tiously comply with the conditions on which the appropriation was made.

It would we think be extremely difficult for any person, other than a Baptist, to detect any thing like sectarianism in the above resolutions; or to find in them a justification for their secession and their new and avowedly hostile organization. We must allow them, therefore, to speak for themselves in this matter.

The president of the new society, Spencer H. Cone, in his first address, uses this language :

"The occasion which has convened us is one of surpassing interest. Borne along by circumstances which we could neither anticipate nor control, we have been constrained to organize a distinct society for the printing and circulation of the sacred Scriptures. To this course we have been impelled, not merely by the fact that the Calcutta, the British and Foreign, and the American Bible Societies have comBINED in the determination to afford no further aid to versions made by Baptist missionaries: versions which obvious duty binds us promptly and adequately to sustain :--but the measure has been imperatively demanded by the cry of the destitute; by the ardent desire of many of our churches to come up to the help of the Lord in this matter against the mighty: [Query: the old society?] and by the peculiar facilities now afforded us in the glorious work of Bible distribution."Proceedings, &c., p. 18.

Thus speaketh the president in his inaugural address. We do not understand exactly how the phrase "circumstances which we could not anticipate," is to be reconciled with the fact that a similar society, or rather a "provisional organization," had been already a year in existence, as we learn from the following resolution, which we are told passed unanimously :

"Resolved, That the society formed in New-York, May 13, 1836, as a provisional organization, together with all its funds, interests, and responsibilities be now merged in the American and Foreign Bible Society, organized by the Bible convention which met in Philadelphia, April 26, 1837."

It would seem as if there had been at least some anticipation of this matter; more especially, as the president of the incipient organization is identical with the president of the new society. But let that pass and look for a moment at the charge gravely brought against the three principal Bible societies in the world: they have combined, says the president, to afford no further aid to versions. made by Baptist missionaries. By his own showing there is no

evidence of combination in this matter; and, in the same pamphlet from which we quote the above extracts from the president's speech, they tell us, that five thousand dollars had been appropriated to their own board of missions, with the simple restriction, that their versions should be such as all the religious denominations represented in the society could consistently use and circulate in their schools and communities.

The same restriction accompanies all other appropriations; and it does seem to us as if no one denomination has any more cause to complain about it than another. Indeed, from the very nature of the compact, the American Bible Society has no right to aid in the circulation of any other versions than such as meet the approval of the religious denominations from whom their funds are received. If it has ever done so, as our Baptist brethren more than insinuate, it has been done evidently through ignorance, caused by the misrepresentations of those who have received their bounty.

The president of the new society observes further :—

66

Among the errors and frauds which have marked the rise and progress of the papal hierarchy, handling the word of the Lord deceitfully is not the least. To keep back any part of the price; to add to or take from the words of the book, is a crime of no questionable character-the curse of the Almighty rests upon it!"

All this is very true; but what, the reader will naturally ask, has this to do with the matter in controversy? What justification do these undoubted truths form for the establishment of the new society? Why evidently none at all: but hear the new president further, and the design of the foregoing remarks will be understood and we shall arrive at the reason, and the only reason for the new organization.

"The Romish priesthood have always withheld the Scriptures from the laity as far as practicable; and when this could no longer be done, their effort has been to obscure the light of divine truth, and to incorporate with their several translations the distinguishing dogmas of their religion. In the accomplishment of this object, the transferring of Greek terms instead of translating them, has proved to be a most successful device. . . . We cannot but deeply deplore the effect of this system in perverting the ordinance of baptism, and establishing in its place, to a wide extent, infant sprinkling, which the learned and venerable Gill has justly called 'a part and pillar of popery.' . . . ... The unlearned, not being permitted to read in their own tongues wherein they were born, what God required of believers, were compelled to rely upon their spiritual guides, and they told them that baptizo sig

nifies to sprinkle, or pour, or christen. And so unhappily one of the important ordinances of the gospel, described by the Holy Spirit as with a sunbeam, has been covered up, and hid from the great mass of the people by THE POPISH ARTIFICE OF TRANSFER."-Proceedings of the Convention, &c., pp. 18, 19.

Whether

Here we have the whole matter in a small compass. the president has quoted accurately from the learned and venerable Gill we stop not to inquire; nor shall we argue his right to the latter of these titles. Venerable he doubtless was, in his old age; and we should think childish, rather than learned, when he hazarded the assertion that the baptism of infants is a part of that of which he says in the same sentence it is only a pillar. The old man doubtless knew once, though possibly he had forgotten, that infant baptism is as really and truly a part of Protestantism, as it is of popery. The president of the new society indorses the assertion; not aware, perhaps, of the bitter innuendo contained in it, that all who hold to infant sprinkling are popish; or to express it more clearly, and more absurdly, that there are only two religious denominations, to wit, the Baptists on the one hand, and the Roman Catholics on the other.

But what is meant in the above extract, by transferring Greek terms instead of translating them? Are not baptize, Baptist, baptism, English words? It would seem not. They are merely Greek transferred! Well, what do our brethren propose to substitute for them? Why certainly, immerse, immerser, immersion. But are they English words? Not at all; they are no more English than the former, being merely Latin transferred; and to use them would be even a better ground for the charge of popish artifice, than to adopt the others; the Latin being, as is well known, the favorite language of the Church of Rome.

But is our language so barren as to afford no English words by which to translate, without transferring the Greek? Certainly not. We have the pure old Saxon sprinkle, sprinkling, sprinkler, which, according to the best scholars, give as correct an idea of the meaning of the Greek in question as do immerse and its cognates; bapto being a word that means both to sprinkle and to immerse.*

This is admitted even by our Baptist brethren. They style those religious denominations who differ from them-Pedobaptists. What do they mean by the phrase? Evidently those who sprinkle (Barrio) children in contradistinction from those who immerse (Barrisw) adults.

But baptism, we are told, is "a foreign, unmeaning term, a barbarism," (see second Report, p. 44,) and this too by a sect who call themselves Baptists; who, when occasion serves, appear to glory in the barbarism; and, with marvelous inconsistency, publish themselves as the "largest body of baptized believers in the world." -Constitution, &c., p. 13. Truly, it would seem due to decorum and common sense, either to abandon the use of a foreign, unmeaning term, or to withdraw the charge of popish artifice from those who use the term in common with themselves.

The fact is, as every scholar knows, there is a vast number of words in common and daily use, which, although derived from foreign languages, are, in reality, as truly English, and as well understood, as those which we inherit from our Saxon or Norman ancestors. The charge of transferring instead of translating is, therefore, puerile and absurd.

Indeed, for the sake of consistency, our friends should abandon the use of a great many of the most common words in the language; and to carry out their principles would leave them a very meagre vocabulary. By what right, for instance, do they talk about the Bible? Why call their society a Bible society? Do they not know that Bible is a mere transfer, and not a translation, of the Greek word Biẞhos, (Biblos?) Are they not afraid that there may be some of the "popish artifice" in this?

It would seem, strange as it may appear, that their quarrel is only with the unfortunate word chosen by themselves as their peculiar designation among the tribes of God's Israel. There is ample evidence, we think, in the documents before us, that if the American Bible Society would have been so reckless of the opinions and the rights of other churches, as to have assisted them in circulating versions in which the word Barrio is rendered, to immerse, whatever might have been their other inaccuracies, the world would never have heard of this new foreign society.

But this sentiment is not avowed. It has a little too much the appearance of sectarianism. Hence, on the contrary, we are told in the first annual report, p. 13:

"It has been frequently insinuated, that our chief concern was to contend for the translation of the word baptizo; but this certainly is not our main design. Although we believe that this, like every other word in the Bible, ought to be faithfully translated; yet, as Baptists,

we are contending for a great principle, viz., that the whole of God's word should be faithfully translated and given to all mankind.”

In the same report (page 12) they tell us :

"In performing the duties assigned them, they have experienced great pleasure in the reflection, that this is an enterprise in which not only Baptists, but Christians of all denominations may meet on consecrated ground and unite in promoting the kingdom of their Redeemer."

The second annual report informs us, that the society

"Resolved, as the sense of this meeting, That the formation of the American and Foreign Bible Society, and its efforts to give to the nations of the earth the Bible translated, deserve the approval, and may justly ask the co-operation of the Christian world.”—Second Rep., p. 42.

Now all this seems very far from sectarianism. The passages quoted breathe a very amiable and catholic spirit. We are unable, however, to reconcile them with some other little matters contained in the same reports. Thus, for instance, in the constitution of the society we read:

"Art. VI. Such life directors as are members in good standing of [the church of Christ? no; but of] Baptist churches, shall be members of the board."

"Art. VIII. A board of managers shall be appointed to conduct the business of the society, consisting of thirty-six brethren in good standing in BAPTIST churches, sixteen of whom shall reside in the city of New-York, or its vicinity."

Now the difficulty with us is, why, if the chief object of the society be not to contend for their peculiar rendering of baptizo, none but those who are in good standing in Baptist churches may become members of the board of managers? We do not understand either, how Christians of all denominations may meet on consecrated ground, while, although they seem willing to receive contributions from all sects, none but Baptists may participate in the management of the funds. The "ground" on which they may thus meet, "consecrated" though it may be, does not, to say the least, appear to be level.

This discrepancy appears in a still stronger light, and the sectarian object of the new organization is openly avowed, and its “chief concern" boldly proclaimed in the constitution of the "Bible Translation Society." This society was instituted in London, chiefly through the agency and influence of the Rev. A. Maclay,