stitution. As a general matter, it says, as the Apostle Paul does of coming to the Lord's supper, "Let a man examine himself: " the Society does not profess to examine him, or to decide whether or not he is a Christian; but still its members may exercise the scriptural test of judging of men's faith by their works, and, without breach of charity, will therefore decide as to whom they approve as directors of their concerns. Really this seems to me a very straight-forward, scriptural, and unexceptionable mode of proceeding.

But, it is replied, what you say would have been true a year ago; this was the object and plan of the Society; but a great change has taken place, for it having been proposed to reject Socinians as not being a denomination of Christians, and this resolution having been set aside, they are now formally pronounced by the Society as being entitled to that exalted character. Î really, my lord, am perfectly astonished to hear such an argument from any man of ordinary information; for in what way has any such change taken place in the constitution of the Society? A certain motion was proposed, I will not say vexatiously, but very adroitly, to drive the Society into a corner; to force it, in short, to decide, what was quite beyond the object of the Society or the business of the meeting, who were and who were not Christians, and this without any definition of the very term to be decided upon; some persons using it in a spiritual sense, and others only in a low statistical sense. The motion was meant for a dexterous man-trap; so constructed that, tread on which side of it you might, you were in danger of being ensnared. The proposer did not, I repeat, define the meaning which he himself affixed to the term "Christian;" and an evident fallacy lurked in the ambiguity. Had he told the meeting what he intended by a Christian, it would have been easy enough, though very unnecessary, to have decided upon his proposition. But he used the word without explaining what he meant by it; so that those who took it statistically might say Aye, and those who took it spiritually No; while all the while they might, theologically speaking, entertain precisely the same opinions. Amidst this confusion, what did the meeting do? They just thrust aside the ensnaring motion altogether, and proceeded with the business of the day: they neither changed the Society's rule, nor refined upon it; there it stands, just as it had stood for more than a quarter of a century; and if some persons construed the word "Christian" spiritually, and others statistically, neither could fairly draw any corollary from the rejection of the intended motion, but that the motion was rejected. Suppose the motion had been, that no highwayman should be a member of Bible committees, on the ground that highwaymen are not Christians; if this absurd motion had been rejected, would it have been just to say that the meeting had decided that highwaymen are Christians? The case in the present instance is precisely the same: the rejection of an amendment, not being of necessity intended to assert that the proposition contained in it is true or untrue; it is enough that it is unwise, or irrelevant, or proper to be rejected. The meeting never even went so far as to ask what the mover meant by the terms he used; in what sense he employed them: they knew that his resolution was intended to subvert the constitution of the Society, and they rejected it accordingly, but they did no more; they altered no law-they passed no amendment; and the matter stands just where it has done for eight and twenty years.

I should have thought this discussion qu te unnecessary, but that I learn that some persons are still deluded by being gravely told that at the last anniversary meeting of the Bible Society, it was decided that Socinians are Christians. Be they or be they not, no decision, or even inferential decision, was given on the subject. The whole question ought to be tried

on its real merits, and not on a mere quirk like this; and I am quite sure that such is the feeling of candid men on all sides, who cannot but lament the taking advantage of a mere ingenious parliamentary trick to gain votes on such a question. The plain meaning of the rule of the Society, without a shadow of doubt, has ever been, that all subscribers who in common speech, and in books of religious nomenclature, are called Christians, however little entitled to the name in its spiritual sense, are members; and that out of this miscellaneous group of baptized persons, these nominal Christians, these statistical Christians, persons professing to be Christians, the Society shall choose a committee of those whom they consider Christians indeed to conduct its concerns. It is in vain to say that this is not the clear meaning of the rule. If it be wrong, let us mend it; but do not let us quibble about it; let us try the question on principle, not get rid of it by a side wind. I have never yet met with a friend who when wishing to entangle me by putting the question, " Do you then consider Socinians a denomination of Christians?" has returned me a direct reply to my preliminary inquiry, "Tell me what you mean by Christians, and I will answer you.' But it is not to the purpose to argue so solemn a matter in such a fashion. The objector knows as well as I do, that, if he defines his meaning, there is no difference of opinion between us. Let him then throw aside special pleading, and go to the question. I admit that the Bible Society does not adopt a test; and this is the real point: the argument, whether a Socinian is a Christian or not, and whether the Society so pronounces him, is wholly beside the mark; a topic merely flung in to gall an opponent: the Society has nothing to do with it; it takes no cognizance of the matter. If Socinians, or any other body of men, ought to be excluded, let us exclude them, and let us make a rule for that purpose; but it only confounds the whole question to try to force a new construction upon the laws, which no person can seriously believe ever entered into the minds of the founders, and which, in truth, was only an after-thought of some astute objector to effect by a technical construction of a rule, what, even if the new exposition were verbally correct, was evidently not its intended meaning. It is, however, proof enough that the objector does not himself really believe that the rule carries this construction; for if it do, he would need no new law; the desired restriction is already manufactured to his hands, and he has only to shew to the members of the Society that they had overlooked its right interpretation.

Hitherto, my lord, I have only been stating the law, not vindicating it; that must be the object of my next letter. In the mean time, I will relieve your lordship's attention after this dry argument, by a citation respecting the Bible and its effects, the plainness of its instructions, and the corrupt arts of men to hide it, extracted from the pages of a poetical author, himself professedly a Roman Catholic-Dryden. The passage bears forcibly upon some of the points of the following discussion.

"In times o'ergrown with rust and ignorance,
A gainful trade the clergy did advance;
When want of learning kept the laymen low,
And none but priests were authorized to know;
When what small knowledge was, in them did dwell,
And he a God who could but read and spell;
The mother-church did mightily prevail :

She parcelled out the Bible by retail;

But still expounded what she sold or gave,

To keep it in her power to damn or save.

Scripture was scarce; and, as the market went,
Poor laymen took salvation on content,
As needy men take money good or bad:

God's word they had not, but the priest's they had;

Yet whate'er false conveyances they made,

The lawyer still was certain to be paid.

In those dark times they learned their knack so well,
That by long use they grew infallible.

At last, a knowing age began to inquire,

If they the Book, or that did them inspire:

And making narrower search, they found, though late,
That what they thought the priests' was their estate;
Taught by the will produced, the written word,
How long they had been cheated on record.
Then every man who saw the title fair,
Claim'd a child's part, and put in for a share;
Consulted soberly his private good,

And saved himself as cheaply as he could.

The unlettered Christian who believes in gross,
Plods on to heaven, and ne'er is at a loss:
For the strait gate would be made straiter yet,
Were none admitted there but men of wit.
The Book's a common largess to mankind,
Not more for them than every man designed.
The welcome news is in the letter found;
The carrier's not commissioned to expound;
It speaks itself; and what it does contain,
In all things needful to be known, is plain."

LETTER III.

In my last letter I stated the broad principle of the Bible Society; namely, the distribution of the Holy Scriptures, without note or comment, by the voluntary agency of all persons professing to be Christians. I am told, indeed, that this expression "professing to be Christians" is quite a new discovery; a mere subterfuge, just invented to meet the recent objection that Socinians are not Christians, and therefore not admissible, Now, by mere accident while writing, I opened your lordship's Charge to the Clergy of St. David's, in 1813; and there I find it remarked, in perfect coincidence with all I have said of the laws of the Society, that "it is constituted on this simple and comprehensive principle, that it may not exclude the aid of any persons professing to be Christians: indeed, no contribution, for the distribution of the Bible can be unacceptable, whether it come from a Churchman or Dissenter, from a Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, or Hea-, then." As to who are, and who are not Christians, the question has nothing to do with the real merits of the case; for even if it were decided that the Society's laws technically exclude Socinians as "not being Christians," it. would still be to be decided whether that law is a good or a bad one; so that we must come to the merits of the question at last, only by a long and vexatious process. The real point is, Does the Society's rule lay down, or was it intended to lay down, any test as between the different classes of persons who profess and call themselves Christians; except, indeed, the distinction between Churchmen and Dissenters, which, on account of there being a national ecclesiastical establishment in this country, was adopted to prevent misconception and jealousy. But, as among the conformist half (excluding the foreigners) of the committee there is no test of Calvin-. istic or non-Calvinistic, high or low church, so among the non-conformist half also there was not meant to be any; no mention being made of Independent, Quaker, Socinian, Baptist, or any other sect; the choice of elected officers being left to the wisdom and piety of the members assembled at their annnal meeting, The members select their own representatives, and they are not likely to choose persons whom, for any reason, theological or otherwise, they do not dcem proper to conduct their affairs.

The plain fact then, is, that there was, and is, no test; and the real and only question is, Ought there to be one? The friends of the Society say there ought not; its opponents, that there ought: and thereupon issue is joined, and I proceed to open the case before your lordship.

The Society, we say, excludes religious tests: that exclusion, say our friends, is not lawful. But why is it not lawful? May not a Presbyterian lawfully assist an Episcopalian to circulate the word of God? Why may not a Baptist aid a Quaker in the same work? Yes, say our friends, we do not deny this; we approve it. We do not require a test as between Churchmen and orthodox Dissenters, Wesleyans, Quakers, Baptists, Ranters, Shakers, Muggletonians, Antinomians, and nine hundred and ninetynine sects; but we require it as respects the thousandth, or rather, upon re-consideration, as respects the nine hundred and ninety-ninth and the thousandth—namely, Socinians and Papists. Communion with all the rest is lawful: there is excellent brotherhood in Sabellianism and Southcotism; and most scriptural union in the nine hundred and ninety-eight sects, schisms, and heresies, afore rehearsed or referred to: it is only Sociniansand Papists whom we are concerned to stave off; exclude these, and we compromise every thing else.

Now, my lord, I am sure no man, not even your lordship, can feel more strongly than I do in regard to the delusions of Socinianism and Popery; but yet, when I take the whole thousand sects, and go over them seriutim, I feel at a loss to discover any clear scriptural principle, which decides that, in the mere matter of distributing the word of God without note or comment, I may unite with the nine hundred and ninety-eight, and not with the remaining two. I am sure I find no text that lays down this distinction. I am not extenuating the heresies of either; I admit them in full, and deplore them most deeply; but I am not so certain of human infallibility as to draw this precise line, so as to keep exactly nine hundred and ninety-eight on the one side, and exactly two, and no more, on the other; to find the no-test principle clearly lawful in all instances but two, and in these as clearly unlawful. I think I see here an attempt to separate the tares and the wheat more bold than befits the province of human inquisition: I should wish at least for a plain passage of Scripture, that points out infallibly this exact line of demarkation; and in the absence of thisfor no such test is produced-I demur to the perfect accuracy of the distinction. It may be accurate, but I do not see it.

My notion of the Bible Society is this; that it virtually, nay, directly, combats every heresy, every species of pravity of doctrine and unholiness of life; that it does not usurp to itself the infallible office of saying what is essential and what is non-essential; that it says, that all that God has been pleased to set forth is essential in one way or other; and that it cannot in conscience lay down such a test as would uphold nine hundred and ninety-eight sects, and reprobate just two. Our principle, say the friends of the Bible Society, is, as a society, to endorse none; we leave each to his own Master: if they will assist us in distributing his holy word, we are glad of their help; if not, we will do all we can without them; but we will not exclude them from so unobjectionable and excellent a work, if they are inclined to cooperate in it.

There you are wrong, say the objectors; you ought to reject them. Reject whom? The Muggletonians? No; the Socinians. The Swedenborgians? No; the Roman Catholics. Up to this point all was scriptural fellowship; here begins unlawful union. You are going upon principles of human expediency, and not upon the word of God.

Soft and fair, good friend, let us have your objections in detail, not in dozens. You say we are going upon principles of human expediency; but

there you mistake; for if we cannot settle the point upon principle, I mean Scripture principle, I for one will yield the question. The matter of expediency we will discuss hereafter; our present thesis is the point of lawfulness. If the principle be unscriptural, it must be discarded without further question; expediency is only a secondary consideration, to be argued when the point of lawfulness is proved. And now, I again ask for a proof from the word of God, that it is lawful to unite with all classes of heretics but two, and to call that a scriptural union; but unlawful to join an institution, which having no test implies no union, except union in what is assuredly good, the giving of the word of God, however evil may be the givers. The objections to the lawfulness of the constitution of the Bible Society are not new; they are almost as old as the society itself; only, like the river Mole, after burying themselves in the ground in one place, they suddenly rise in another very far off from the spot where we last traced them, and certainly with no visible defecation of the turbidness of the stream.

The history is this; As soon as it became known that Christian men, who used only to quarrel with each other, had at length united for a common object paramount to all their differences, though interfering with none of them, an objection was started that this was a grievous breach of ecclesiastical discipline. The Church of England was in danger; this new-fangled society would be its ruin; and, in one way, I wonder it has not been so by the prediction working its own fulfilment; for it was not much to the honour of our church that so many of her members appeared to the popular eye, which did not measure microscopic distinctions, however conscientious, as opposers of the free circulation of the word of God. Indeed it was most short-sighted and suicidal that the prelacy, clergy, and laity of the Church of England did not join the society in a mass, and carry all before them, as they might easily have done, and thus have identified the diffusion of the word of God in public feeling with the Established Church, assisted, but not eclipsed or rivalled, by Dissent. This would have been a very peaceable and Christian provocation to love and to good works. But instead of this there was a grievous outcry about the sin and folly of "amalgamating" with Dissenters. How can those, it was said, who are in covenant with God by legitimate baptism, unite with those who are trespassers on his uncovenanted mercies for the circulation of his word? Who can touch Watts and Doddridge and not be defiled? Thus sounded the watch-word. -But the echo at length died away; and the church, so far as the Bible Society was likely to assail it, continued safe. Recently, however, a new outcry has arisen, and in a very different quarter, but equally directed against the principle of the society. The first objectors said, that a society without tests was anti-church; the recent assailants say, that it is antiChristian. And yet, now I remember me well, our new friends have not thus much of originality; for their predecessors had forestalled even this argument; and if it was not good in the lips of Mr. Norris, Dr. Spry, Bishop Marsh, and the "Country Clergyman," I see not why it should be so in those of our modern naval-and-military opponents. We were then told as now of amalgamation," "heterogeneous mixtures," and unnatural combinations." This very case of the Socinians in particular, which the new objectors have all at once flashed upon, was then thoroughly discussed, and all calm-judging men thought fairly set at rest. The last of the quaternion just mentioned, the "Country Clergyman," who was the very first opponent of the Society, had by anticipation all the Sackville-street logic most glibly at his tongue's end, and particularly the newly revived, but, as your lordship thought, very unscriptural and unprotestant argument of the Socinian's making the Bible aid Socinianism, and the Papist Popery. Thus said this Country Clergyman;-" Christian charity no where recom