He states what he conceives to be good policy, submitting it to the consideration of those who are authorized to determine it, and we have done no more. But the principle materials which our author finds in the Baptist statement are such as enable him to accuse us, as he thinks, of falsehood and even of rebellion. These are certainly very serious charges, and, if we be unable to answer them, must sink us in the estimation of all honest men. For our parts, we are not conscious of having been guilty of either of these crimes. So far as we know our own hearts, we have from the beginning exercised a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man. If we be guilty, therefore, we must be under the grossest self-deception. And as we never considered ourselves either as liars or rebels, neither have we been able to learn that any other person, high or low, Churchman or Dissenter, friend or enemy, has so considered us, till Major Scott Waring made the discovery. “Not a single instance of disturbance has occurred,” says Mr. Carey, “unless the abusive language of a few loose persons may be so called.”⁵² To prove the falsehood of this statement, the Major refers to the old story of a universal alarm being excited by their entering into a city or a village. One of these statements, he says, must be false. But if the alarm meant nothing more than a sensation of fear arising from the presence of Europeans, there is no such thing as disturbance included in it. Our author has read the account of the journey to Saugur;⁵³ and might have observed that “the people were surprised to see Europeans amongst them, and that some appeared afraid”: yet at that time their errand was unknown. This fear, therefore, could not respect them as missionaries, but merely as Europeans.⁵⁴

 Though Mr. Carey had been there only thirteen years, yet Mr. Thomas had publicly preached to the Hindoos in their own language for several years before. [AF].  Carey, “The Missionaries to the Society,” September 2, 1806, printed in E. Carey, William Carey, 486 – 87.  Periodical Accounts, No, XIV, p. 518. [AF]. The full account, from John Chamberlain’s journal, is on pp. 517– 22 in vol. 2 of the PA. As noted previously, Saugur (Sagar Island) is at the mouth of the Hooghly river.  Fuller was a little unsure of his ground here, as he admitted in private correspondence with Joshua Marshman: “[A] saying of yours has been made much of by Major Scott Waring—viz your stating ‘that the entrance of an European missionary into a bigoted city would create an universal alarm.’ Perhaps the phrase was too strong; but as you was [sic] arguing for native rather than European preachers, I have contended that what was conceded did not respect you as missionaries, but as Europeans.” See Fuller to J. Marshman, February 12, 1808, “Fuller Letters to Marshman.” Emphasis original.

Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet

141

Mr. Carey says, further, that “the missionaries on the coast reckon about forty thousand persons to have embraced Christianity.”⁵⁵ “This,” says the Major, “is another direct false assertion. Dr. Kerr admits, on the 7th of Nov. 1800, that hitherto it is generally imagined few good converts have been made”—p. 70. But though this might be generally imagined, yet it does not follow that it was true, or that Dr. Kerr thought it to be true. Or, granting that he did, he might mean it only comparatively. Forty thousand people are but few when compared with the population of the country. In the letter addressed to Dr. Vincent, which was published in the Report of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge of 1800, they are reckoned at “three thousand;” and since that time, according to the Reports of that Society, there have been great accessions; whole villages casting away their idols and embracing the gospel. Whether forty thousand be a just estimate, I cannot tell, and Mr. Carey does not determine; but, till I have some better proof of his want of veracity than has yet appeared, I can entertain no doubt of its being agreeable to the information he had received. Thousands of heathens in Calcutta were willing to hear the gospel; “but we,” says Mr. Marshman, “are forbidden to preach it.” That is, in Calcutta, where they had preached it. “This assertion,” says the Major, “is false; they are allowed to preach it in Serampore, and in their own house in Calcutta.” But the thousands who desire to hear it could not attend in either of those places. If Major Scott Waring wants understanding, who can help it? But he should not charge that as false which arises from his own misconstructions. To say that thousands of heathens are willing to hear the gospel, is, he says, “a false and wicked assertion, in the way in which the missionaries desire to be understood. Curiosity may draw, as it has done, thousands together to hear these men preach, but they are not likely, to use the elegant expression of one of the coast missionaries, to catch one (of the thousands) in the gospel net”—p. 72. The missionaries never desired to be understood as if thousands stood ready to embrace Christianity, but merely that they were willing and even desirous to hear it; and this, whatever were their motives, was the truth. As to the improbability of their being brought to believe it, that is only Major Scott Waring’s opinion, and stands for nothing. “We have baptized,” says Mr. Marshman, “about a hundred of these people, and we dare affirm that the British government has not a hundred better subjects, and more cordial friends, among the natives of Hindostan.”⁵⁶ “This,” says the Major, “is a most atrocious falsehood. Of their hundred converts, whom they have baptized in thirteen years,⁵⁷ they have dismissed many for gross immorality”—p. 73. The number of those who have been dismissed for gross immorality, however, is not so great as this writer would have it thought to be; but be it what it may, Mr. Marshman says

 This quotation is taken from the BMS statement printed in Ivimey, HEB, 4:102.  This quotation is taken from the BMS statement printed in Ivimey, HEB, 4:104.  He might have said in six. [AF].

142

Part III

in the same page, “If they lose caste, and embrace Christianity, not by force, but from pure conviction, they become other men. Even those who, as it may prove, have not embraced it cordially, are considerably influenced by it. If once they lose caste, the charm is broken, and they become capable of attachment to government.”⁵⁸ But I am weary of contending with this foul opponent. It is time to bring this part of the subject, at least, to a close. As “the most atrocious falsehood” is charged on the missionaries, let us here come to an issue. We will not shrink from it. Let our judges satisfy themselves of the truth of our statements. We will hold ourselves obliged, whenever called upon by proper authority, to give proof of them. If falsehood be found on our side, let our missionaries be ordered out of the country as a set of impostors; but if on the side of our accusers, let the burden which they have laboured to fasten upon us fall upon themselves.⁵⁹ But our missionaries are accused not only of falsehood, but with being “in open rebellion.” This accusation is founded on their going out without legal authority, and by foreign ships—on their availing themselves of the protection of Denmark—and on their itinerating in the country without passports, and after a legal permission to do so was refused them. It is easy to perceive that, on this subject, the hopes of our accuser begin to brighten. Like the Pharisees and the Herodians, he thinks he shall be able to entangle us, and bring us under the displeasure of government.⁶⁰ Well, let him do his utmost. We acknowledge the above to be facts, let them affect us as they may. It is worthy of notice, however, that it is not owing to anything which our accuser has written that these facts have been brought to light. The substance of them was contained in the Statement; which statement was, in fact, though not in form, respectfully submitted to the very parties to whom he wishes to accuse us. He is, therefore, a day too late. Our judges were in possession of the facts before he knew of them. There is nothing left for him to do as an accuser, but merely as counsel, to assist the judges in forming a decision, by his comments and learned arguments. And, with respect to these, we must take the liberty of wiping off a part of his colouring; and truly it can be only a part, for to remove the whole, the pamphlet itself must be literally purified by fire. The itinerating excursions, subsequent to the refusal of a legal permission in 1805, were not in defiance of government, but with their knowledge, and, I may say, their approbation. The refusal of the governor-general did not appear to arise from any disapprobation of the object, or of the means used to accomplish it, but merely from a hesitation whether the government in India were warranted formally to adopt the measure. There was no prohibition whatever at that time laid upon the missionaries, nor any intimation of even a wish for them to relax in their itinerating  This quotation is taken from the BMS statement printed in Ivimey, HEB, 4:104.  For a biblical example of an evildoer’s plans rebounding on himself, see Esther 7:10.  Cf. Mark 3:6. This is a strong statement, but Fuller was wearied, as he has said, by “contending” with someone he regarded as a “foul opponent.”

Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet

143

labours. On the contrary, when, from the hesitation before mentioned, the governorgeneral disapproved of a committee to superintend the translations, he nevertheless gave full liberty to advertise in the Gazette for voluntary subscriptions; and added, “Let the missionaries go on in their present line of action.”⁶¹ Our accuser, not knowing what to do with this last sentence, contrives to throw it back a year, supposing the remark must have been made “prior to the autumn of 1805”—p. 93. Certainly this supposition is necessary for his argument; but unfortunately it is not true. I cannot exactly refer to the date, but have no doubt of its being in 1806. Never till the 24th of August, in that year, was anything like a prohibition given, and then it appears to have arisen more from apprehension than dislike; and consisted not in a written order from the governor-general in council, but merely in a private verbal message. If, therefore, the Major flatter himself that Sir George Barlow is of the same mind with him and his party, he may find himself mistaken. I may add, that the protection of the Danish government was granted at the unsolicited recommendation of the late Governor Bie,⁶² whose testimony to the good character of the missionaries was not only sent to his own government at Copenhagen, but the same things conveyed in a letter to the Society in England in the following terms: “Permit me to assure you that I do not consider the friendship and few civilities I have had it in my power to show your brethren here otherwise than as fully due to them. I have received them as righteous men, in the name of righteous men; and I shall never withhold good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of my hand to do it. I am happy in possessing them, and shall be more so in seeing their number increase.”⁶³ The missionaries have always acknowledged the kindness of the British as well as of the Danish government; and though at one period they expressed their concern at being forbidden to preach to the multitudes who were willing to hear in Calcutta, yet neither they nor the Society have dealt in reflections, but have contented themselves with simply stating the facts, and the arguments arising from them; and this merely to counteract the underhand measures of their adversaries. We ask only for a calm and candid hearing. We solemnly aver before God and our country that we are most sincerely attached to its constitution and government; that we regard its authority with sentiments of the highest respect, and hold ourselves bound to be obedient to its lawful commands. Obedience to the ruling powers we conceive to be enjoined in Scripture, where, however, an exception is expressly

 Fuller is again drawing from the BMS statement; see Ivimey, HEB, 4:97.  Colonel Olave (Ole) Bie (1733 – 1805) was a Norwegian-born Danish governor of Serampore. He was a Lutheran and warmly supportive of the missionaries. For further details, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  Colonel Olave Bie to Andrew Fuller, November 18, 1802, Bristol Baptist College Library (OS G 97 B). There is also a copy of this letter in Carey Library and Research Centre, Serampore. The quotation is reproduced in Bengal, Past & Present: Journal of the Calcutta Historical Society (Calcutta: Calcutta Historical Society, 1909), 3:400.

144

Part III

made in favour of those cases in which the commands of man are directly opposed to the revealed commands of God. These are cases which, in the course of human affairs, may occur; but which no good subject will love to anticipate before their actual occurrence. Supposing, however, the arrival of an emergence so painful, it surely would be somewhat harsh to stigmatize with the name of “open rebellion” the reluctant disobedience, in a particular instance, of those who are only yielding to a deliberate, sober, and conscientious conviction of their duty. The apostles exhorted all Christians, rather than renounce their faith or disobey the Divine precepts at the command of the state, to “resist even unto blood;”⁶⁴ but we have yet to learn that such injunctions were intended or received as instigations to rebellion. Were it possible to conceive (we merely suppose the case) that the missionaries should be called to the hard duty of deciding between the service of God and obedience to man, we trust that they would be enabled to encounter, with resignation, the painful sacrifice imposed upon them; but we are thankful to say that they have as yet been spared so severe a trial. Surely nothing but the most uncandid and bitter prejudice would represent the refusal of an official sanction to their itinerations as an imperative prohibition of them; or would class the missionaries as rebels merely because, being denied the formal protection of the governing power, they were content with connivance, or at least with uncovenanted toleration. Numbers of Europeans are to be found residing in India, though unaccredited by the Company or the British governments; and we have never understood that all these were considered as in a state of “open rebellion.” Yet we have no objection to be explicit, and will be free to confess that the legality of such a residence for the purposes of private emolument would in our view be more than doubtful, and that we should certainly abstain from it. If, upon a candid consideration of all circumstances, it be found that we have, in some instances, deviated from the regulations alluded to, it will be remembered that it has not been for any object of temporal advantage, the illicit pursuit of which it was doubtless the design of those regulations to prevent, though they are necessarily expressed in terms which give them a more general application. As far, indeed, as the deviation may, even under these circumstances, seem an irregular proceeding, so far we should certainly rest our defence of it on the nature and importance of the objects which it was intended to compass; and, in this mild and qualified case, should even appeal to the spirit of the principle which has been already mentioned—the principle of a conscientious preference of duty to all other considerations, however pressing. With respect to the question of duty, we are aware that men may be prompted by delusive impulses and erroneous comments to measures of extravagance, justly cen Hebrews 12:4. Fuller is making an assumption that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews. The paragraph as a whole is a good summary of the BMS secretary’s respectful attitude to the civil powers, here specifically applied to his own country. Yet crucially, he reserves the right to dissent if “conscience” dictates that obedience to the civil authorities conflicts with obedience to the lordship of Christ.

Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet

145

surable by civil authority. But we are governed by no such impulses. We have no notion of anything being the will of God, but what maybe proved from the Scriptures; nor of any obligations upon us to go among the heathen more than upon other Christians. If we be not authorized by the New Testament, we have no authority.⁶⁵ And as to our comments, if they will not bear the test of fair and impartial scrutiny, let them be discarded, and let our undertakings be placed to the account of a well-meant but misguided zeal. The principal ground on which we act is confined to a narrow compass: it is the commission of our Saviour to his disciples, “Go—teach all nations;” which commission we do not consider as confined to the apostles, because his promised presence to them who should execute it extends “to the end of the world.”⁶⁶ Our accuser is aware that the apostles and primitive ministers went everywhere preaching the gospel, even though it were at the risk of liberty and life; and this, be conceives, was right in them, because “they were expressly commanded to do so”— p. 80. His conclusion, that it is wrong in Christians of the present day, rests upon the supposition that the command of Christ does not extend to them; but we shall not allow him to build on these disputed premises. That there were things committed to the apostles, for them to commit to Christians of succeeding ages, cannot be denied. Such must have been the great body of Christian doctrines and precepts contained in the New Testament; and seeing the promise of Christ to be with his servants in the execution of the command reaches “to the end of the world,” the command itself must have been of this description. Not that every Christian is obliged to preach, or any Christian in all places; but the Christian church as a body, and every member of it individually is obliged to do its utmost in the use of those means which Christ has appointed for the discipling of all nations. To say that because we are not endowed, like the apostles, with the gift of tongues and the power of working miracles, therefore we are not obliged to make use of the powers which we have for the conversion of the world, is trifling, not reasoning.⁶⁷ What proof, or appearance of proof, is there that the obligations of the

 A crucial point. They do not go on their own authority, but God’s; they go to do his work, not theirs. Fuller’s thinking in some ways anticipates more recent missiological theology concerning the Missio Dei.  Matthew 28:20. Fuller’s deployment and exposition of this verse shows how his thinking on the commission had developed from his earlier High Calvinism, and even from his 1791 sermon, published as Pernicious Consequences of Delay in Religious Concerns (Clipstone: J. W. Morris, 1791), in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, ed. Andrew Gunton Fuller, rev. ed. Joseph Belcher (3 vols.; 3rd ed.; Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988 [1845]), 1:145 – 51. For further details, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  Fuller’s reasoning here bears some resemblance to Carey’s in An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens (Leicester: Ann Ireland, 1792). See in particular p. 11, and the argument that the “command”—i. e., the commission—remains valid as a duty whether or not the gift of speaking in tongues is present. Ordinary means are to be used to reach out cross-culturally: there is no need to wait for miraculous gifts to be given.

146

Part III

apostles to preach the gospel to all nations arose from those extraordinary endowments? If our being unable to work miracles be a reason why we should not preach the gospel to all nations as far as opportunity admits, it is a reason why we should not preach it at all; or, which is the same thing, a proof that the Christian ministry, as soon as miracles had ceased, ought to have terminated. The institution of the Christian ministry is founded in the commission, even that commission which enjoins the teaching of all nations. And if we leave out one part, we must, to be consistent, leave out the other. We ought either not to teach at all, or, according to our powers and opportunities, to teach all nations.⁶⁸ If we believe the Scriptures (and if we do not we are not Christians), we must believe that all nations are promised to the Messiah for his inheritance, no less than the land of Canaan was promised to the seed of Abraham;⁶⁹ and we, as well as they, ought, in the use of those means which he has appointed, to go up and endeavour to possess them. It is not for us, having obtained a comfortable footing in Europe, like the Israelites in Canaan, to make leagues with the other parts of the world and, provided we may but live at ease in our tents, to consent for them to remain as they are.⁷⁰ Such a spirit, though complimented by some as liberal, is mean, and inconsistent with the love of either God or man. Our accuser, who will neither be a Christian nor let Christianity alone, represents the apostles as “authorized to act in defiance of magistrates,” to “break the laws of the different countries they visited,” to “despise the orders of men;” “but Christians now,” he tells us, “are expressly directed to obey the powers that be.” If the principle acted on by the apostles “be admitted in these days,” he thinks, “we must bid adieu to India”—pp. 53, 79, 80. It would seem by this account of things as if the apostles, under a Divine authority, trampled on all law and order among men, and, as far as their influence extended, actually “turned the world upside down.”⁷¹ If it were not so, the conclusion that the same principle acted upon in these days would prove the loss of India is mere unfounded assertion. But were any such effects produced by the labours of the apostles? What colonies were lost to the Romans through them? Let the countries be named which were ruined or injured by their preaching.⁷² In attempting to fix a charge upon us, our accuser has libelled the apostles, and even their Master, as well as the Christians of all succeeding ages. Where did he learn that Jesus Christ authorized his apostles to act in defiance of magistrates, or to de-

 Cf. Matthew 28:19 – 20.  Genesis 12:1– 7, 13:14– 17 (on Canaan); Romans 16:26; Galatians 3:8; Revelation 5:9, 14:6, 15:4 (on New Testament messianic fulfilment).  Possibly an allusion to the Gibeonites in Joshua 9, with whom the Israelites mistakenly made peace.  See Acts 17:6 and the comments made by the mob who dragged Jason and others before the city authorities in Thessalonica.  The gospel in and of itself has the power to undermine unjust regimes.

Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet

147

spise the orders of men? What proof has he that they ever acted on such principles? Was there anything like this in the behaviour of Paul before Felix, or Festus, or Agrippa?⁷³ Such a spirit had no more place in his religion than our accuser has been able to prove it to have had place in ours. The apostles were commanded to break no laws but such as were inconsistent with their allegiance to Christ; and in breaking them they never acted with contumacy, but merely as impelled by a superior authority; bearing at the same time the consequences with meekness and fortitude, as their Lord had done before them.⁷⁴ The principle on which they acted was that which He had laid down for them when tempted by certain “hypocrites,” with the intent of rendering him obnoxious to government (not that they cared for government, but were desirous of making it the instrument of their malice); namely, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”⁷⁵ What authority has our accuser for representing the apostles as enjoining on common Christians that subjection to civil government which they did not exemplify in their own conduct? Were not they themselves subject to the powers that were? Yes, in everything save in what concerned their allegiance to Christ, and this reserve they made for all Christians. Why else did they encourage them to hold fast their profession under the most cruel persecutions; referring them to the last judgment, when God would recompense rest to them, and tribulation to those that troubled them?⁷⁶ Could they have submitted their consciences to the ruling powers, they need not have suffered persecution; but they acted on the same principle as the apostles, who, instead of laying down one law for themselves and another for them, exhorted them to follow their example: “Those things,” said they, “which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in us, do.”⁷⁷ On the principle of our accuser, all those Christians of the first three centuries who had not the power of working miracles, though peaceable and loyal subjects in civil concerns, yet, not submitting their consciences to the ruling powers, were rebels.⁷⁸ The same may be said of the English martyrs in the days of the first Mary.⁷⁹

 Acts 24 (Felix); 25:1– 12 (Festus); 25:13 – 22 (Festus and Agrippa); 25:23 – 26:32 (Agrippa).  For Jesus’s “meekness and fortitude” before authority, see the accounts of his Passion in the gospels, for example John 18 – 19:37, esp. 19:8 – 11; for the apostles embodying similar attributes, see, for example, Acts 5:27– 32, esp. 29, and 5:40 – 42.  Matthew 22:21. Cf. Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25.  See, for example, 1 Peter 3:13 – 18; 4:12– 19.  Philippians 4:9.  Fuller would have known of these persecutions largely through John Foxe, Acts and Monuments (1563, known as Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs”), a book which had taken a firm place as part of Dissenting culture by the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Chapter 2 of Foxe’s Acts and Monuments covers the persecution of the church in the post-apostolic period, up to the Diocletian persecution of 303.  Mary I (Tudor, 1516 – 1558) was the daughter of Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon, and Queen of England from 1553 to 1558. She rejected the Protestantism of the former King Edward VI, her half-

148

Part III

They could not work miracles any more than we, and pretended to no special commission from Heaven to break the laws; but, while they manifested the utmost loyalty to the queen in civil matters, they felt themselves accountable to a higher authority, and submitted to be burnt alive rather than obey her mandates. These characters, whom all succeeding ages have revered as men of whom the world was not worthy,⁸⁰ were loaded by the Bonners⁸¹ and Gardiners⁸² of the day with every epithet of abuse, and treated as rebels. We may be told that the cases are dissimilar; they were put to death, but the whole that our accuser aims at is banishment; they suffered for avowing their religious principles at home, whereas we might have done this without his wishing to interrupt us. But this dissimilarity relates only to degree; the principle is the same. If, since the days of miracles, Christians have been under an obligation to submit to the powers that be in religious matters, the martyrs of seventeen hundred years have been, in fact, a succession of rebels. Our accuser may think it a matter “not to be endured” that sectaries should compare themselves with these honoured characters:⁸³ but with his leave, or without it, we are Christians; and though we should be less than the least of Christ’s servants,⁸⁴ yet we must aspire to act upon the same principles as the greatest of them. What is there in these principles which affects the honour of government, or the peace and good order of society? Is it any disparagement to the highest human authorities not to interfere with the Divine prerogative? On the contrary, is it not their highest honour to respect it? Those governments which, disregarding such men as our accuser, protect the free exercise of religious principle, will not only be prospered of Heaven, but will ever stand high in the esteem of the wise and the good, and when the ferment of the day is over be applauded by mankind in general. A great deal is said by all our opponents on the power of working miracles, as though because we cannot pretend to this qualification we had no warrant to attempt the conversion of the heathen. “It is not to be endured,” says our accuser, “that these

brother, and sought to return the nation to Roman Catholicism. This involved the imprisonment and execution of a number of leading Protestants.  Hebrews 11:38.  Edward Bonner (1500 – 1569) was bishop of London under Mary I from 1553 to 1559. He was central to Mary’s policy of trying and executing leading Protestants, many of whom were burned at the stake. Fuller would have known Bonner especially through Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs.”  Stephen Gardiner (1483 – 1555) was Mary I’s lord chancellor from her accession to the throne in 1553 until his death. He approved the Act of Parliament which revived the so-called “heresy laws,” thus paving the way for the imprisonment and execution of Protestants.  Considering the pains which have been taken to load us with the odium of sectarianism, it may be thought I should have done something towards removing it. The truth is, our opponents care not for the Church, nor have they any dislike to Dissenters, provided they be adverse to evangelical religion. All that they say, therefore, against us as sectaries, is for the mean and crafty purpose of working upon the prejudices of Churchmen; and such vulgar abuse requires no answer. [AF].  Cf. Ephesians 3:8.

Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet

149

men should be compared with the apostles who wrought miracles.” And another wiseacre gravely suggests that “sectaries are not likely to have these extraordinary powers;” as though, had we been Churchmen, we might have stood some chance of attaining them!⁸⁵ It was the commission of Christ, and not the power of working miracles, that constituted the warrant of the apostles to “go and teach all nations.”⁸⁶ The latter was, indeed, an important qualification, and necessary to accredit the Christian religion at its outset; but if it had been necessary to its progress, it would either have been continued till all nations had been evangelized, or the promise of Christ to be with his servants in the execution of the commission would not have extended to the end of the world.⁸⁷ If we arrogated to compare ourselves with the apostles, in distinction from other Christians, that indeed were not to be endured; but nothing is further from our minds. If we compare ourselves with the apostles, it is not as apostles, but as Christians, engaged, according to the gifts which we possess, in the same common cause. That there were some things pursued by Christ and his apostles which require to be pursued by all Christians cannot be denied. Why else is our Saviour said to have “left us an example that we should follow his steps?”⁸⁸ And why did the apostle exhort the Corinthians to be “followers of him, as he also was of Christ?”⁸⁹ It might have been said of Paul, that for him to compare himself with Christ “was not to be endured;” and that with equal justice as this is said of us. He did not compare himself with Christ, though he imitated him in those things wherein he was set for an example; neither do we compare ourselves with the apostles, though we imitate them in those things wherein they are set for our example. Nothing is more evident, to men who have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil, than that the cause of God is the same in all ages; and that, whatever diversity of gifts there may be among Christians, there is but one spirit.⁹⁰ It is not on that wherein Christianity is diverse in different ages that we found our comparisons, but on that wherein it is the same in all ages. Whatever diversities there were as to spiritual gifts between Christ and his apostles, or among the apostles

 This suggestion is contained in a piece which has lately appeared, under the title of The Dangers of British India from French Invasion and Missionary Establishments. I see nothing in the pamphlet which requires an answer. Government will see to that part which refers to the danger of French invasion, whether they read this performance or not; and as to what relates to the missionaries, it is a mere repetition of things which have been answered in the preceding pages. [AF]. The Dangers of British India from French Invasion and Missionary Establishments […] by a Late Resident at Bhagulpore (London: Black, Parry and Kingsbury, 1808) is by David Hopkins. The arguments are similar to Scott Waring’s, although they are more clearly and temperately expressed. Hopkins argues for a suspension of all missionary activity: see, for example, p. 48.  Matthew 28:19 – 20.  Matthew 28:20.  1 Peter 2:21.  1 Corinthians 1:12.  1 Corinthians 12:4. Cf. Ephesians 4:2– 6, 11– 12.

150

Part III

themselves, yet they each incurred the hatred and opposition of wicked men.⁹¹ The Lord of glory himself was reproached as a madman,⁹² and the people who attended to him considered as fools for listening to his doctrine.⁹³ He was also accused to government of stirring up the people, merely because he taught them throughout the country.⁹⁴ Such also was the treatment of the apostles.⁹⁵ So foreign were the things of which Paul discoursed from all the previous ideas of Festus, that, though he spoke only the words of truth and soberness, yet they appeared to the other to be madness.⁹⁶ And the charges alleged against him, at another time, before Felix, were that he was a pestilent character, a mover of sedition and, what was worse still, a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.⁹⁷ Now when we hear the same charges, for substance, alleged against us, at a distance of almost two thousand years, we cannot help concluding that, whatever disparities there are between Christ and the apostles and Christians of the present day, there are certain common points of likeness, and that all such reproaches prove nothing against us. We do not wonder, however, that our adversaries should not be able to “endure” these comparisons; for they not only feel annoyed by them, but must needs perceive that, if we are compared to Christ and his apostles, they also will be compared to men of a very opposite character, and this they may not be able to “endure” any more than the other. Another subject on which almost all our opponents dwell is the impracticability of converting the Hindoos. Most of them, as if to screen themselves from the suspicion of being averse to Christianity, acknowledge that if the thing were practicable it would be right. But, in the first place, they speak as though we expected the sudden conversion of the whole population of India; and as though nothing were done, unless it amounted to this; but we have no idea of the kind. If the work go on in a silent and gradual way, like the operations of a little leaven, as the kingdom of heaven has been used to go on, the whole lump may in the end, though not at present, be leavened.⁹⁸ We say the leaven has begun to operate, and all we desire is, that its operation may not be impeded.⁹⁹ We perfectly agree with our opponents that the Hindoos can never be converted by mere human means, though we are equally persuaded they will never be convert-

 See, for example, Matthew 5:11– 12, Matthew 10; Luke 10:1– 23.  Mark 3:21.  Cf. John 7:49.  Luke 23:5.  See, for example, Acts 5:28.  Acts 26:24.  Acts 24:5. Fuller’s writing closely mirrors the language of the biblical text, with the words “sedition” and “sect” used in the AV/KJV. Fuller sought to demonstrate that the charges levelled at him and the BMS missionaries had previously been thrown at the Apostle Paul.  Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20 – 21.  Although imbued with postmillennial optimism, Fuller was still prepared to proceed slowly.

Section I: Strictures on Major Scott Waring’s Third Pamphlet

151

ed without them.¹⁰⁰ We no more think that “men can accomplish it” than they. We do not use such calculations respecting the expulsion of paganism and Mahomedism from India as might be used concerning the reduction of a country by a certain degree of physical force. Our hope arises from the promise of Christ to be with his servants in the execution of their mission to the end of the world.¹⁰¹ Nor can our adversaries consistently object to this, since they also can talk of “the omnipotent power of Heaven leading these people into the paths of light and truth,” and even of “the outpouring of the Spirit” upon them. The difference is, they introduce Divine influence as something miraculous, and for the purpose of superceding human means; we as an ordinary blessing, promised to the church in all ages, and to encourage the use of means. They argue from what the Almighty can do to what he must do, if ever the work be done; namely, convert them “in an instant:” we consider such talk as wild and visionary. Our opponents sometimes declaim against “the enthusiasm” of the missionaries; but nothing like this will be found in any of their communications.¹⁰² Surely they must be hardly driven, or they would not have attempted to conceal their opposition to the progress of the gospel under the mask of fanaticism. Do they really think it more probable that God will convert a whole country “in an instant” than that they will be converted in the ordinary use of means? No, they expect no such Divine interference, and, it may be, on this very account give it the preference. If the Hindoos must be converted, they had rather, it seems, that it should be done by the immediate power of God than by us; but it requires no great depth of penetration to perceive that it would please them better still were it to be done by neither.

 This statement in some ways summarizes the practical outworking of Fuller’s Edwardsean evangelical Calvinism: only God can convert, but God uses human “means” to accomplish his saving purposes.  Matthew 28:20.  “Enthusiasm” was a term of abuse in certain forms of “enlightened” discourse, with cool rational thought exalted above perceived emotionalism. The Evangelical Revival was thought to be an example of the latter. Because of some of the phenomena associated with the revival, and because evangelicals placed revelation above reason and dealt in preaching which was dramatic and emotional, they were regularly accused of “enthusiasm.” See, for example, the William Hogarth print, Credulity, Fanaticism, and Superstition (1762), which satirizes “Methodist” enthusiasm.

152

Part III

Section II Remarks on “A Letter to the President of the Board of Control on the Propagation of Christianity in India”¹⁰³ My design in noticing this Letter is more for the purpose of explanation than dispute. The “hints” suggested to those who are concerned in sending out missionaries to the East, so far as they relate to their peaceable temper and character, are very good. I can say, on behalf of the societies which have of late years sent out missionaries to that quarter, that it has been their aim, from the beginning, to act on the principle which the author recommends. The following are extracts from the Instructions of the London and the Baptist Societies.

To the Missionaries Going to Surat. “It is peculiarly incumbent on you for your own comfort, and agreeable to the spirit and teaching of our Divine Master, to avoid all interference both in word and in deed with the Company’s servants, government, and regulations. We cannot sufficiently convey what we feel on the high importance of this injunction, of abstaining from all observations on the political affairs of the country or government, in your intercourse, and in your correspondence. The very existence of the mission may be involved in an attention or inattention to this regulation!”¹⁰⁴

To the Missionaries Going to Bengal. “Since that kingdom which we, as the disciples of Jesus, wish to establish, is not of this world, we affectionately and seriously enjoin on each missionary under our patronage that he do cautiously and constantly abstain from every interference with the political concerns of the country where he may be called to labour, whether by words or deeds; that he be obedient to the laws in all civil affairs; that he respect magistrates, supreme and subordinate, and teach the same things to others; in fine, that

 [Anon.] A Letter to the President of the Board of Control on the Propagation of Christianity in India, to Which Are Added, Hints to Those Concerned in Sending Missionaries Thither (London: J. Hatchard, 1807). The work recommended what Morris called “vigilant control” of missionary activity (John W. Morris, Memoirs of the Life and Death of the Rev Andrew Fuller [2nd edn.; London: Wightman and Cramp, 1826], 243). Morris was unaware of the identity of the author, and none of the reviews and periodicals I have seen name him. The president of the Board of Control from 1807 to July 1809, and then again from November 1809 to April 1812, was Robert Dundas (1771– 1851). He succeeded as Viscount Melville in May 1811.  Fuller is citing from Transactions of the Missionary Society 2, no. 1 (London: T. Williams, 1804), 464.

Section II: Remarks on “A Letter to the President of the Board of Control”

153

he apply himself wholly to the all-important concerns of that evangelical service to which he has so solemnly dedicated himself. “Lastly, however gross may be the idolatries and heathenish superstitions that may fall beneath a missionary’s notice, the Society are nevertheless persuaded that both the mutual respect due from man to man, and the interests of the true religion, demand that every missionary should sedulously avoid all rudeness, insult, and interruption, during the observance of the said superstitions; recommending no methods but those adopted by Christ and his apostles, viz. the persevering use of Scripture, reason, prayer, meekness, and love.”¹⁰⁵ The societies may not, in every instance, have succeeded according to their wishes; but if any of their missionaries have betrayed another spirit, they have not failed to admonish them, and, if they could not be corrected, would certainly recall them.¹⁰⁶ The mildness and gentleness of missionaries, however, does not require to be such as that they should not refute and expose the evils of idolatry. No man can be a missionary who is not allowed to do this. This has been always done by Mr. Schwartz and his colleagues (whom the author of the Letter justly praises), as is manifest from their communications to “the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,” and of which the Society have approved by communicating them to the public. “Mr. Kolhoff,”¹⁰⁷ say they, “in his intercourse with heathens, made it his business to give them a plain and comprehensive view of all the truths of our holy religion, and to prevail upon them to receive them, by representing the absurdity and sinfulness of their idol-worship, the happiness which would attend their obedience to the truth, and the judgments to which they would render themselves liable by a contempt of the only true God, and the offers of his mercy.”—Report of 1798, p. 134. They also tell us of Mr. Pohle,¹⁰⁸ another of their missionaries, “preaching daily the principles of Christianity to the natives of different religious, and especially the

 An article entitled “Christianity in India” in the Evangelical Magazine (May 1813: 175) carries both the BMS and the LMS quotations. The Evangelical Magazine and Missionary Chronicle 21 (London: Williams and Son, 1813), 175.  Fuller’s own attitude is shown in the frequent admonitions he sent to John Fountain, who had arrived in India in 1797 to assist Carey. Fountain had alarmed and indeed angered Fuller by openly making known his republican views. As early as September 1797, just a few months after Fountain’s arrival in Bengal, Fuller was warning him by letter, urging him to curb his “great edge for politicks” (Fuller to John Fountain, September 7, 1797, in Andrew Gunton Fuller, Men Worth Remembering: Andrew Fuller [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1882], 143). Fountain was nearly recalled by the home committee, but died before a final decision could be made. For further details, see Morden, Fuller, 171, 177– 78.  John Kohlhof (1762– 1844) was a godson of Christian Schwartz and a second-generation missionary who worked in Tanjore and the regions immediately surrounding. See DEB, 2:658.  Christian Pohle (1744– 1818) arrived in Tranquebar in 1777. He was an associate of Christian Schwartz and ministered in Tiruchirappalli and Palamcottah. See DEB, 2:658.

154

Part III

heathens, refuting at the same time their errors.” Yet he is said to have been “heard with joy and amazement”—Report of 1796, p. 129. The following extract of Mr. Kolhoff’s letter will furnish an apology for their earnestness, to those who may think nothing to be proper but simple instruction. “Besides a multiplicity of superior deities, the heathens in this country have a great number of infernal deities (or rather devils) whom they likewise make objects of their adoration. The worship or service done to these infernal deities, in order to render them propitious, consists in offering them sheep, swine, fowls, rice, plantains, and intoxicating liquors, which is always done either in a garden, or in a chapel built in a grove, without the city or village. After offering the sacrifice, the priest, and the people by whom the sacrifice is brought, sit down to feast themselves on the things offered. “Such a sacrifice was offered by some heathens in the month of July last, near a village twelve miles to the south of Tanjore. Having offered their sacrifice, they sat down to the succeeding entertainment, in which the priest, haying made too free with the intoxicating liquor, very soon became like a wild beast, and murdered two persons who were near him, with the instrument with which he had killed the victims. Others endeavoured to save themselves by flight, but he pursued after them, murdered a woman, wounded six others, and very likely would have proceeded in his murderous business, if the inhabitants of the village had not brought him down with their sticks, and disabled him from doing further mischief. He was taken a prisoner to Tanjore, and died in his confinement of the wounds he got from the inhabitants. Oh that the heathens would open their eyes to see the dreadful consequences of forsaking their Maker, and doing the devil’s drudgery!”—Report of 1798, p. 132. “I believe,” says the author of the Letter to the President of the Board of Control, “that in Bengal the matter has been much the same as on the coast, and that no dissatisfaction has, for perhaps a century, been produced by the preaching of the missionaries, Catholic or Protestant, with the exception of only a recent instance of disgust, very naturally excited among some Hindoos, from being (if I am rightly informed) coarsely reproached by some vulgar zealot, with the worship of murderers, liars, and so forth”—pp. 9, 10. I very much suspect that this gentleman has been misinformed, even as to this exception. No such communication has reached me; and if any one of the missionaries had, by the use of such language, excited disgust, I think either myself or some other member of the Society would have heard of it. If it were “a fact, and a matter of notoriety in India,” it is somewhat extraordinary that when, on account of the alarms produced by the Vellore mutiny, Mr. Carey and his colleagues were requested to desist from preaching to the natives, the magistrates at Calcutta, who delivered that request, should have made no mention of it; and still more so that they should have declared themselves “well satisfied with their character and deportment,” acknowledging that “no complaint had ever been lodged against them.” But the number of private reports which have of late been circulated is sufficient, for a time, to shake

Section II: Remarks on “A Letter to the President of the Board of Control”

155

the confidence even of those who are friendly to the object. We can only repeat what we have said before, “Let us not be judged by private letters: let our adversaries come forward and accuse the missionaries, or at least give proof of their labours having been injurious.” There is, doubtless, a manner of representing things which tends not to convince, but to provoke. If anything of this kind can be proved against the missionaries, we shall by no means defend it. To charge a company of Hindoos directly with the worship of murderers, liars, etc., must be very improper; but it is possible for a charge of this kind to be urged in a less offensive manner. Supposing a brahmin to be in the company, and that, in encountering the missionary, he should appeal to the Shasters for the lawfulness of idol worship; would it be improper for the missionary calmly to prove from those Shasters that the very gods which they command to be worshiped are there described as the most vicious characters? This, I believe, has been done, and that with good effect. Nor did I ever hear of an instance of any Hindoo being provoked by it, except the brahmins, who were thereby confounded before the people. With respect to inculcating “the less controverted principles of Christianity,” I do not believe that the missionaries have ever so much as mentioned to the converted natives, and certainly not to the unconverted, any of the controversies of European Christians. On the contrary, they teach them what they conceive to be simple Christianity, both in doctrine and practice; and were anything like a disputatious spirit to arise among them (which, I believe, has never been the case), they would utterly discourage it. The fears which this writer seems to entertain of “confounding the people with a variety of discordant opinions and sects” are, I trust, without foundation; but as I shall have occasion to notice this subject more particularly in the next article, I shall here pass it by. What this author means, and who he can refer to, by “churches overflowing with converts, who do no honour to the cause, but serve rather as a stumbling-block than an incitement to the conversion of others,” I know not. Major Scott Waring, in his third pamphlet, understands him as agreeing with him, that “the hundred converts made in thirteen years by the Bengal missionaries have injured the cause of Christianity in India”—p. 136. After this, I must say, the author is called upon by every consideration of truth, justice, and religion, and in the name of each I hereby call upon him, through some public medium, to explain his meaning. The accusations of Major Scott Waring, and his associates, reflect no dishonour; but when taken up as sober truth by a writer who appears to be not only a man of veracity, but friendly to religion, they become of consequence, and require to be either substantiated or retracted. We may have more hope of the conversion of the Hindoos, and consequently more zeal, than this author. We certainly do hope, by the good hand of God upon us, to produce something more than merely “an increased esteem for Christianity”

156

Part III

among the heathen; but so far as his advice goes to recommend temperate men and measures, it meets our cordial approbation. This writer recommends to government that “the number of missionaries should be limited, and that they should be required to enter into covenants with the Company, calculated to ensure their prompt obedience to the restraints which it may be found necessary to impose upon them.” It is possible this gentleman may have formed his idea of the number of the missionaries from the reports circulated in such pamphlets as those of Major Scott Waring, as if “a great number of sectarian missionaries were spread over every part of India.” If he had known that this great number does not exceed sixteen, and that the greater part of them reside at Serampore, under the immediate eye of the supreme government, he would scarcely have thought of such a proposal. As to “covenanting with the Company,” the quotation from Mr. Marshman proves their willingness to give every possible security for their peaceable and good behaviour. The sum of this gentleman’s advice is, that, “with the growing zeal of this country for Indian conversion, the vigilant control of the India government should keep pace.” A vigilant control and a system of intolerance sound very much alike. I hope, however, he does not mean such control as would impede the work itself; and if no more be meant than a restriction from intemperate language and behaviour, such restraints, I trust, will not “be found necessary to be imposed upon them.”

Section III Remarks on the Propriety of Confining Missionary Undertakings to the Established Church I am aware that on this part of the subject I have strong prejudices to encounter, especially from those who know little or nothing of Protestant Dissenters, except from the opprobrious names given them by their adversaries. Of an ecclesiastical establishment for India I say nothing. We shall rejoice in the success of all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Whether such an establishment take place, or not, I am persuaded no force will be used towards the natives; and I should not have suspected a desire to exclude Protestant Dissenters, had it not been expressly avowed in a late discourse before one of our Universities.¹⁰⁹ There are thousands, I am persuaded, in the National Church, who would utterly disapprove of the illiberal wish, and whose hearts would revolt at the idea of recalling

 See Dr. Barrow’s Sermon before the University of Oxford, Nov. 8, 1807, pp. 13, 14. [AF]. The full publication details are: William Barrow, The Expediency of Translating Our Scriptures into Several of the Oriental Languages and the Means of Rendering Those Translations Useful in an Attempt to Convert the Nations of India to the Christian Faith: A Sermon Preached by Special Appointment Before the University of Oxford, November 8, 1807 (Oxford: “At the [Oxford] University Press for the Author,” 1808).

Section III: Remarks on Confining Dissenting Missionary Undertakings

157

men of approved talents and character, who, with great labour and perseverance, have in a measure cleared the ground and sown the seed, to make way for others to go after them who should reap the harvest. Attached as they are to the Church of England, they would not wish, in this manner, to promote her interests. They would, I presume, consider such a measure as strictly sectarian; that is, establishing a party at the expense of the general interest of the church of Christ. But should Churchmen of this description be out-numbered by others of a different mind, we appeal from them to the temperance, the wisdom, and the justice of government. A government distinguished by its tolerant principles, and which guards the rights of conscience even in Mahomedans and heathens, will not, we trust, exclude Protestant Dissenting missionaries from any of its territories, especially men of learning and character, against whom not a single charge of improper conduct has ever been substantiated. Dr. Barrow says,¹¹⁰ “Missionaries of various interests, or parties, ignorantly or wilfully differing in their comments, their opinions, and their designs, should not be suffered to appear amongst those whom we wish to convert.” Surely Dr. Barrow might have supposed, from the disinterested labours of these missionaries, and from the good understanding which they have always endeavoured to cultivate with Christians of other denominations, that they had no “design” in view but that of extending the Christian religion; but that if they differ from him, or others, in some particulars, it may arise from other causes than either ignorance or obstinacy. He adds, “If we permit the ministers of various sects and denominations, Lutherans and Calvinists, Arminians and Baptists, to inculcate their respective tenets without restraint, the unlettered Indian will not be able to determine what that Christianity is which we would persuade him to embrace; and the more learned, convinced that the doctrines of all our teachers cannot be equally true, may be led to conclude that all are equally false.” Plausible as this reasoning may appear on paper, experience and fact are against it. There never has been, and I trust never will be, such an opposition in the doctrine of the missionaries as to furnish any stumbling-block to the natives, According to the reasoning of this gentleman, if “the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge” had sent out an English clergyman as a missionary to India, they must at the same time have recalled Schwartz, Gericke, and their fellow labourers, as being “Lutherans.”

 William Barrow (1754– 1836) was an Anglican clergyman who became archdeacon of Nottingham at the end of his career (1830 – 1832), before ill health forced him to resign. Barrow’s thinking showed some deistical tendencies, although he did seek to balance reason with revelation. He was a churchman who showed considerable antipathy towards Dissenters. Fuller himself describes him, in a letter to Joshua Marshman, as a “haughty priest,” a description which was not for public consumption, but which nevertheless reveals the BMS secretary’s unhappiness with the argument and tone adopted by this writer. See Fuller to J. Marshman, February 12, 1808, “Fuller Letters to Joshua Marshman, 1801– 1812,” Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford (H/1/2).

158

Part III

The errors which exist in the Christian world, to whomsoever they belong, are doubtless an evil, and tend to obstruct the progress of the gospel. Could we be all of one mind, and that the mind of Christ, we might hope for greater success; but seeing this is not the case, what are we to do?¹¹¹ Surely there is no necessity for our all sitting idle; nor yet for one party, which happens to be established by civil authority, to exclude the rest. Let us suppose an agricultural mission among the American Indians. Fifteen or sixteen experienced farmers are sent to teach the people how to cultivate their lands. After a few years’ trial, some good fruits arise from their instructions. But a certain theorist, sitting at home, finds out that these men are not all perfectly of one opinion as to the best modes of husbandry; and therefore proposes to recall them, and to send others in their place. Common sense would, in this case, check the presumption. It would say, “Let these men alone.” There is no such difference between them as materially to affect the object. There is room enough for them all, so that no one will need to interfere with his neighbour. Even the less skillful among them will do good, perhaps as much as those whom you would send in their place, and who, after all, might be as far from unanimity as they are. Such is the extent of the British empire in the East, that if we could divest ourselves of the sectarian spirit of “desiring to boast of other men’s labours,”¹¹² no two denominations of Christians need interfere, and all might be helpers one of another. But though it were otherwise, and the evils alleged were allowed to arise from it, yet the measures proposed by this writer would not diminish them. It is by subscribing [to] “the creed of the National Church” that he wishes all who engage in this work to be united; but the unanimity produced by subscribing [to] a creed, however good that creed may be, is little more than nominal, and therefore could have no good effect on thinking heathens. They would soon discover that there had been almost as many different “comments and opinions” about the meaning of the creed, as about the Scriptures themselves; and that as great an opposition existed among those who had subscribed [to] it as between them and others who had not subscribed [to] it. The truth is, if we wish to convert heathens to ourselves, we must do as the Church of Rome does, set up for infallibility, and withhold the Scriptures from the people, lest they should read and judge for themselves. But if we wish to convert them to Christ, we shall put the Scriptures into their hands, as the only standard of truth, and teach them to consider all other writings as in nowise binding on their consciences, nor even as claiming regard any further than they agree with them. By this rule let them form their judgments of us, and of our differences, should they deem it worthwhile to inquire into them; but the aim of a true missionary will

 Cf. Philippians 2:5.  Cf. Galatians 6:4; Romans 15:20.

Section III: Remarks on Confining Dissenting Missionary Undertakings

159

ever be to divert their attention from such things, and to direct it to “the truth as it is in Jesus.”¹¹³ It cannot be very marvellous to them that fallible men should not be perfectly of one mind. Whether they be pagans or Mahomedans, they know very well this is not the case with them; and though the Christian religion professes to contain one consistent doctrine, yet it were highly presumptuous to encourage in them the hope of finding this anywhere in perfection, save in the Holy Scriptures. However proper it may he for a church to express the leading articles of its faith in a creed, yet to make that creed “a rule of conduct, and a standard of truth, to which appeals in doubt and controversy are to be made,” is to invade the Divine prerogative, and to make void the word of God by our traditions.¹¹⁴ I have too high an opinion of the Reformers to suppose that they ever intended a composition of theirs to take [the] place of the oracles of God.¹¹⁵ Should such an idea be held up to the Hindoos as that which was delivered in this sermon, it were indeed to cast a stumblingblock in their way; but if we be contented with giving them the word of God as the only standard of faith and practice, and with being ourselves, in all we say or do among them, measured by it, no material evil will arise to them from our differences. To this may be added, if no great temptations of a worldly nature be held up as motives, it may be presumed that few will engage in the work but those whom the love of Christ constraineth;¹¹⁶ but between such men the differences will not be very important; and as they know one another, those differences may be expected to diminish. Dr. Barrow recommends “one uniform and general attempt, to the exclusion of all others, where we have the power to exclude them, to be made by the ministers of the National Church, under the authority and regulations of an act of the legislature.” And how many ministers of the National Church does Dr. Barrow think would engage in this undertaking? If there be a sufficient number to justify his proposal, why do they not supply the episcopal mission on the coast of Coromandel?¹¹⁷ The worthy successors of Schwartz have long proclaimed the harvest in India to be great, and the labourers to be few.¹¹⁸ Scarcely a report of the “Society for Promoting

 Cf. Ephesians 4:21; 1 John 5:20; John 14:6.  Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:13.  Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11. The “oracles of God” was an important phrase for Fuller, “strongly expressive of [the] Divine inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures.” See Michael A. G. Haykin, “‘The Oracles of God’: Andrew Fuller and the Scriptures,” Churchman 103, no. 1 (1989): 60 – 76, here 63. The quotation is from Fuller’s The Nature and Importance of an Intimate Knowledge of Divine Truth (1796). See The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, ed. Andrew Gunton Fuller, rev. ed. Joseph Belcher (3 vols.; 3rd ed.; Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988 [1845]), 1:160.  2 Corinthians 5:14.  That is, the south-east coast of the Indian subcontinent, where the SPCK were working.  Matthew 9:37; Luke 10:2.

160

Part III

Christian Knowledge” has appeared since the death of that great man, without calling out for more missionaries. “Mr. Gericke,” says the Society, “laments the want of more assistance at Tanjore. How happy a thing, he observes, would it be if God were to furnish a faithful missionary for the assistance of Mr. Kolhoff, and another or two for the congregations southward of Tanjore. It is delightful to see the growth of the Tanjore mission, and the southern congregations dependent on it. The inhabitants of whole villages flock to it. What a pity that there are not labourers for such a delightful harvest! At Jaffna, and all the coast of Ceylon, there is another great harvest. We have sent such of our native catechists as could be spared; but many are required for that extensive work.” Such was the Report in 1803; and did any of the ministers of the National Church offer themselves for the service? I believe not; but we are told that “applications had been repeatedly made to the professors at Halle in Saxony to furnish the Society with some new missionaries.” The Report in 1804, among other things, gives the cheering intelligence of “the inhabitants of four villages being unanimous in their resolution of embracing the Christian faith; and of their having put away their idols, and converted their temples into Christian churches.” It is added by Mr. Gericke, “It seems that if we had faithful and discreet labourers for the vineyard of the protestant mission on this coast, to send wherever a door is opened unto us, rapid would be the progress of the gospel.” The following is the answer which the Society was enabled to make to these solemn and impressive calls: “It is with concern that the Society still has to report that no suitable supplies of new missionaries have yet been heard of, to succeed the good men who have finished their course.” If we look to the next year, 1805, we find: “The Society cannot yet report that any new missionaries have been engaged in Europe to carry on the work of promoting Christian knowledge in the East Indies, although many efforts have been used to find out suitable persons to be employed in this labour of love.” In the Report of 1806 the complaints are repeated; but no mention is yet made of any new missionaries; and none in that of 1807, just published. I do not reflect upon the English clergy. There are many among them who, I am persuaded, would willingly engage in any service which appeared to be their duty; but who, from the purest motives, might consider themselves called to labour in another quarter. Neither do I reflect upon the Society; for how can they send out missionaries till there are missionaries to be sent? I only ask, how could Dr. Barrow, with these facts before his eyes, preach and write as he did? How could he propose to take the whole work of evangelizing India into the hands of the ministers of the National Church, when that part of it which had a special claim upon them was known to be standing still, in a manner, for want of assistance? Let there be what excellence there may in the Established Church (and far be it from me to wish to depreciate it), it is not thence exclusively that we are to look for the accomplishment of this work. To furnish a sufficient number of suitable men for

Section III: Remarks on Confining Dissenting Missionary Undertakings

161

so great an undertaking is not in the power of any one denomination, established or unestablished; nor, as I suspect, of the friends of Christianity in all of them united: but if, like her that anointed the Lord’s feet, we do what we can, we shall be approved.¹¹⁹ For many ministers and members of the Established Church I feel a most sincere regard; and sorry should I be to wound their feelings. It is a circumstance that has afforded me pleasure, in this otherwise disagreeable controversy, that its tendency is to unite the friends of Christianity in a common cause. If, in my remarks on the episcopal mission in the East, I have seemed to interfere in concerns which do not immediately belong to me, it is because I have found it necessary, in order to repel the propositions of a writer whose avowed intolerance knows no limits but the want of power! Whatever this gentleman may allege on behalf of “one uniform and general attempt, to be made by the ministers of the National Church exclusively,” “the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge” cannot, with any inconsistency, second the motion. They must know that such a proposal, whatever it may appear on paper, could not be reduced to practice. And surely it is not too much to infer, that if it be right and desirable to introduce Christianity among the Hindoos, others should be allowed to take part in the work as well as they, especially as there is no desire of interfering in any of their labours. Let the Church of England do what it can. Let it send out ministers who are willing to spend and be spent in the work,¹²⁰ and we with all our hearts shall pray for their success. From missionaries of this description we should have no apprehensions. Such men would not wish to “exclude” those who are already employed, whether they could fully accord with them or not. Their language would be, “Let there be no strife between us, for we are brethren! Is not the whole land before us? If you will go to the left hand, then we will take the right; or if you depart to the right hand, we will go to the left.”¹²¹ Nay more, their language already is, “god bless all missionary institutions; may the work of god prosper in all their hands!”¹²² For our parts, observing of late years that Christianity itself was powerfully assailed, we have, in a manner, laid aside inferior objects, and made common cause with the Christian world. We have been less attentive to the things in which we differ  Matthew 26:6– 13; Mark 14:3 – 9; Luke 7:36 – 50; John 12:1– 8. See esp. Mark 14:8.  Cf. 2 Corinthians 12:15.  Cf. Genesis 13:7– 9.  See the Rev. Basil Woodd’s Sermon, prefixed to the last Report of the Committee of the Society for Missions to Africa and the East, pp. 175 – 178. [AF]. Basil Woodd (1760 – 1831) was an evangelical Anglican clergyman, a minister at Bentick Chapel, Marylebone, and an enthusiastic advocate for the CMS. He stands as a representative of evangelicals within the Church of England who were positive towards all genuine missionary efforts and were, in Fuller’s understanding, the opposite of men like Barrow. See DEB, 2:1217. There are three pamphlets by Woodd in the list of “Books in Fuller’s Library,” nos. 303, 304, 305. See The Diary of Andrew Fuller, ed. Michael D. McMullen and Timothy D. Whelan (The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller 1; Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2016), appendix A, 226.

162

Part III

from other Christians than to those wherein we are agreed; and to the best of our abilities have joined with them in defending the common faith. Our zeal has not been expended in making proselytes to a party, but in turning sinners to God through Jesus Christ. It was in pursuit of this object that we first engaged in missionary undertakings. We had no interest to serve but that of Christ. It was in our hearts to do something for his name among the heathen; and, if it might be, to enlarge the boundaries of his kingdom.¹²³ Such also we know (as far as men can know each other) were the motives of our brethren, the missionaries. And now that it hath pleased God in some measure to prosper our way, it is our humble, respectful, and most earnest entreaty … hinder us not! We ask not for any temporal advantage, any participation in trade, any share of power, any stations of honour, or any assistance from government; we ask merely for permission to expend such sums of money as may be furnished by the liberality of Christians, earned chiefly by the sweat of the brow, in imparting the word of life to our fellow subjects in Hindostan.

Appendix Recent Testimonies to the Character of the Missionaries Extracts of a letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Sandys¹²⁴ (who, after twenty-two years’ service in India, returned in 1804), in answer to one addressed to him since the veracity of the missionaries has been called in question by Major Scott Waring. “From my acquaintance with Messrs. Carey, Ward, Marshman, etc., before I left India, I feel a repugnance to answer the question on their veracity. I can believe that, as all men are fallible, they in some of their impressions and relations may have been mistaken; but, as to their veracity, I do not, cannot, dare not doubt it. I can also readily conceive that a common village tumult in India may in England be considered as a very serious affair; but an English mob and an Indian mob are very different things. A missionary may go with a small boat thirty or forty miles to a village market, sit down, converse, and afterwards preach. Perhaps some brahmin will oppose him. This introduces the Hindoo idolatry; and, while he remains calm, they will become vociferous. As he proceeds to his boat, the boys may be encouraged to throw mud at him; but no personal injury follows; and the missionary,

 An echo of Isaiah 54:2, which was the text of Carey’s sermon, entitled Expect Great Things; Attempt Great Things, preached at Friar Lane, Nottingham on May 30, 1792. For further details, see the editor’s introduction to this volume.  William Sandys (1759 – 1829) served the EIC as an army officer in Bengal from 1779. He became a lieutenant colonel in the 15th Bengal Native Infantry in 1803. He retired to his estates in Cornwall in 1805, and so was based in England when the Apology was written. A bound copy of the three parts of the Apology, held at Fuller Baptist Church, Kettering, is inscribed to him by Fuller, dated 1810, thus suggesting the author of the work was grateful for the testimony Sandys had provided.

Appendix: Recent Testimonies to the Character of the Missionaries

163

as he is going away, may be asked by a villager when he will come again and hold conversation with his brahmin: but this is all. “Having served at different times in various staff departments of the army, particularly in Mysore, under the Marquis Cornwallis, I had a great variety of people, of different castes, under my direction, and had full opportunity of observing their customs and manners. “I never heard of anything worthy of being called a tumult or disturbance occasioned by the missionaries while I was in India, which I think I should if there had been any; and I do not believe that any of their addresses to the natives, either in words or writing, would produce any serious effect of the kind, provided there were no actual interruption of their customs. At the encampment near Surat, a Bengal brahmin sepoy (a soldier of the priest order) went to the river to perform his ablutions, and to say his prayers, according to custom, in the water. Another sepoy, of the Bombay establishment,¹²⁵ going into the stream before him, at the same time and for the same purpose, muddied the water. As soon as the brahmin perceived it, he instantly left the river and ran to his battalion, calling out that he was contaminated and had lost his caste. The respective battalions to which the parties belonged immediately took arms and, had not their officers exerted themselves with great energy and prudence, the consequence must have been dreadful; but through their interference the business was settled. The Bombay sepoy might have said what he pleased to the brahmin standing on the bank. He might have inveighed against him in the most bitter terms, and told him that his caste was better than his: the brahmin, I believe, would have returned only a smile of contempt. It is not talking to them, or endeavouring to persuade them, but actual interference that will excite mutiny and disaffection. In all the instances of dissatisfaction that I remember, this has been the case. “A little before my return, I and some others were in company with a Christian native, called Petumber, a very eloquent man.¹²⁶ He told us that he had in preaching to his countrymen occasionally met with abuse, but that in general they heard him with attention. In crossing a river, he said, he passed one of his old acquaintances, a brahmin, who was washing, and praying to his gods, to whom he spoke of the absurdity of his worship. The brahmin only pitied him, and told him that with his caste he had lost his senses. Thus they parted without anything like anger on either side; but had Petumber passed the stream above him, religious hatred and revenge would have followed. As to talking about religion they are fond of it: it is only when they are interrupted or contaminated that they are seriously offended.”

 Bombay (Mumbai) is on the west coast of India, in the modern Indian state of Maharashtra.  On Petumber, see extracts from William Ward’s journal for 1804, printed in The General Assembly’s Missionary Magazine, Or Evangelical Intelligencer (Philadelphia, PA: William Farrand, 1806) vol. 2, 457– 60. According to Ward, Petumber appeared to “walk steadily” (with walking in this context a synonym for Christian discipleship) and had a “good knowledge of divine things” (p. 460).

164

Part III

Extracts of a letter from WILLIAM CUNNINGHAME, Esq., late assistant judge at Dinagepore, on the same occasion as the foregoing.¹²⁷ “If Mr. Carey be accused of falsehood, and if I were called upon to state what I think of this charge, my sensations respecting it would be those of any ingenuous person well acquainted with the great Howard,¹²⁸ had he been called upon to vindicate that philanthropist from the charge of inhumanity. I am as well convinced as I can be of anything which is not the subject of consciousness, that Mr. Carey is totally incapable of being guilty of any falsehood or misrepresentation whatever. “During the last two years of Mr. Carey’s residence in the Dinagepore district, he was well known, not only to me, but to all the gentlemen in the Company’s civil service in that station. He possessed, I can safely say, the cordial friendship of some, and the good opinion of all. “In particular, I know that the gentleman who held the office of judge and magistrate of that large and important district had a very high esteem and respect for Mr. Carey’s character, which he showed by every proper mark of polite attention. And of that gentleman, the unspotted integrity and the merits as a public servant are well known, and have, I believe, been acknowledged by every successive government of Bengal, from Lord Cornwallis’s to Sir George Barlow’s. While Mr. Carey resided in the above district, his conduct was uniformly quiet and irreprehensible; and, had it been otherwise, I, from my situation as registrar of the civil court of Dinagepore and assistant to the magistrate, must have known of it. “After I quitted Dinagepore in 1801, my personal intercourse with Mr. Carey became more frequent. I had also an opportunity of becoming well acquainted with Mr. Ward, and knew Mr. Marshman, though, from this last gentleman’s being more confined by his duties as a schoolmaster, I seldom saw him. “I shall say nothing of Mr. Carey’s religion, because it is not that which is the subject of dispute; but I will say that the unaffected simplicity of his manners, the modesty of his demeanour, his good sense and information, his unwearied industry,

 William Cunninghame is the same man whose letter, which Fuller previously cited, defended John Thomas against Scott Waring’s allegations. Cunninghame (sometimes spelled Cunningham) later became a prolific author on biblical prophecy and was part of the circle, which also included Edward Bickersteth, which sought to combine premillennial eschatology with a historicist reading of prophecy. Cunninghame’s The Premillennial Advent of Messiah Demonstrated from the Scriptures: Especially Addressed to the Consideration of the Ministers of Christ (2nd ed.; Glasgow: J. Smith, 1833) gives a flavour of his later thought. His father, also called William Cunninghame (1731– 1799), made his fortune through tobacco, which depended on the slave trade—a fortune which his son inherited.  Most likely a reference to John Howard (1726 – 1790), the philanthropist who was especially known for his campaigns for prison reform in England and across Europe. Ward refers to John Howard in his poetry: “If Britons, then, revere a Howard’s name / If they would wish t’ immortalize his fame / Let them adopt the plans his wisdom fram’d / To give them which he toils and death sustain’d.” See Samuel Stennett, Memoirs of the Life of Rev. William Ward (London: J. Haddon, 1825), 278.

Appendix: Recent Testimonies to the Character of the Missionaries

165

and the general excellence of his character, did, as far as I had an opportunity of observing, procure to him the esteem of all those Europeans to whom he was known. “I also frequently conversed with Hindoo and Mahomedan natives, rather of the better sort, upon the subject of Christianity and the probable success of the mission, and they generally discussed these things with much freedom. As far as I can recollect, I never in any conversation of this kind heard Mr. Carey or any of the other missionaries mentioned with disrespect. On the contrary, I believe their characters were highly respected even by the natives, who, with all their faults, generally form pretty just estimates of the characters of Europeans who reside among them, and are by no means backward in giving their sentiments thereupon. “Though I did not personally know the native converts, I can safely affirm, from my acquaintance with the character of the missionaries, that their testimony respecting those converts ought to be received, and that full credit should be attached to it. It is a most unfounded calumny to assert that the missionaries have received immoral characters, knowing them to be such, into the church. I am certain they would receive no such characters.” [The two following letters were published by the author in a separate form, at a subsequent period to the above; but as they form an appropriate conclusion to the subject, it is deemed advisable to give them a place in this Appendix.]¹²⁹ THE PRINCIPLES OF THE PETITIONERS¹³⁰ TO PARLIAMENT FOR RELIGIOUS TOLERATION IN INDIA: A LETTER TO JOHN WEYLAND, JUN., ESQ., OCCASIONED BY HIS LETTER TO SIR HUGH INGLIS, BART., ON THE STATE OF RELIGION IN INDIA. Sir,

 This note, which would have been inserted by Andrew Gunton Fuller, appears in various editions of Fuller’s collected works, for example in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller […] in Two Volumes (ed. Andrew Gunton Fuller; Boston: Lincoln Edmonds, 1833), 2:623; and in the standard edition, The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller (ed. Andrew Gunton Fuller; rev. ed. Joseph Belcher; 3 vols.; 3rd ed.; Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988 [Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1845]), 2:831. The two pieces by Fuller both relate to the BMS and show further his defence of the society that meant so much to him, hence their inclusion in this present volume.  By the title given to these pages, the author means no more than to express his own principles, and what he conceives to be the principles of the petitioners in general. Having observed, by conversing with several gentlemen, that the object of the petitions was understood to be something incompatible with the security of government, he wished, as far as he was able, to remove those impressions, and to give a true statement of what he conceived to be their object. [AF].

166

Part III

I have read with interest your Letter addressed to Sir Hugh Inglis¹³¹, Bart., “On the State of Religion in India.”¹³² Having been for twenty years past the secretary of the Baptist Missionary Society, the Society which sent out the present Dr. Carey and his colleagues, it is natural that I should be interested in whatever may affect the important question now pending in Parliament. The dispassionate, candid, and for the most part judicious strain in which you have written, sir, deserves acknowledgment. I have no hesitation in saying, it appears to me to come nearer the point at issue than anything that I have met with. Those gentlemen who assert that, “as the Hindoos and the Christians worship one great Creator, it is indifferent whether the adoration be offered to him through the pure medium of Christianity, or through the bloody and obscene rites of the Indian idolatry,” you very properly deem incompetent to judge on the subject.¹³³ The British legislature I trust will never so dishonour itself as to entertain the question whether the Christian religion be preferable to that of Juggernaut. As to what you have written, sir, of an ecclesiastical establishment, that is not my immediate concern; but if it be so conducted as to “take a share in the conversion of the heathen,” and do not interfere with the labours of those who are unconnected with it, it will be entitled to our Christian regards, no less than our undertakings are to those of pious Episcopalians.¹³⁴ The efforts of individuals and societies unconnected with the Establishment are those which immediately concern me, and a large proportion of the petitioners. Many of your remarks on this part of the subject, sir, are candid and liberal. Your short and conclusive proof that “no danger is to be apprehended from these efforts,

 The man Fuller was addressing, John Weyland, Jr. (1774– 1854), was the founding editor of the British Review and London Critical Journal in 1811. During Weyland’s career as an editor and a writer, he sought to promote a broadly Christian morality. He was briefly MP for Hindon in Wiltshire in 1830, only for his seat to be abolished in 1832. See Weyland, John (1774– 1854), of Woodrising Hall, Norf. | History of Parliament Online (http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/). Hugh Inglis (1744– 1820) was a soldier and then a merchant with the EIC from 1762 to 1775. After his return to England, he became a company director in 1784, serving two periods as the company’s deputy chairman (1796– 1797, 1799 – 1800) and two further periods as chairman (1797– 1798, 1800 – 1801). Inglis was created a baronet in 1801. He was MP for Ashburton in Devon from 1802 to 1806, a position he used almost exclusively to speak on behalf of the EIC. He was closely involved in the negotiations to renew the company’s charter in 1813. See Inglis, Sir Hugh, 1st Bt. (1744– 1820), of Milton Bryant, Beds. | History of Parliament Online. This section originally appeared as a pamphlet: Andrew Fuller, The Principles of the Petitioners to Parliament for Religious Toleration in India: A Letter to John Weyland, Jun. Esq.: Occasioned by His Letter to Sir Hugh Inglis, Bart. on the State of Religion in India (London: Hatchard; Messrs. Button & Son; Gale, Curtis & Fenner, 1813).  Weyland’s open letter was published as Letter to Sir Hugh Inglis […] on the State of Religion in India (Windsor: C. Knight, 1813). It was answered not only by Fuller, but also—negatively—by the indefatigable Scott Waring. See John Scott Waring, Mr. Weyland’s Letter to Sir Hugh Inglis (London: Ridgway, 1813).  Weyland, Letter to Inglis, 5.  Weyland, Letter to Inglis, 13.

Appendix: Recent Testimonies to the Character of the Missionaries

167

because no danger ever has arisen, though the practice has been going on for centuries, and during the period many thousands of natives have been converted,” must approve itself to every candid and enlightened legislator.¹³⁵ It is here, sir, that I wish to offer a few remarks on your proposed regulations, and to state what I consider as the principles of the general body of the petitioners. In order to be a competent judge of the question at issue, you reckon a man must be “free from enthusiasm, either for or against Christianity.” You do not mean by this that he should be “deficient in a warmth of gratitude for the benefits of Christianity;” but merely that, while he engages in real earnest in the propagation of the gospel, he is not to be regardless of good sense and sound discretion.¹³⁶ That there are enthusiasts of this description is very possible; but I hope to be believed, when I say that, of all the persons I have conversed with on the subject, I have never met with such a one. Persons whose principal attention is turned to the conversion of the heathen, and who are but little acquainted with its political bearings, may dwell more on the former and less on the latter; but I never heard such an idea as this suggested, that “we have nothing to do but to pour into India all the evangelical knowledge and zeal we can export, and leave the result to Providence.”¹³⁷ Many of the petitions have expressed a wish for all prudent and peaceable means to be used; and where this has not been expressed, I believe it has been invariably understood. It is not to prudence, sir, that the petitioners have any objection; but merely to that species of prudence that would not scruple to subject, nor even to sacrifice, Christianity to political expediency. Ought a nation, sir, to set up its power and temporal prosperity as the supreme end, and to require that nothing be done within the sphere of its influence but what appears consistent with, if not calculated to promote, this end? Is not this to “sit in the seat of God?” See Ezek. 28:1– 10. Dr. Carey and his colleagues, sir, are acknowledged by the Marquis Wellesley (in a late speech, said to have been delivered in the House of Lords) to be “quiet, prudent, discreet, orderly, and learned men;”¹³⁸ yet no men on earth are further from admitting such a principle as the above than they. We may be prudent without being irreligious. Dr. Marshman has proved that, if the British government be friendly to Christianity, it will by this ensure its own prosperity; for “whatever is right is wise;” but to befriend Christianity itself in subserviency to our worldly interest were to turn that which is good into evil, and, instead of “placing us under the Divine

 Weyland, Letter to Inglis, 23.  Weyland, Letter to Inglis, 6, 9.  Weyland, Letter to Inglis, 5. Weyland is being negative, by implication, towards evangelical efforts. Fuller believes evangelical work has been misunderstood and that Weyland’s comments are a caricature. The emphasis on “means” is, of course, central to the missionaries’ understanding of how God in his providence works, and so to their own modus operandi.  The speech was made on April 9, 1813. See Calcutta Review 13 (Calcutta: Sanders, Cones and Co., 1850), 14, which reported Wellesley’s words as: “He had always considered the Missionaries, who were in India during his time as a quiet, orderly, discreet, and learned body.”

168

Part III

protection,” might be expected to procure our overthrow. If God be what we are in the habit of calling him, the Supreme Being, he must be treated as supreme, or we cannot hope for his blessing. You allege that “the ultimate conversion of these heathens depends, under God, upon the duration of the British dominion.”¹³⁹ That the British dominion may be the appointed means of enlightening the eastern world, as the Roman dominion was of enlightening Britain, is readily admitted. This may be the design of Providence in connecting them. It is also allowed that, on the supposition of British dominion being used for the amelioration of the condition of the natives, its duration is very desirable, and must needs be desired by the friends of Christianity; but I cannot allow the prevalence of the kingdom of Christ to depend on the duration of any earthly government. The duration of a government may depend upon its befriending the kingdom of Christ; but if it refuse to do this, deliverance will arise from another quarter.¹⁴⁰ The great system of God, as revealed in prophecy, will be accomplished; the nation and kingdom that refuses to serve Him will perish.¹⁴¹ I am persuaded, sir, that you have no intention to reduce Christianity to a state of mere subserviency to civil policy, and that if you perceived this consequence to be involved in anything you had advanced, you would retract it. “I do certainly,” you say, “go a little beyond Machiavel,” who was for holding religion in veneration as the means of preserving government.¹⁴² Yet you speak of our being “bound as a Christian country to impart the blessings of Christianity, only so far as it can be done with safety to our dominion.”¹⁴³ Be assured, sir, I have no desire to endanger British dominion, nor the most distant idea that the labours of missionaries will have any such tendency. If they have, however, it will be an event of which history furnishes no example. But why set up the safety of our dominion as the supreme object, to which everything else, even the imparting of the blessings of Christianity, must give way? If there be any meaning in our Saviour’s words, “He that saveth his life shall lose it,”¹⁴⁴ is not this the way to ruin that very dominion you are so anxious to preserve? It was to prevent the Romans from coming to take away their place and nation that the Jews were persuaded to crucify the Lord of glory—a measure which brought on them the very evil that they dreaded. Review, sir, your proposed regulations for confining missionaries to a particular district, and sending them away by a summary power upon proof of any evil conse-

 Weyland, Letter to Inglis, 6.  Cf. Esther 4:14.  These comments come close to the heart of Fuller’s attitude to British government in India. Ultimately he is interested in the growth of God’s kingdom, which is not dependent on “the duration of any earthly government,” whether the British or the Roman Empire. His focus is on the kingdom of Christ. Once again, this is bold.  Weyland, Letter to Inglis, 11.  Weyland, Letter to Inglis, 23.  Matthew 16:25; cf. 10:39. See also Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24, 17:33; John 12:25.

Appendix: Recent Testimonies to the Character of the Missionaries

169

quences, not only arising, but “likely to arise, from their presence.”¹⁴⁵ Does not this suppose that you have adversaries to deal with, such as Shimei was known to be by Solomon; who, therefore, must be confined and watched with a jealous eye, and who require to be punished on the ground of mere apprehension?¹⁴⁶ Does it not proceed on the principle that everything must be subservient to political expediency?¹⁴⁷ Why should you not treat missionaries as friends till they prove themselves to be enemies? If they prove to be such, let them be sent home at our expense; or let us be informed, and we will recall them. Of all the missionaries that have gone to India, how many has the government found that deserved the name of enemies? I believe not one. But their zeal, it has been said, may betray them into indiscretions. It may; we have never heard, however, of any such indiscretions as those of which military gentlemen have been guilty, in cutting off men’s beards¹⁴⁸ and shooting their monkeys.¹⁴⁹ But allowing that religious zeal may betray them into some indiscretions, and this we do not deny; yet let them be treated as you would treat a friend; that is, let them be told of their indiscretions, of which it may be they are not aware at the time. A few such words would go much further with these men than a jealous eye or severe animadversion. A friendly feeling, sir, in this case, is everything. Suppose a missionary stationed up the country;¹⁵⁰ he gives the Scriptures to those who ask for them, and preaches, or rather converses, with the natives (for their addresses are not harangues, but are frequently interrupted by inquiries). The Hindoos are attentive, and desire to hear more; but two or three Mahomedans, to whom it is almost natural to be of a bitter, persecuting spirit, are displeased, and get a letter of complaints written to government. If government be friendly, it will hear both sides before it judges; if not, the missionary will be immediately ordered away. Such, sir, appears to be the summary process which your proposed regulations would justify.

 Weyland, Letter to Inglis, 24.  2 Samuel 16:5 – 14; 1 Kings 2:8 – 9, 3:36 – 46. Shimei had cursed David, who later warned his son Solomon about him. Solomon confined Shimei to Jerusalem and punished him as soon as he ventured outside the city. Fuller suggests that if Weyland’s proposals are accepted, the missionaries will effectively be regarded in a similar way to Shimei.  Fuller’s argument, although carefully expressed, is bold, given that this is a public pronouncement to political power. Political concerns are “subservient” to the progress of the kingdom of God, not vice versa.  The question of the length at which Sepoy troops were to keep their beards was significant with respect to Vellore. See Patrick A. Agnew, Letter to the Honourable Court of Directors of the East India Company, from Colonel P. A. Agnew, Late Adjutant-General of the Army at Fort St. George (London: W. Phillips, 1808), 25 – 34.  For this sort of behaviour, see Ian St. John, The Making of the Raj: India Under the East India Company (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2012), 122. It was rumoured that such actions had contributed to the 1806 Vellore massacre. For a later reference to British officers gratuitously killing monkeys in India, see The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Miscellany 2, third series (London: W. H. Allen, 1844), 134. Monkeys are considered sacred in connection with the god Hanuman.  That is, in a remote part of the country.

170

Part III

Why should imaginary dangers, unfounded in a single fact during the experience, as you say, of centuries, be remade the ground of legislative control? Surely, sir, your apprehensions of “a premature shock being given to the Hindoo opinions,”¹⁵¹ while yet you acknowledge that “no danger ever has arisen,”¹⁵² must have been excited by the reiterated representations of those persons whom you reckon incompetent to judge on the question. Why should a course of disinterested labours which in every instance of conversion adds a cordial friend to the British government, even though it were, like the course of an apostle, to be now and then the innocent occasion of a local disturbance, be viewed with so jealous an eye? Out of nearly five hundred persons who have embraced Christianity by means of our missionaries, we fear no contradiction when we say that not one of them has proved himself any other than a loyal and peaceable subject. If there be any danger of mischief arising from missionaries, it must affect themselves before it can affect government. In the frolic of the officers who shot the sacred monkeys, government does not appear to have been so much as thought of; it was their own life, and that only, that was endangered; and so long as missionaries stand merely on their own ground, receiving no favour but what is common to good subjects (and this is all we ask), it will be the same with them. If any danger arise, it will be to themselves; and of this, after all their experience, they have no apprehensions. Some gentlemen cannot understand what we mean in our petitions, when we profess obedience to government in civil things only. We mean nothing more than to reserve our consciences for God, according to our Saviour’s words, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”¹⁵³ We have no reserves but these. Hinder us not in our efforts to carry into execution the commission of Christ, and we are not anxious about other things.¹⁵⁴ We mean by obedience in all civil concerns as much as if we engaged to conduct ourselves in a loyal, orderly, and peaceable way. If it be objected that we are liable to act improperly in religious as well as in civil concerns, we answer: If our conduct, even in the exercise of religion, be injurious to the peace of society, we should allow this to be a breach of civil obedience, and have no objection to be accountable for it; only let us not be punished on the ground of mere apprehension, nor treated but as being what we are—sincere friends to our country and to our species. I am, sir, respectfully yours, ANDREW FULLER

 Weyland, Letter to Inglis, 6.  Weyland, Letter to Inglis, 23.  Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25.  “The commission of Christ” is, once again, Matthew 28:19 – 20. This sentence reveals the heart of Fuller’s thinking and harks back to his earlier dispute with Barrow. The overriding desire is freedom to fulfil the commission. Everything else is secondary.

Appendix: Recent Testimonies to the Character of the Missionaries

171

ANSWER TO AN ANONYMOUS LETTER FROM “AN OBSERVER,” ON HIS OBJECTIONS TO FOREIGN MISSIONS I should not have thought it necessary thus publicly¹⁵⁵ to notice an anonymous letter, had it not afforded me an opportunity of answering an objection to foreign missions, which has been more than once advanced—that of its interfering with exertions in favour of our own countrymen. I shall say but little of the gross misstatement in the letter,¹⁵⁶ as that my going to Scotland, in 1799, was to “witness the state of that country,” and to “concert measures for doing good;” that I did not “condescend” to halt, and preach, between York and Newcastle; and that “it cannot be said that one convert has been made” in foreign missions. Such assertions must have arisen from the want of information. My journey was merely owing to a kind invitation given me to go and receive the donations of a number of my fellow Christians, who were willing to contribute to the giving of the Holy Scriptures to a great nation which had them not, as all the country between York and Newcastle has. My excursion was not a preaching one, though I did preach, and that to the utmost extent of  This article originally appeared in the Theological and Biblical Magazine, 1802. [AF]. The Biblical Magazine, Intended to Promote the Knowledge and Belief of the Sacred Scriptures, was published by J. W. Morris between 1801 and 1803, before merging with The Theological Magazine and Review to form The Theological and Biblical Magazine, which ran from 1804 to 1807. Fuller uses the newer title even though his piece was published in the earlier incarnation of the periodical. For details, see [Rosemary Taylor], “English Baptist Periodicals, 1790 – 1865,” BQ 27, no. 2 (1977): 56.  The following is a verbatim copy of this singular communication: “Rev. Sir, Various and costly have been the exertions made for the propagation of the gospel among foreign nations. However laudable this labour of love may be, yet very considerable blame is attached to it; since the probability of greater success was in favour of a region far less distant, and more deserving, if charity begins at home. The wilful neglect of so large a part of our own land is certainly unpardonable. It is true that many an expensive and fatiguing journey has been undertaken, from south to north Britain, which has been well repaid by that which has taken and is likely to take place. Yet you, sir, have rode post down to the Scotch metropolis, for the purpose of witnessing the state of that country, with a view to aid in concerting the best means by which good might be done; but neither yourself, nor others, who at least ought to have had more consideration, did condescend to halt by the way, either to preach or inquire into the truly deplorable state of ignorance and irreligion of that large and populous tract of country situated between York and Newcastle-upon-Tyne; or in your flight back again, to give one thought towards the reformation of Cumberland, or heathenish Westmoreland. If we may judge of the success which attended the labours of Paulinus, the first missionary sent into these parts from Rome, the most pleasing benefits would be the consequence, upon the application of proper means. Paulinus is said to have baptized, in one day, ten thousand persons in the river Swale, near Richmond in Yorkshire. The fair Otaheitan, the filthy Hottentot, and cruel East Indian, have each been sharers in missionary boon, at the expense of many thousands of pounds, many valuable lives, and the earnest labours of pious and zealous characters; and after all this, it cannot be said that one convert has been made; when, in all probability, if a tenth part had been done in favour of our own nation, some scores, perhaps hundreds, would have been praising God and thanking you, which they might have done to all eternity. That the time for the calling of the Gentiles may be fast approaching is the earnest prayer of one who is no director in these matters, but only, AN OBSERVER.” [AF].

172

Part III

my power. If I had taken half a year, I might have stopped much oftener than I did; but then it is possible my own congregation would have reminded me that “charity begins at home.” Whether success has, or has not, attended foreign missions, the accounts which have been printed of them, so far as human judgment can go in such matters, will enable us to decide. The only question that requires attention is, Whether the spirit which, within the last ten years, has prompted Christians of different denominations to engage in foreign missions, has been favourable or unfavourable to the propagation of the gospel at home? It is a fact which cannot be disputed, that, within the above period, there have been far greater exertions to communicate the principles of religion to the heathenized parts of both England and Scotland than at any former period within the remembrance, at least, of the present generation.¹⁵⁷ If I were to say they have been five times greater than before, I think I should not exceed the truth. Nor has that part of the kingdom to which the writer of the letter alludes been overlooked. And how is this fact to be accounted for? Will this friend to village-preaching unite with Bishop Horsley,¹⁵⁸ and say it is the effect of political motives; and merely a new direction of the democratic current, which was interrupted by the Treason and Sedition bills in 1795?¹⁵⁹ If so, we might ask: How came it to commence two years before those bills were passed? How is it that it should have prevailed, not so much among those Dissenters who took an eager share in political contention, as those who had scarcely ever concerned themselves in anything of the kind? And finally: How is it that it should have extended to other nations as well as Britain, and other quarters of the world as well as Europe? But I suppose the writer of this letter would not attribute it to this cause. How then will he account for it? The truth most manifestly is, that the very practice of which he complains has been more conducive to that which he recommends than all other causes put together. It is natural that it should be so. A longing desire after the spread of the gospel, when once kindled, extends in all directions. The same principle which induces some to leave their native land, to impart the heavenly light, induces others to contribute and pray for their success; and while they are doing this, it is next to impossible to forget their own countrymen, who, though they have access to the written word, yet live “without God in the world.”¹⁶⁰  Note that Fuller refers to parts of England and Scotland as “heathenized.” For him, a “heathen” was someone without Christ, whatever their ethnicity or background.  For Horsley, see Part I n. 62 above. See also Frederick C. Mather, High Church Prophet: Bishop Samuel Horsley (1733 – 1806) and the Caroline Tradition in the Later Georgian Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003).  The Treason Act of 1795 and the Seditious Meetings Act of 1795 were established by Parliament largely due to a fear of seditious political activity in the wake of the French Revolution. Even so, they made Dissenters feel vulnerable and could be used by some high churchmen, such as Horsley, to threaten them. Such acts illustrate the discrimination Dissenters continued to face after the 1689 Act of Toleration.  Ephesians 2:12.

Appendix: Recent Testimonies to the Character of the Missionaries

173

It is very singular that the example of “Paulinus” (I suppose he meant Austin the monk), who came to Britain as a missionary from Rome, about the year 596, and is said to have baptized ten thousand people in the river Swale,¹⁶¹ should be alleged against foreign missions. Allowing Austin’s converts to have been real Christians (which, however, is very doubtful), according to the “Observer” there was “much blame attached” to his labours of love, since the probability of greater success was in favour of Italy; a country far less distant than Britain, and more deserving of his charity, which should have begun at home. Unfortunately for this proverb, I do not recollect ever hearing it alleged but for a selfish purpose. Go and ask relief for some distressed object of a wealthy man. His answer is, “Charity begins at home.” True, and it seems to end there. And, by the reasoning of this observer, his would do the same. So long as there are any sinners in Britain, we must confine our attention to them. A person of a contracted mind once objected to the exportation of our manufactures. “We have many poor people in England,” said he, “who are half naked, and would be glad of them; and charity begins at home.” He was informed, however, by a merchant, that to send our commodities abroad is not the way to impoverish, but to enrich ourselves, and even to furnish the poor with clothing, by providing them with plenty of good employment.

 Fox’s Acts and Monuments, vol. I, p. 132, 9th edition. [AF]. “Austin” is a reference to Augustine (d. 604?), the first archbishop of Canterbury. Fuller here seems to have confused two figures from sixthand seventh-century English Christian history. “Paulinus” (584?–644) was a contemporary of Augustine who worked in the north of England (hence his relevance to the “Observer’s” concerns) and became the first bishop of York. John Foxe referred to “Augustine” as “Austin.”

Index of Persons Augustine

173, 173n161

Barlow, George 39, 90, 90n72, 90n73, 143, 164 Barrow, William 48, 49, 59 – 60, 156n109, 157, 157n110, 159, 160, 161n122, 170n154 Bashoo, Ram 109n29 Bernier, Francois 68, 68n16, 69n21 Beza, Theodore 9 Bickersteth, Edward 164n127 Bie, Olave 18, 42n185, 143, 143n62 Biss, Hannah 137n39, 139n49 Biss, John 137, 137n39 Bonner, Edward 148, 148n81 Brainerd, David 3, 13 Brown, David 85, 85n59 Buchanan, Claudius 67, 67n15, 68, 77, 85, 106, 107, 117, 119, 124 Burls, William 47 Calvin, John 9, 134 Carey, Dorothy 17, 93n81, 137n36 Carey, Felix 137, 137n36, 137n38, 138n44 Carey, Peter 36 Carey, William 3 – 5, 7, 9, 9n40, 10, 12 – 4, 17 – 20, 22 – 4, 27 – 9, 31 – 4, 36, 39 – 42, 44 – 5, 48, 52 – 3, 59, 65, 65n7, 67n15, 69, 69n22, 71, 72n29, 78, 79, 82, 83, 85n59, 86, 89n68, 90, 92, 94, 96, 102n11, 103, 109n29, 119n59, 125, 131n17, 132, 133, 137, 137n36, 138n42, 140, 140n51, 141, 145n67, 153n106, 154, 162, 162n123, 164 – 5, 166, 167 Carey, William, Jr. 93, 93n81, 105, 138, 138n40 Chamberlain, John 136, 136n33, 138n40, 140n53 Chater, Anne 137n38 Chater, James 137, 137n38 Cicero 100n8 Clarke, Adam 126n86 Clive, Robert 93, 94n83, 94n84 Coke, Thomas 87n65 Cook, James 10 Cornwallis, Charles 90n72, 104, 104n16, 119n62, 163, 164 Cox, Francis A. 50, 93n82 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110420487-007

Cran, George 138, 138n41, 138n42 Cromwell, Oliver 96, 96n86 Cunninghame, William 102n11, 102n12, 123, 123n83, 164, 164n127 Das, Krishna 108n27 Des Granges, Augustus 138, 138n42, 139 Dundas, Robert 152n103 Edwards, Jonathan 6, 6n22, 7 – 8, 9, 151n100 Eliot, John 3, 13 Erhardt, Johann Peter Matthias 139, 139n47, 139n48 Etherington, Norman 34 Eve, John 5 – 6 Fawcett, John 11 Fernandez, Ignatius 88n68, 138n40 Fernandez, John Lewis 88, 88n68, 89n70, 91, 94, 108, 108n27 Fisch, Jörg 44 Fountain, John 153n106 Foxe, John 147n78, 148n81, 173, 173n161 Fuller, Andrew (see Subject Index) Fuller, Andrew Gunton (see Gunton Fuller, Andrew) Fuller, Ann 15, 16 Gambier, James 90, 90n75 Gardiner, Stephen 148, 148n82 Gericke, Christian Wilhelm 134, 134n26, 157, 160 Gill, John 9n40, 56, 113n39 Grant, Charles 39, 40, 63n3, 123n83 Grant, William 17 Grigg, Jacob 16 Gunton Fuller, Andrew 60, 165n129 Hadatullah 41 Halhed, Nathaniel Brassey 37 Hall, John Keen 15 Hall, Robert, Jr. 15 – 6, 16n70, 48, 48n216 Hall, Robert, Sr. 7 Hastings, Warren 44 Haykin, Michael 2 Hogg, Reynold 14 Holwell, John Zephaniah 68, 68n19, 69n21

Index of Persons

Hopkins, David 149n85 Horsley, Samuel 87, 87n62, 134, 134n29, 172, 172n158, 172n159 Howard, John 164, 164n128 Inglis, Hugh 165, 166, 166n131 Ingram, Robert A. 129n8 Jerome (= Hierome) 100, 100n8 Johnson, Samuel 133, 133n25 Jones, William 113 – 4, 113n41, 117, 120 Judson, Adoniram 5, 137n38 Judson, Ann 5, 137n38 Kerr, Richard 83, 83n57, 85, 141 Kincey, Mary 138n40 Kohlhof, John 153n107, 154, 160 Krefting, Jacob 42 Landau, Paul 27, 28 Lassar, Johannes (= Gazaryan, Hovhannes) 53, 86, 86n61 Loveless, William (Charles) 138, 138n43, 139 Luther, Martin 9 Macaulay, Thomas Babington 44 Machiavelli, Niccolò 84, 84n58, 168 Mackintosh, James 120, 120n66 Maitland, Thomas 133n22 Mardon, Rhoda 137n37 Mardon, Richard 137, 137n37 Marshman, Hannah 20 – 21, 23, 93n81, 139n49 Marshman, John Clark 18, 37, 45n202 Marshman, Joshua 17 – 24, 28, 31, 33, 43, 48, 49, 72, 72n29, 86n61, 89n68, 93n81, 95, 101, 101n9, 136, 137, 137n34, 140n54, 141, 156, 157n110, 162, 164, 167 Mary I, queen of England 147, 147n79, 148n81, 148n82 McLean, Archibald 10n40 Minto, Gilbert Elliot 42, 90n72, 133n23 Moore, Eleanor 93n82 Moore, William 49, 105, 93, 93n82, 94, 96, 137, 138n39, 138 Mordaunt, John 104n17 Morris, John Webster 9n40, 54, 152n103 Mubarak, Abu‘l-Fazl ibn (= Akbar) 116, 116n51, 124

Noyes, Elizabeth

175

137n34

Orme, Robert 121, 121n74 Owen, John (BFBS secretary) 47, 48, 52n230, 54, 99n6, 102, 135 Owen, John (Puritan theologian) 100, 100n8 Pal, Joymonee (= Joymooni) 21, 21n95 Pal, Krishna 18, 21, 21n95, 23, 108n27 Palm, John (= Johann) 139, 139n48 Parbotee 91, 92, 135, 135n31 Parry, Edward 40, 47 – 8, 52, 63, 63n3 Paulinus 173, 173n161 Pearce Carey, Samuel 19, 20, 23 Pearce, Samuel 15, 28, 41 Pennington, Brian 35, 36 Petumber 163, 163n126 Plato 113 Pohle, Christian 153n108 Porter, Andrew 31, 33 Powell, Samuel 103n12 Prasad, Krishna 23, 108n27 Richardson, John 123, 123n80 Ringeltaube, William Tobias 138, 138n45 Rippon, John 14 Robinson, William 137, 137n35, 137n37 Rodway, James 16 Rowe, Joshua 137, 137n34 Roy, Ram Mohan 35, 38 Ryland, John Collet 9n40 Ryland, John, Jr. 7, 7n25, 8, 9, 9n40, 12, 14, 15, 16, 48, 49, 89, 92n78, 108, 108n28 Sandys, William 162, 162n124, 163 Schwartz, Christian Friedrich 74, 74n36, 87, 104, 134n26, 153, 153n107, 153n108, 157, 159 Scott Waring, John 44 – 49, 51, 53 – 58, 77, 77n47, 78 – 95, 100 – 4, 104n17, 105 – 7, 111 – 2, 125, 126n85, 132, 133 – 5, 135n31, 136, 139, 140, 140n54, 141, 143, 149n85, 155, 156, 162, 164n127, 166n132 Shore, John 68, 69n21 Smith, A. Christopher 27, 28, 29 Smith, Sydney 57, 129n8 Spinoza, Benedict [Baruch] de 115, 115n44 Stanley, Brian 3, 4, 22, 31, 33 Staughton, William 4 – 5, 14

176

Index of Persons

Stuart, Charles 45 – 46, 55, 56, 106n23, 119n59, 126n85 Sultan, Tipu (= Sultaun, Tipoo) 77, 77n48, 78, 82 Sutcliff, John 7, 7n25, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 Taylor, John 138, 138n44 Tennant, William 117, 117n56, 118, 120, 120n67 Thomas, John 3 – 4, 3n5, 17, 31, 54 – 55, 90 – 91, 102, 102n11, 102n12, 109n29, 110, 135, 140n51, 164n127 Timur (= Tamerlane) 119, 119n61 Tolstoy, Leo 30 Twining, Richard 43 Twining, Thomas 43 – 8, 52, 53, 55, 63 – 5, 67, 70, 71n26, 75 – 77, 83, 106, 111, 126n85 Ud Din, Moiz

77n48

Verelst, Harry 93, 94n83 Vos, Michael C. 138, 138n46, 139 Wallis, Martha 14 Ward, William 5, 17 – 9, 22, 23n104, 26 – 8, 31, 33, 35n142, 36 – 8, 41, 45n202, 46, 47n210, 48, 51, 52, 66n10, 72n29, 89n68, 93n81, 133, 136n33, 137, 137n34, 162, 164, 164n128 Wellesley, Richard Colley 103, 104n15, 119n62, 125, 167, 167n138 West, J. Ryan 36 Weyland, John, Jr. 165, 166n131, 167n137, 169n146 White, Charlotte 137n34 White, Joseph 112, 112n36 Wilberforce, William 39 – 40 Wilford, Francis 119, 119n65 Woodd, Basil 161n122 Wrangham, Francis 76n45 Zinzendorf, Nikolaus von

23

Subject Index ability – moral 6 – natural 6 Abraham, biblical figure 146 Account of the Writings, Religion, and Manners of the Hindoos 36 – 7, 38 Act of Toleration (1689) 31 – 2, 52, 172n159 Acts and Monuments (= Book of Martyrs) 147n78, 148n81 Africa 13, 85 Africans, enslaved (see also trade in enslaved Africans) 4n12 agency, human 115 Agrippa, biblical figure 59, 147 American Baptist Foreign Missionary Society 4, 5 An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens 12 – 3, 20, 33, 145n67 An Humble Attempt to Promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of God’s People in Extraordinary Prayer 7 – 8 Anabaptism 131n17 Anglican Church Missionary Society 4, 4n13 Anglican Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (= SPG) 4n12 Anglicanism (= Church of England) 55, 57, 60, 63n5, 67n15, 75n41, 76n45, 87, 87n62, 103, 105, 123n83, 124, 129, 131n16, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 166 anthropology, spiritual 25 anti-missionary feeling (see also mission, attack on) 46, 43 – 5, 47 – 9, 54 – 6, 64, 132, 169 Apology for the Late Christian Missions to India 1, 2, 5, 12, 16, 17, 18, 29, 32, 34, 37 – 9, 43 – 50, 51 – 3, 56 – 60, 126n86, 131n17, 132n20, 162n124 apostles, the (see also Christ, disciples of; Jesus, disciples of) 7, 9 – 10, 58, 59, 87, 99, 101, 129, 144, 145 – 6, 147, 149, 150, 153 Arminianism 6n22, 53, 86, 87, 129, 132, 157 Arminian Methodist Society 135 Asia 81 Asiatic Society of Bengal 90, 96, 113n41, 119n63, 119n65 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110420487-008

atheism 75, 75n41, 86, 112, 115 Atlantic Ocean 8 atonement, doctrine of 36, 57 Australia 10 authority – apostolic 26 – civil 32, 33, 52, 56, 58 – 9, 67, 89, 94n84, 114, 124, 125, 143 – 8, 152, 156, 158, 168, 169n147, 170 – divine 59, 145n65, 146, 148 Baal 116 baptism, practice of 5, 13, 18, 28, 57, 73, 88, 88n67, 93n81, 94, 101, 125, 130, 138n45, 141, 173 Baptist Annual Register 14 Baptist Magazine 15 Baptist Missionary Society (= BMS; “Particular Baptist Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen”) 1, 2, 4, 5, 40, 44 – 8, , 51, 95, 108n27, 139 – 40, 152, 153 – and colonialism 31 – 4 – and the East India Company (see also East India Company) 31 – 2 – founding of 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 25, 33, 43 – funding of 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 33, 78, 162 – goals of 19, 25 – home committee 26, 30, 37, 39, 40, 59, 72n30, 153n106 – leaders of 21 – mission in India 2, 17, 28, 20 – 9, 30, 33, 39, 40, 46, 102n12, 152, 160, 165, 166 – missionaries (see also “Serampore trio”) 1, 3, 8, 14, 19, 21, 23 – 6, 30, 32, 41, 44, 52, 56, 57, 59, 70, 70n23, 92, 94, 96 – 7, 99n6, 102, 110, 111, 132n19, 139 – 40, 150n97, 165 – missionaries as family 22 – 3 – missionaries in India 27, 28, 29, 34, 36, 47, 51, 79 – personnel 2, 3, 15, 33, 59, 74n36, 91n77 – press/printing office (see Serampore press) – principles of 20, 25, 58, 59, 70 – subscriptions to 4 – thinkers 58

178

Subject Index

– work of 5, 12, 14 – 7, 20, 27, 28, 33, 34, 43, 52 Baptists 1, 5 – 9, 10, 11, 14, 25, 31 – 3, 37, 41, 52, 56, 60, 140, 157 Baptists, as mad 135, 150 “barbarians” (see Hindus, as “barbarians”) Barnabas, biblical figure 99 Battle of Plassey (= Palashi) 29, 94n83 Benares 119 Bengal 17, 18, 21, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 38, 39, 41 – 5, 52, 53, 55, 58, 68, 68n19, 69n21, 70, 71, 81, 86, 88n68, 91, 92, 94n83, 102n11, 102n12, 106, 108n27, 111, 117n56, 120, 121, 121n74, 133, 135, 137, 137n36, 139, 152, 153n106, 154, 162n124, 163, 164 – culture of 32, 34, 35, 38 – language of 41, 78, 90, 93n82, 108 – people of 21, 29 Bengal Officer, the 45n202, 48, 55, 56, 106, 106n23, 111, 118 Berhampore 135, 135n30 Bhagavad Gita (= Geeta) 37, 106, 106n24, 107, 115 Bible (see also Scripture) 6, 20, 34, 41, 44, 54, 88n68, 96, 103, 105, 110, 134 – translation of 18, 19, 23, 27, 28, 41, 53, 63, 65, 67n15, 76n45, 78, 80, 85, 86, 86n61, 137n38, 138n42, 143 Bible Society 65, 77, 92 bigotry 94, 96, 103 Bihar 29 Birmingham 15 Bombay (see Mumbai) Brahma (= Birmha) 66, 66n11, 115 Brahmanism 28, 30, 37, 68, 72, 73, 88, 89, 93, 104, 107n26, 110, 110n34, 113, 114, 115, 119, 122, 135, 136n33, 155, 163 Bristol 15 Bristol Baptist Academy 4, 7, 89, 89n68, 108, 108n27, 108n28 Britain 14, 15, 29, 30, 33, 42, 43, 45, 55, 56, 71, 76, 96, 98, 103n14, 172, 173 British and Foreign Bible Society (= BFBS) 44, 47, 54, 63, 63n5, 69n21, 85, 99n6, 101, 123n83 British army (see also “sepoys”) 30, 83, 104n15, 130, 162n124, 163 British Critic 49

British Empire 29, 30, 31, 33 – 34, 55, 56, 76, 85, 105, 112, 118, 120, 126, 158, 168n141 British government 29, 30, 52, 55, 59, 64, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 75n41, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 95, 96, 99, 100, 107, 125, 126, 141, 142, 143, 152, 162, 167, 170 British government in India 1 – 2, 29 – 30, 31, 31n130, 32, 35, 38, 42, 44 – 6, 52, 64, 67, 70, 72, 73, 84, 87, 125, 126, 142, 144, 146, 156, 157, 168, 168n141, 169 British Parliament 44, 80, 85, 87, 100, 130, 159, 165, 166, 167, 172n159 British Raj 29, 30 Buenos Aires 70, 70n23 Burma 5, 137n36, 137n38 Byraggees (= religious beggars) 95, 112 Caesar, biblical figure 59, 147, 170 Caiaphas, biblical figure 84 Calcutta (= Kolkata) 5, 18, 29, 35, 42, 53, 59, 68, 86, 92, 96, 104, 113n41, 125, 135n30, 137n35, 137n36, 138n45, 141, 143, 154 Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary 78, 90, 143 Calvinism 20, 56, 57, 87, 129, 135, 157 – English 26 – evangelical 7 – High 5 – 7, 56n236, 145n66 – Reformed 56n235 Canaan, biblical land of 146 Caribbean, the 4n12, 75n40, 87n65 Carnatic 82, 82n55, 91, 92 caste system, the 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 73, 88, 89, 94, 101, 109n29, 110, 112, 113, 114, 117, 125, 142, 163 Catholicism (see also missionaries, Catholic) 71, 88n68, 94, 147n79, 154, 158 Ceylon (= Sri Lanka) 133, 133n22, 137, 137n38, 138, 138n46, 139, 139n47, 139n48, 160 China 71 – language of 53, 86 Christ (see also Jesus) 7, 27, 51, 55, 58, 59, 101, 106, 110, 146, 149, 150, 153, 162 – allegiance to 59, 147 – as Lord 32, 59, 144n64, 150, 156, 161 – as messiah 146 – as redeemer 21 – as saviour 101, 102, 106, 145, 149, 168, 170 – as Son of God 128

Subject Index

– authority of 147 – cause of 128 – command of 59, 87, 128, 145 – commitment to 13 – crucifixion of 19, 20, 84, 168 – disciples of 21 – divinity of 118 – faith in 25, 41 – kingdom of 13, 14, 34, 162, 168, 168n141 – knowledge of 24, 85 – love of 10, 21, 159 – mind of 158 – obedience to 144n64 – ordinances of 25 – promise of 151 – resurrection of 9 – sacrifice of 36 – servants of 148, 149, 151, 162 – trust in 6 Christianity (see also religion) 6, 10, 18, 31, 38, 52, 55, 56, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 85, 89, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 105, 106, 117, 153, 157, 159, 166 – aversion to 82, 98, 99, 150 – cause of 155 – denominations of 104, 128, 157, 158, 161 – 2, 172 – enemies of 82, 83, 129, 140, 161 – friends of 111, 129, 161, 168 – infidelity to 54, 75n41, 89, 97, 106, 128 – introduction of (see evangelism) – orthodoxy 26, 27, 100, 128n3, 129, 130, 155, 159, 161 – 2 – orthopraxy 26, 28, 155, 159 – outreach 24, 41, 52, 55 – principles of (see also principles, religious) 52, 148, 153, 155 – progress of (see evangelism) – spirit of 64 – Syrian 85 – true 54, 131 Christians 13, 64, 90, 118, 128, 147, 149, 150, 166 – as army 89 – European (see also Europeans; missionaries, European) 3, 26, 28, 70, 155 – Indian (= “native”) 23, 24 – 5, 26, 28, 53, 64, 74, 99, 111, 124, 163

179

church, the 25, 128, 130, 148n83, 151, 159 – as a body 145 – at Serampore 27 – early 47 – European 3 – government of 24, 25, 26 – Independent 5, 138n43 – in India 25, 26, 156 – independence of 25 – 26 – Jerusalem 23 – North American 3 – of Christ 157 Church of Scotland 132, 138n41 church planting 25 – 28 Churchman (= Anglican) 140, 148n83, 149, 157, 157n110, 172n159 civilization 2, 56, 112 Clapham Sect 40, 63n3, 69n21, 133n24 class system, British 36 – 7 clergy, English 105, 160 Clipstone 9, 11, 12, 33 colonialism (see also British Empire, British government in India) 1, 29 – 30, 31, 75 Congregationalism 5, 6, 138n43 controversy, theological 45, 50, 51, 87, 118, 129, 159, 161 conversion – to Christianity 18, 19, 20, 28, 37, 41, 52, 53, 54, 57, 77 – 9, 81, 84, 86, 91, 142, 145, 160, 170 – forced 20, 52, 53, 54, 64, 73, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 142, 151, 156 – of Hindus 79, 88, 89, 90, 96, 107, 112, 150, 151, 155, 161 – of “heathens” 12 m 148, 158, 166, 167 – of Indians (= “natives”) 21, 22, 26, 28, 32, 33, 55, 67, 72, 73, 80, 88, 88n67, 93 – 5, 101, 101n9, 102, 105, 107, 124, 134, 141, 150, 151, 155, 156, 165, 167 – of Muslims 88, 89 Copenhagen 143 Corinthians, the 149 Cyrus, biblical figure 76 Dalits (= “outcasts”; “untouchables”) 37 David, biblical figure 169n146 Deism 52, 65, 65n6, 82, 125, 129, 133, 157n110 Denmark 3, 18, 31, 39n167, 42, 74n36, 90, 125, 126, 142, 143

180

Subject Index

Devatas (= Debtas) 66, 66n12, 73 Dhaka (= Dacca) 92, 93, 94, 96, 105, 137n35, 138 Dinagepore 91, 102n12, 134n27, 138n40, 164 disciples, biblical (see apostles) disciples, contemporary 13, 26, 58, 74 discipleship, Christian 23, 28, 59, 74n36, 163n126 Dissenters (see also English Dissent) 37, 40, 57, 63n5, 75n41, 87n62, 90, 105, 131n16, 134, 140, 147n78, 148n83, 156, 157n110, 172, 172n159 Diwali 34 diwan (= dewan) 68, 68n20 doctrine – biblical 26 – Calvinist 6 – Christian 93, 145, 150, 157, 158 Dutch Reformed Church 138n46 duty, Christian 10 – 11, 12, 24, 25, 58, 144 – 5, 160 East India Company (= EIC) 2, 29, 30, 31, 31n130, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 55, 59, 59, 63, 68n19, 69n21, 75, 77, 77n48, 78, 80, 85, 86, 90n72, 92, 94n83, 102n11, 102n12, 103n14, 119, 119n65, 121n74, 126, 130, 138, 138n41, 138n44, 144, 152, 156, 162n124, 164, 166n131 – chaplains 40, 55, 67n15, 83n57, 85n59, 117n56, 120 – Court of Directors 39, 63 – Court of Proprietors 43, 47 – 8, 64 – directors of 40, 47, 72n30 East India House 30 “East Indies” 65, 75, 160 ecclesiology, Particular Baptist 25, 26, 28 Edinburgh (Scottish) Missionary Society 4 Edinburgh Review 57, 129, 129n6, 130, 131 education (see mission, school) – moral 113 Egypt 70n23 election, doctrine of 6, 7 England 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 20, 21, 28, 40, 41, 44, 60, 73, 89n68, 89n69, 95, 125, 126, 130, 135, 143, 162, 172, 173 – king of 53, 75, 80, 85, 86, 100, 120 English Civil War 96n86 English Dissent (see also Dissenters) 31 – 2 Enlightenment, the 115n44

enthusiasm – Christian 90, 96, 151, 151n102, 167 – superstitious 112, 123 eschatology – postmillennial 8, 14, 18, 28, 128n2, 150n99, 164n127 – premillennial 164n127 eternity 20, 56, 64, 67, 85, 109, 112, 136 Europe 28, 29, 65, 79, 113, 133, 146, 160, 172 Europeans (see also Christians, European; missionaries, European) 23, 24, 38, 39, 52, 69, 81, 82, 83, 92, 99, 107, 120, 124, 125, 132, 140n54, 144, 165 Evangelical Magazine 14, 130, 131n16 Evangelical Revival, the 7n25, 8, 151n102 evangelicalism 7n25, 11, 36, 40, 52, 55, 57, 60, 85n59, 88n68, 90, 100, 105, 128n4, 130 – 31, 131n16, 132, 133n22, 148n83, 151n100, 151n102, 161n122, 167, 167n137 evangelism 6, 8, 11, 20, 21, 22, 24 – 28, 33, 34, 39, 41, 51 – 5, 57, 58, 64, 65, 67, 71, 72, 73, 75 – 8, 87, 98, 99, 104, 105, 125, 139 – 40, 149, 151, 153, 158, 160, 162, 167, 169n147, 172 evangelists (see missionaries) evil 67, 69, 71, 72, 73, 80, 82, 83, 84, 94, 99, 109, 112, 115, 130, 139, 140, 149, 153, 158, 159, 167, 168 faith, Christian (see Christianity) fanaticism – Christian 57, 80n52, 87n62, 129, 130, 151 – Hindu 118, 122 Felix, biblical figure 58, 147, 150 Festus, biblical figure 58, 147, 150 Fort William College, Calcutta 18, 32 – 3, 53, 67n15, 78n50, 85n59, 86, 86n61 France 29, 68, 75, 75n41, 149n85 Freedom of the Will 6 French Revolution 75n41, 128, 172n159 Fuller, Andrew – and colonialism 31, 31n130, 34 – as BMS secretary 2, 5, 11, 14 – 6, 26, 31, 34, 39 – 40, 42, 46, 49 – 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 127n86, 144n64, 154, 157n110, 165n129, 166 – health of 15 – 16, 49 – 50, 54 – 5 – ministry of 1, 34, 51, 58 – preaching of 9, 11, 12, 14, 33

Subject Index

– preaching tours of 50, 15 – 16, 171 – 72 – theology of 6 – 7, 9 – 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 21, 38, 58 – 9, 60 – writing style of 50 – 51, 58, 59, 60, 100n8 Ganges River 32, 111, 121 Gentiles 76, 116 Gentoos (see also “natives”) 68, 68n17, 112 Germany 71n24, 74n36 ghat (see also Hinduism, and sacrifice) 32, 36, 52 Gibeonites, biblical figure 145n70 Glasgow 16 Glasgow Missionary Society 4 God 11, 12, 14, 54, 56, 63, 66, 69, 70, 76, 85, 97, 98, 112, 115, 118, 140, 143, 151, 162, 167, 170, 172 – as almighty 76 – as creator 20, 166 – as Father 128 – as Lord 76 – authority of (see authority, divine) – blessing of 72, 73, 151, 168 – call of 58 – cause of 112, 149 – command of 9, 13, 58, 144 – fear of 69, 90 – goodness of 18, 155 – grace of 6, 20 – judgment of 41, 55, 75, 106 – kingdom of 8, 14, 56, 85, 103, 152, 168n141, 169n147 – knowledge of 13 – love of 20, 32, 146 – mercy of 153 – obedience to 143 – 4 – plan of 24 – power of 151 – promises of 58 – providence of (see providence, divine) – service of 144 – sovereignty of 11, 14, 18, 20 – spirit of 115 – throne of 117 – true 116, 117, 153, 154 – will of 128, 145 – word of 24, 57, 106, 159, 162 – work of 99 – worship of 37, 57, 64, 66, 166 – wrath of 76

181

gospel, the 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19, 19n85, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39, 41, 55, 56, 58, 64, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 89, 93, 94n84, 98, 101, 102, 119n59, 125, 133, 136, 141, 145, 146, 151 – power of 10, 22 – progress/propagation of (see evangelism) “Gospel Messenger” (see also “Messenger of Glad Tidings”) 108 – 11 Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation 6, 7, 11 great commission, the 9 – 10, 10n40, 12 – 3, 58, 59, 87, 128, 144, 145, 145n67, 146, 149, 151, 170, 170n154 Greece, ancient 113 Greek language 27 Greenland 3, 13 guru (= gooroo) 73, 73n32 Halle, University of 4, 134n26, 138n45, 138n45, 160 Hanuman 169n149 “heathens” 10, 11, 13, 69, 98, 101, 105, 106, 115, 118, 128, 139, 141, 145, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 162, 167, 172, 172n157 heaven 13, 14, 70, 76, 109, 118, 128, 148, 150, 151 Hebrew language 27 hell 109 Help to Zion’s Travellers 7 Herodians, the 142 Herrnhutt community 23 Hindostan (see India) Hinduism 18, 30, 34 – 5, 36, 37, 38 – 9, 45 – 6, 51, 52, 55 – 6, 66, 66n10, 67, 68, 73, 81, 96, 107, 111 – 2, 113n41, 114, 114 – 7, 118, 118n59, 119, 125 – and eroticism 36, 37, 69, 122 – 23 – and sacrifice (see also sati; ghat) 36, 66, 114, 116, 117, 118, 121, 154 – culture of 45 – 6, 52, 67 – gods of (see also polytheism) 115 – priests 113 – 4, 122, 154, 163 – sacred texts of (see also Bhagavad Gita; Shastra; Vedas) 46, 78n49, 122 Hindus (= Hindoos) 66, 69, 71, 72, 78, 88, 96, 106, 110, 126, 154, 155, 159, 165, 166, 169, 170 – as “barbarians” 107 – 8, 110, 111, 112, 113, 124, 135 Holi 35

182

Subject Index

holiness 128, 153 Holy Spirit 8, 57, 128, 130, 151 hospitality 28, 91 House of Lords 167 idolatry 9, 12, 36, 46, 73, 93 – 6, 103, 112, 114 – 7, 124, 136, 141, 153, 155, 160, 162, 163, 166 immorality 95, 113, 141 India (= Hindostan) 1 – 5, 14, 17 – 9, 21 – 2, 24, 27 – 8, 36, 41 – 5, 51 – 3, 55 – 6, 60, 63 – 5, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 79, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89n68, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 99, 103, 106, 111, 113, 117, 119, 119n65, 123, 124, 126, 132, 139, 151, 154, 162, 163, 167 – British government of (see British government in India) – coast of 71, 79, 81, 82n55, 137, 141, 154, 159 – culture of 37, 38 – 9, 63, 64, 65, 80, 87, 106, 113n41, 117, 163 – independence of 30 – languages of (see also Bengal, language of; Sanskrit; Telugu) 27, 86 – northern 35 – 6, 38, 138n45 – southern 60, 91n76, 134n26 India House (see also East India Company) 30, 40, 46, 47 Indians (see “natives”) Indology 37, 119n65 infidelity (see Christianity, infidelity to) innovation, religious 43, 64 Institutes of Hindu Law; Or, the Ordinances of Menu (= Manu) 113, 113n40, 114 – 5, 117 intolerance 53, 55, 65, 69, 82, 124, 125 – 6, 156, 161 Ireland 15 irreligion 129, 167, 171n156 Islam (= “Mahomedism”) 35 – 6, 38, 41, 71, 89, 96, 99, 116n51, 151 Israelites, biblical 105, 129, 145n70, 146 Jacob, biblical figure 76 Jaffna 160 Jagannath (= Juggernaut) 66, 66n14, 166 Jamaica 3, 33, 75n40 Java 137n35 Jerusalem 102, 169n146 Jesus (see also Christ) 7, 9, 20, 58, 152, 159 – as Lord 59

– as saviour 20 – as Son of God 20, 37 – command of 59 – disciples of 152 Jews 84, 101, 102, 105, 168 Judaism 38, 84, 101, 115n44 justice 38, 64, 73, 75, 80, 84, 122, 155, 157 Kali Puja 35n142 Kettering 14, 15, 18, 21, 47, 51, 162n124 Krishna 116, 118 Kron Princessa Maria 3 Kshatriyas 30 language learning 21, 83, 93n82, 118, 138n42 law – British 68n18, 72, 140, 143, 148n82, 152, 167 – Christian 147 – Hindu 37, 66, 67, 73, 80, 87, 113, 123 Letter to the President of the Board of Control on the Propagation of Christianity in India 48, 152, 154 Letter to the Rev. Mr. Owen 48, 99 Letter to the Chairmen of the East India Company 43, 44, 47, 55, 103n14, 119 liberty, religious 39, 52n231, 55, 103, 103n14, 130, 134 London 15, 30, 39, 47, 50, 72n30, 104n17 London Missionary Society (= LMS) 4, 40, 90, 91n77, 92, 137, 138, 138n41, 138n42, 138n44, 139, 139n47, 139n48, 152, 153 Lutheranism 18, 74n36, 91n76, 138n45, 143n62, 157 Macao 86n61, 88n68 Madras 39, 79, 79n52, 80, 82n55, 83n57, 84, 85, 91n77, 134n26, 137n37, 138n41, 138n43 Magna Carta 71, 71n25 Malabar Coast, the 85, 85n60 Manu (= Menu) 107, 113, 117, 118 marginalized, the 37, 38, 46 martyrs 147, 148 “Messenger of Glad Tidings” (see also “Gospel Messenger”) 107 – 8, 108n27, 109 – 11 Methodism 87n63, 87n65, 127n86, 129, 129n8, 130, 132 Methodist mission to India 88n65

Subject Index

Methodist Magazine (= Arminian Magazine) 130, 130n15 millennium, the 27 – 8 ministers – Anglican 159, 160, 161, 161 – Baptist 14, 16n70 – Calvinist 5 – Christian 7, 10n40, 76, 103n12, 130, 145, 157 ministry, Christian 21, 28, 58, 146 miracles 58, 145, 145n67, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151 missiology 28, 51, 60, 145n65 mission – attack on (see also anti-missionary feeling) 32, 51, 54, 57, 90, 101, 105, 129, 131, 132 – Christian (see also BMS, mission in India) 1, 8, 10, 30, 56, 64, 79, 112, 120, 128, 131, 134 – and colonialism 1, 30 – 31, 33 – 4 – cross-cultural 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 21, 34, 50, 51, 83n57 – domestic 8, 11, 171n156, 172, 173 – history of 1, 2, 3, 5, 5n15, 13 – overseas 1, 8, 10, 14, 34, 43, 50, 171, 172 – Protestant 4, 4n11 – schools 20 – 21, 28, 74n36, 87, 138n42, 157 – world 9, 11, 12 missionaries (see also BMS missionaries) – Baptist 44, 63, 64, 86, 87 – Catholic 91 – Christian 64, 74, 77, 78, 87, 88, 90, 93, 98, 101, 103, 104, 117, 132, 133, 135, 141, 154, 155, 156, 160 – conduct of 55, 70, 72, 77, 78, 94, 98 – 9, 103, 111, 124 – 5, 140, 152 – 56, 162 – 5, 169, 170 – English 44, 80, 81, 91 – 2 – European (see also Christians, European; Europeans) 74, 92, 101, 140, 140n54 – in India 27, 37, 39, 58, 60, 77, 79, 83n57, 86, 88, 107, 132, 135, 137, 138 – 9, 140, 142, 143, 152, 169 – in Serampore 107 – Indian (= “native”) 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 73, 95, 101, 125, 140n54, 163 – legal standing of 31, 142 – 3, 168 – 70 – Moravian 3, 13, 88n66 – Protestant 3, 71, 83, 102n12

183

– rebellion against government 140, 142, 144, 147, 148 – recall of 1, 40, 44, 47 – 8, 53, 55, 63n3, 80 – 2, 84, 98, 100, 102n12, 126, 126n85, 148, 169 – sectarian (see also sectarianism) 105, 157 – work of 162, 168 Mizpeh 129 Mogul Empire 29, 116n51, 121 Mohammed, the prophet 41 monkeys 169, 170 monotheism 36, 37, 124 Monthly Review 49n223 morality – Christian 55 – 6, 67, 68, 77, 106, 166n131 – Hindu 111 – 4, 117, 118, 119 – 21, 121 – 3, 124 Moravians 3, 9 – 10, 13, 23, 87n64 Mudnabati 17 Mumbai (= Bombay) 120n66, 138, 138n44, 163, 163n125 Muslims (= “Musselmans”; “Mahomedans”) 35 – 36, 41, 52, 64, 69, 78, 88, 105, 110, 124, 126, 157, 159, 165, 169 Mysore 65, 74, 77n48, 82, 91, 92, 163 nations, making disciples of 13, 23, 145 – 6, 149 Native Americans 3, 158 “natives” (see also Gentoos) 43, 52, 53, 57, 63 – 5, 70 – 4, 77 – 80, 82 – 4, 86 – 9, 94, 95, 104, 106, 107, 111, 120, 124 – 5, 141, 153 – 4, 157, 163, 165, 168, 169 Nazarenes, the 150 New Testament 68, 84, 86n61, 94, 104, 117, 129, 145 – Bengali translation of 23 – 4, 53, 71, 86 Newcastle 171 Nonconformism 42, 52 North America 4, 85, 89n69 Northamptonshire Association of Particular Baptist Churches 9, 12, 14, 25 Nottingham 14, 157n110, 162n123 Observations on the Present State of the East India Company 44, 77, 79, 80, 82, 135 oppressed, the 37, 38, 77 Orissa 29, 66 paganism 159

64, 89, 98, 99, 113, 117, 135, 151,

184

Subject Index

Pamphlet War, the 2, 42, 43, 46, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 77, 77n47, 100, 107, 111, 126n86, 142, 156 pamphleteers 32, 43 pandits (= pundits) 24, 24n107, 33, 39, 53, 86, 111n34 Paul, biblical figure 13, 20, 25, 26, 58 – 59, 99, 59, 101, 106, 129, 144n64, 147, 149, 150, 150n97 peace of society 32, 33, 52, 64, 92, 125, 147, 148, 170 Pentateuch 71 Periodical Accounts of the Baptist Missionary Society 14, 17, 45, 46, 54, 55, 88, 90, 91, 134, 136 perjury, among Hindus 114, 117, 119, 120 persecution – of Christians 47, 53, 101, 102, 147, 147n78, 148, 148n81, 148n82 – of Hindus 116n51, 124 – of missionaries 32, 53, 64, 75, 76, 85 Persian Pamphlet, the 41, 42, 45, 46, 133 Peterborough House 104, 104n17 Pharisees, the 142 Philistines, the 129 philosophy 6, 84n58, 107, 110, 114, 115n44 Pietism 4, 74n36, 87n64, 91n76, 134n26, 138n45 piety 24, 74, 102n12, 114, 117, 166, 171n156 Plymouth 15 Poitou (= poitoo) 107, 107n26 polytheism 112, 116, 118, 154, 155, 163 Portsmouth 15 Portugal 85, 89 prayer 15, 18, 27, 116, 153, 163 prayer call of 1784 7, 8, 11 prayer meetings 8, 13 preaching 6, 11, 19, 19n85, 20, 27, 28, 39, 41, 42, 52, 58, 71, 77, 78, 90, 99, 100, 113, 125, 139, 141, 145, 151n102, 153, 154, 159, 163, 169 predestination, doctrine of 6, 7 Presbyterianism 3 principles, religious (see also Christianity, principles of) 2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 41, 52, 54, 57, 59, 64, 70, 74n35, 85, 94n84, 104, 105, 110, 148, 153, 155, 172 Proclamation from the Madras Government 79 prophecy, biblical 85, 164n127, 168

Protestantism (see also missionaries, Protestant) 9, 98, 106, 147n79, 154 providence – divine 57, 76, 76n45, 128, 167, 167n138, 168 – universal 57, 130 Puritanism 9, 9n38, 44, 96, 100n8 Qur’an (= Koran)

36, 41, 71

reason 55, 106, 107, 117, 121, 151n102, 153, 157n110 redemption 20, 110 Reformation 10n40 Reformers 159 reincarnation 35, 36, 106 religion (see also Christianity) – enemies of 83, 128, 135n31 – friends of 128 – Indian 65, 87, 106 – personal 19 – rational 57, 128n3, 129 – revealed 56, 144, 168 – true 65, 82, 94, 129, 153, 155 repentance 54, 117 responsibility 5, 11, 83 revelation 55, 56, 106, 151n102, 157n110 revival (see Evangelical Revival) Rome 76, 99, 146, 168, 173 Rosetta 70, 70n23 Royal Asiatic Society 123n80, 127n86 ryot (= ryott) 68, 68n20 salvation 11, 12, 20, 21, 24, 37, 41, 76, 105, 109 – 10, 136, 151n100 Sanskrit (= Shanscrit) 78, 78n49, 90, 118 sati (see also Hinduism, and sacrifice) 32, 36, 52, 66 – 7, 70, 117, 121 Saugur (= Saugor, Sagar Island) 136, 136n32, 140n53 Scotland 10n40, 15, 16, 50, 102n11, 102n12, 171, 172 Scripture (see also Bible) 7, 10, 12, 34, 63, 64, 71, 75, 78, 80, 81, 82, 86, 91, 106, 107, 143, 145, 146, 153, 158, 159, 169, 171 – authority of 56 – circulation of 44, 71, 75, 80, 81, 84, 102n12, 104 – doctrine of 110 – Greek 118

Subject Index

– Hebrew 118 – principle of 104 – study of 23 sectarianism 129, 131, 148, 148n83, 155, 156, 157 Seditious Meetings Act of 1795 172, 172n159 “sepoys” 30, 39, 79, 81 – 84, 111, 135, 163, 169n148 “Sepoy Mutiny” (see Vellore Mutiny) Serampore 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 31n131, 37, 39n167, 42, 43, 53, 87, 88n66, 89, 90, 93n82, 94, 126, 141, 143n62, 156 – missionaries 38, 55, 67n15, 78, 86, 136n33, 137n34, 137n35, 137n39, 138n42, 138n44 – press 18, 23 – 4, 28, 41, 42, 53, 78, 86 Serampore Form of Agreement (= SFA) 18 – 9, 20, 22 – 28, 32, 74n35 “Serampore trio” (see also BMS missionaries) 7n25, 18, 22 – 6, 28, 29, 33 – 5, 42, 46, 72n29, 88n68, 93n82, 118n59, 137n36 Seringapatam (= Srirangapatna) 77n48 Shastra (= Shaster) 66, 66n13, 71, 108, 110, 116, 135, 155 Shimei, biblical figure 169, 169n146 Shiva (= Seeb) 66, 66n11 Sierra Leone 16, 33, 87n66 sin 69, 72, 73, 76, 109, 115, 117, 153 sinners 12, 162, 173 slave trade (see trade in enslaved Africans) slaves (see Africans, enslaved) Society for Missions in Africa and the East (see Anglican Church Missionary Society) Society of Missions to Africa and the East (= CMS) 90, 90n75, 123n83, 161n122 Society of Protestant Missionaries 90 Society of the United Brethren 135 Socinianism 100, 129, 131 Soham 5 Solomon, biblical figure 169, 169n146 soul, the 10, 19, 20 115 – immortality of 105, 106 South Africa 138n46 South Seas, the 10, 85 Spain 85 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (= SPCK) 60, 74n36, 91, 91n76, 91n77, 101, 104, 132, 134, 134n26, 138n45, 141, 153, 157, 159 – 60, 161 Spirit, Divine 114 – 6

185

spiritual gifts 149 – 50 spirituality, missional 2, 7 – 8, 14 subcontinent, the (see India) Sudras 37 Sumatra 137n35 superstition 46, 67, 68, 69, 73, 114, 121, 123, 153 Surat 137, 138, 152, 163 Swabia 71, 71n24 Tanjore 153n107, 154, 160 Telugu language 138n42 temptation 59, 147, 159 The Christian Observer 132, 133, 133n24 The Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire 121 The Pernicious Consequences of Delay in Religious Concerns 9, 33, 58 theology – biblical 2, 13 – evangelical 12, 13, 14 – missional 5 tolerance 100, 103n14, 157 – Christian 52, 64 – religious 52 – 3, 55, 64, 165, 167 – true 52 – 4, 64, 65 tracts, religious 24, 28, 39, 41, 42, 44, 50n227, 52, 71, 93, 94, 103, 107, 111, 135 trade – colonial 10, 22, 29 – 30, 32, 33, 43, 44, 46, 52, 71, 162 – in enslaved Africans 10 – 11, 39, 75n40 Treason Act of 1795 172, 172n159 Trinity, doctrine of 100 truth 54, 56, 65, 67, 69, 70, 75, 97, 112, 141, 150, 151, 155, 172 – absolute 53 – Christian 54, 56, 98, 159 – divine 73 – eternal 10, 24 Turkey 71 unbelievers 65, 99, 101 uncleanness 110, 110n34, 128 United Brethren 87, 132, 135 Vedas, the 35, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 122 Vellore 77n48, 134n26

186

Subject Index

Vellore Mutiny (= “Sepoy” Mutiny) 39, 42, 43, 52, 65, 70, 78, 79, 79n52, 80 – 5, 132, 154, 169n148, 169n149 Vindication of the Hindoos 45, 48, 106 Vishakhapatnam 138n41, 138n42 Vishnu (= Vishnoo) 66, 66n11, 115

Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society 87n65 “West Indies” (see also Caribbean, the) 65, 75 Westminster Assembly 56n235 Westminster Shorter Catechism 56, 112n38

Wales

York

15, 15n68, 130

50, 171

Scripture Index Genesis 12:1 – 7 13:7 – 9 13:14 – 17

145n69 161n121 145n69

Exodus 20:4 – 5 Joshua 9

145n70

1 Samuel 7

129

2 Samuel 16:5 – 14

169n146

1 Kings 2:8 – 9 3:36 – 46 19:10

169n146 169n146 11n47

Ezra 4:16 6:6 – 7

98 98

Nehemiah 4:2 – 3 6:8

63

Esther 4:14 7:10

76n45, 168n140 142n59

Job

71

Psalms 58:11

71 75n42

Jeremiah 8:2

19n84

Ezekiel 28:1 – 10

167

Amos 7:12 – 13

85

Haggai 1:2 2:12 – 13

9n36 128

Zechariah 4:10

105n18

Gospels, the

77

Matthew 3:12 5:11 – 12 9:37 10 10:39 11:28 13:33 15:6 16:25 22:21 26:6 – 13 28:18 – 20 28:19 – 20

58, 71 109n32 150n91 159n118 150n91 168n144 110n33 74n35, 150n98 159n114 168 59n239, 147, 170 161n119 128 9 – 10, 12, 13, 21, 58, 146n68, 149, 170n154 145, 149n87, 151n101

28:20

Ecclesiastes 10:2

75n43

Song of Songs (= Canticles) 71 Isaiah 45:1 – 4 54:2 54:2 – 3

71 76 162n123 14

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110420487-009

Mark 3:6 3:21 7:13 8:35 12:17 14:3 – 9 14:8 16:15

142n60 150n92 159n114 168n144 147n75, 170n153 161n119 161n119 112n36

Luke 7:36 – 50

161n119

188

Scripture Index

9:24 10:1 – 23 10:2 10:16 12:51 13:20 – 21 17:33 20:25 23:5

168n144 150n91 159n118 55n234, 106n22 93, 101 74n35, 150n98 168n144 147n75, 170n153 150n94

1 Corinthians 1:12 1:23 6:9 10:22 12:4

149n89 19 103 76 149n90

2 Corinthians 5:14 12:15

159n116 161n120

John 7:49 11:49 – 50 12:1 – 8 12:25 14:6 15:20 18 – 19:37 19:8 – 11

150n93 84 161n119 168n144 159n113 101 147n74 147n74

Galatians 3:8 6:4

145n69 158n111

Acts 2:42 – 47 4:18 – 20 4:32 – 37 5:27 – 32 5:28 5:29 5:34 – 39 5:38 – 39 5:40 – 42 13 – 15 14:23 16:19 – 24 17:5 17:6 19:23 – 41 19:36 24 24 – 26 24:5 25:1 – 12 25:13 – 22 25:23 – 26:32 26:24

23 59n240 23 147n74 150n95 147n74 98n3, 99n4 63 147n74 99n5 25n111 129n5 129n5 145n71 129n5 81n54 147n73 59n238 150n97 147n73 147n73 147n73 150n96

Ephesians 2:12 3:8 4:2 – 6 4:11 – 12 4:21 6:11

172 148n84 149n90 149n90 159n113 89n71

Philippians 2:5 4:9

158n111 147

Colossians 1:15 – 20

37n154

Titus 1:5 1:5 – 16

25n111 26n114

Hebrews 2:3 5:12 10:1 – 18 11:38 12:4

144n64 109n30 159n115 36n152 148n80 144

Romans 10:14 – 15 13:1 – 7 15:20 16:26

1 Peter 2:21 3:13 – 18 4:11 4:12 – 19

149n88 147n76 159n115 147n75

11 32 158n111 145n69

1 John 5:20

159n113

Scripture Index

Revelation 5:9

8 145n69

14:6 15:4

145n69 145n69

189