from" the original text, and the word view put in its place. The word BarTIOμous has also been removed from this verse, and Avdiuara substituted. The same alteration has been made in the Sth verse, where βαπτισμους has again been changed into πλύσιματα. Can there be any good reason for these changes, when, the words βαπτισμών and βαπτίσματα, are retained in Hebrews vi. 2. and ix. 10?-Does not this fact show, that the translators knew, that the modern Greeks understood the word Barw, and its derivatives, as well as the ancient Greeks?

But it may be said, that as the words views and diμara mean, to wash; these changes were introduced to make the modern Greek Testament conform to King James' version. If so, we would ask our brethren of all denominations, whether it is right to alter the word of God, and make it conform to a human standard? We do not now inquire, what is the meaning of Barridurai, and Barriduous; but we ask, are not these the words which the Holy Spirit moved the inspired writer to employ? If they are, then, are not these alterations of the original text, an impeachment of infinite wisdom?

In Luke xi. 38.-"And when the pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed (baptized) before dinner." In this passage, the word επιφθη has been substituted for εβαπτίσθη, which is the word, the Holy Spirit directed Luke to use.

In Matthew iii. 11. and other places; ev udari, IN water, has been altered to, μɛ TO VƐgov, WITH water. This change is not only in plain contradiction of the obvious sense of the original; but is opposed to the authority of all the ancient versions, and several of the first English versions.

It is further worthy of remark, that in the edition published for the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1810, Mark vii. 4. not only changes βαπτίσωνται into πλυμένα, to wash, but has a glaring addition, viz. the phrase ra xegiarss, " their hands;" making it read except they wash THEIR HANDS they eat not!

In these instances, have not the words of the Holy Spirit been "taken from," and the words of man, been "added" to, the inspired book?

But, let it not be supposed that the American Baptists are peculiar in their objections against the unfaithfulness of Pedobaptists

in their management of Bible translations. Messrs. Carson and Haldane, two eminent Baptist ministers in Great Britain, have also rendered important services to the cause of truth, by exposing the gross corruptions of several versions of the Bible, which have been published, or sanctioned by the British and Foreign Bible Society. Your Board of Managers will not now dwell upon the truly heretical character of "the Strasburg Preface," prefixed to the German Bible, published almost wholly at the expense of the London Society, after they had been most distinctly informed of its neological character. This document, written by professor Haffner, was for several years bound up with the Holy Bible; and afterwards, continued to be distributed in pamphlet form, and sold with the Bible, although it had been irrefutably proved to be directly calculated to invalidate some of the cardinal doctrines of divine revelation. Nor can we pause in this place to speak of the "fifty thousand alterations, notes and comments," which professor Levade made in that version of the Lausanne Bible, for the publication of which the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1817 and 1818, paid £750-about $3000 of the moneys raised by British Christians, for the distribution of the Holy Bible, "without note or comment!" It would be equally impossible in this report, to do justice to their own feelings in speaking of the conduct of the Earl-street Committee, in expending the funds intrusted to them by their constituents, in circulating 1000 copies of the Hebrew Bible, published by the Canstein Institution at Halle. Of this edition of the Bible, we would barely remark, that it is satisfactorily proved, that so far from being "without note or comment," the Latin headings to some of the chapters, were "so bad, that a regard to delicacy does not admit of their being translated into English." But, upon this painful topic your Board will close by quoting the words of Rev. Dr. Henderson, (a pædobaptist) in regard to the Turkish Testament, published under the direction of the British and Foreign Bible Society. "There is," says the Doctor, "not a page, nor scarcely a verse in the volume, that does not contain something or other of an objectionable nature.'

In addition to the above, which we deem sufficient to render it more than doubtful, whether the work of Bible translation and distribution should be left exclusively in the hands of those who have hitherto had the supreme control of it, there is one fact, which sa

far as Baptists are concerned, does most conclusively prove that, if we wish our funds to be employed in the distribution of the word of God" without note or comment," we must support a society of our own for that purpose.

When Mr. Milne, who was employed in translating the Scriptures into the Chinese language, put the question to the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society: "What is the real import and the utmost extent of the Society's motto, without note or comment ?" that Committee referred him to "the English version, with marginal renderings and references, as affording a correct example of that sort and degree of explanation, which it may be permitted to introduce into those copies of the Bible, which answer to the Society's definition and requirement of their being without note or comment."

Now, in view of these facts, selected from many of a similar, and some even of a still more aggravated character, not here enumerated; we make our solemn appeal to the pious of every denomination, and ask, do not duty to God and a regard to the truth, justify the Baptist denomination in the formation of the American and Foreign Bible Society?

In regard to the course pursued, with the evident design to suppress our views of Believer's Baptism, we think we have a right to complain. Remonstrance is in this case, as much an imperative duty, as silence would be a treacherous dereliction of the truth. Particularly when it is considered, that many of the earliest and most accurate versions of the Sacred Scriptures now in existence; and also, that the more modern versions which are used by nearly one half of the protestant world, translate the word baptize into vernacular terms, which demonstrate our practice to be scriptural. Such is the fact in regard to the Syriac, (the oldest existing translation from the original Greek,) the Arabic, the Abyssinian, the Ethiopic, the Coptic, the German, the Danish, and many other translations of the Bible.

In addition to these facts, we appeal to the most eminent scholars of our own times*-to profane Greek authors-to Jose

* From numerous similar authorities the following is selected :-Porson, late professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, and acknowledged by all competent judges to be the first Greek scholar in England, when asked the meaning of the word baptizo, replied (though a Pædobaptist) that it would be absurd to imagine that it had any other proper meaning than to dip entirely, or plunge, or immerse.

phus and Philo among Jewish writers-to all the Lexicographers, to the Septuagint, and to the most learned among the Commentators, all of whom admit the primary rendering which we give to the word baptizo. When it is further considered, that Baptist missionaries have translated the divine oracles into the languages spoken by more than FOUR HUNDRED MILLIONS of the human family, and that in no instance can it be shown that they have been unfaithful in the translation of a single word; but have given the obvious and literal meaning of the inspired original; we cannot but think, that in refusing to aid them, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the American Bible Society have adopted a course which God will disapprove, and all good men will ultimately deplore.

In regard to the question concerning the faithfulness of Baptist oriental translations, and their unquestionable philological superiority, we have the unbiassed testimony of missionaries of every denomination in Bengal; and of ten of the most learned Pundits and Moonshees in India. One of whom says: "I cannot but admire the correctness of your version (Pearce and Yates') of the gospel of Matthew, and when I see such composition in the Bengalee language, executed by foreigners, I am justly delighted, and consider you entitled to high commendation." The head Moonshee in the College of Fort-William says: “I find the translation very elegant, all the words and sentences grammatical, and the explanation [translation] is very much plainer than what has been already published."

When the foregoing facts are impartially considered, we believe there are few, very few, who will hesitate to acknowledge, that great injustice has been done to the Baptists, and that pædobaptists have by their obscuration of a part of divine revelation, assumed a fearful responsibility. If in their translations, Baptist missionaries had interpolated and altered the words of the Holy Spirit, would not the whole world, with great justice, have charged them with unfaithfulness?

The immediate causes which led to the formation of the American and Foreign Bible Society, refer chiefly to the recent acts of the American Bible Society, in consequence of a letter

from Mr. Pearce of Calcutta, inquiring whether aid could be obtained in printing the Bengalee Scriptures, translated on the principle adopted by the American Baptist Missionaries in Burmah. This document, forwarded by Mr. Packard, of Philadelphia, to John C. Brigham, Corresponding Secretary of the American Bible Society, was by him submitted to the Board of Managers on the 6th of August, 1835; and was by them referred to a committee, who reported that it would be inexpedient to recommend appropriations, until the Board should settle a principle in relation to the translation of the Greek word baptizo. In this report the Board of the American Bible Society concurred, and again referred the subject to a special committee of seven; who, on the first of October, reported, in substance, "that it is inexpedient to appropriate funds belonging to the American Bible Society in aid of translating or distributing the Bengalee New Testament, or any other version, containing translations of the Greek words baptizo, baptisma, and their cognates." A counter report was presented by Spencer H. Cone, (one of the committee,) and the whole subject was postponed until the next regular meeting of the Board, on the 5th of November. On that day the consideration of the subject was resumed, and after a full discussion, and various resolutions, none of which prevailed, the whole subject was again referred to the same committee of seven, a majority of whom on the 19th of the same month, once more presented their report, which was followed by a counter report from the minority.

At this, and also at the adjourned meetings on the 3d of December, 1835, and on the 4th of February, 1836, the whole subject was again discussed; and on the 17th of February, 1886, after several motions to lay it on the table, to postpone, and to give the subject into the hands of a new committee, the report of the majority, virtually refusing to grant that aid which the Baptist missionaries solicited, was finally passed, by a majority of sixteen.

This act of the Board of the American Bible Society is probably unprecedented, unless we look for its counterpart in the doings of the Calcutta Bible Society, and of the committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1833, when, as in the present instance, the Baptist missionaries in India were denied further aid in printing the Bible, unless they would submit to conditions which they could not but regard as derogatory