press image of his person; and that all the angels of God are commanded to worship him. Oh! let them give about that book: and if they are noisy and turbulent when they begin to read it, they will not, when they have read it, be half so noisy and turbulent as we have been in the meeting this morning."

But I must again remind your lordship, in concluding this long letter, that though there has been much in it about Roman Catholics and Socinians, there is not a word about either in the Society's rules. The only real question is, Ought there to be a doctrinal test? The case of Socinians is but an item in the account; for if a test be necessary, it must go much further. If it be unlawful to have a Bible Society without a test, our friends are as much to blame as we are: for, first, instead of a test they have but a fraction of a test; just enough to shew that they recognize the principle, but not enough to exclude more than one or two classes of offenders; thus exposing themselves to all the anathemas they denounce against us by their fraternal retention of the remainder. Secondly, their test, such as it is, is not meant to be enforced in practice; so that it is mere hypocrisy, a nominal orthodoxy, worth nothing in the sight of Him who sees the heart. If a Bible Society without a test be unlawful, in forming one with one, first, the test ought to be adequate; and, secondly, to be acted upon. If this be impracticable, Bible Societies must be given up; unless our friends should begin to suspect that a principle that leads to such a result is itself suspicious, and thus come round by the way of a ratio ad absurdum to the lawfulness of the old principle.

In reply to the arguments in this letter, I well know that some of our friends will exclaim, "All this is carnal reasoning; man's wisdom, not God's; give us a plain text, and we are satisfied." Now, my lord, this objection sounds very speciously, and it may be thought piously, but I deny that it is either Scripture or common sense. We do make a right use of the word of God when we conscientiously apply its principles to the actual phenomena of events. The Bible Society is not specifically named in the sacred page; we cannot ascertain whether it is lawful or unlawful by a concordance: our friends quote passages; we deny their application; we shew that the case does not come within the category; and we reason far more rightly out of the Scriptures when we take this large induction, than if we contented ourselves with stringing together a number of texts, which, fairly examined, do not bear upon the question. It was said, and I think not unscripturally, by St. Augustine, "Prove it to me by the Bible, or by some reason not contrary to the Bible." There is, however, in many minds a propensity to substitute the mere letter for the real meaning and spirit of Scripture; and to say at every turn, if you do not quote a precise text to prove your point, that you are quitting Scripture for carnal reasoning. Thus was Hooker assailed: when arguing the general lawfulness of a church adopting decent and edifying rites and ceremonies, he was told that this was mighty plausible talking, but where do you find square caps or surplices in the word of God? So the Anti-pædobaptist exclaims, None of your constructive reasoning: point me out a text which expressly says that infants ought to be baptised; otherwise I shall not be satisfied that it is lawful. So also the advocate for West-India Negro oppression, when you urge upon him the genius and spirit of Christianity, turns round with, "Give me a text that. forbids slavery." I think that in all these instances there are texts enough to the point, if that were my present argument; but even were. there not, is nothing lawful but what is thus verbally provided for ?

Does the Baptist refuse to admit women to the second sacrament, though there is no direct passage of Scripture to invite them any more than infants to the first? In all such cases, it is a just and fair reply to turn upon the objector his own argument. This is done so convincingly in regard to the present question, in the following passage of an address issued by the Hibernian Bible-Society, that I request permission to substitute it for what I should have myself said upon the occasion; and with it I conclude this protracted letter.

"Should the exclusive principle be adopted, a multitude of questions would immediately offer themselves, in the course of conducting the Society's business, to which the committee could find no answer in the word of God. For example: if it be unlawful to admit persons who are not really Christians to the right of membership in the Society, is it lawful to consult with such, and receive their advice and assistance in conducting its various operations; such as translating the Scriptures correcting printed editions of them, or even publishing and circulating them? Is it lawful to receive money from such persons? Is it lawful to permit them to vote in the election of the conductors of the Society? If it be unlawful to unite with them in purchasing and circulating the Bible, might it not be made a question, whether it be lawful to unite with them in carrying into effect any command of the Bible; such as, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, or caring for the sick? In short, the committee see no means of determining how far such a principle might carry them. They apprehend it would tend to divide men interminably; and erect insuperable barriers around each division and sub-division, which would effectually prevent the diffusion of the truth, and put a stop to every united work of benevolence. They are inclined, therefore, to think that the principle of Scripture on this matter is, that Christians should unite with every man in every good work, so far as they can without compromising truth or aiding in the diffusion of error."

LETTER IV.

In my last letter I argued the abstract lawfulness of the principle upon which the British and Foreign Bible Society is constructed. I come now, my lord, to the question, If lawful, is it also expedient? I would not put expediency first, but it may fairly and apostolically come after; meaning of course by "expedient," that which is befitting, useful, calculated to promote the glory of God, and the spiritual welfare of mankind. I admit no expediency but what is grounded upon truth and uprightness. . I have been led, my lord, to consider this point of expediency, for the following reason. I hear it said, Even supposing that the Bible Society's principle be, as you affirm, lawful; yet, now that so much discussion has arisen respecting it, and a secession has been formed, and many evils are arising, would it not be better to give it up, and to re-model the institution in such a manner as to get rid of the difficulty? Is it not at least inexpedient, under present circumstances, to adhere too closely to the old principle?

I have seriously considered this view of the subject, and will respectfully offer to your lordship the result of my inquiries.

Suppose, my lord, that when the same difficulty was urged more than a quarter of a century ago, as well as at many subsequent periods, your lordship, and the other early friends and founders of the institution, had been frightened from your consistency; what would have now been

the result? The Society had never assumed a cosmopolitan character; it had split to fragments in the incubation; and there would and could have been no general union of the great body of those who profess the name of Christ, in order to diffuse his holy word; so that we must have gone back to the old societies, which, one and all, could not supply even a Welch district with the Scriptures; and the millions upon millions of copies which have fertilized the world would not have come into being. Would this have been expedient? And if not then, why now? The adoption of tests would as inevitably in the end, and before long, dissipate the Society, as in the first instance they would have prevented its formation.

The question lies thus: It is a duty to circulate the word of God; the field is the world; one man, or one ecclesiastical communion, cannot inclose and cultivate so vast a wild; it must be the joint effort of many minds, many sects, many purses, many exertions, many prayers, and many hands. Is such a union for a defined purpose, where no mischief can possibly mix up with the object, expedient? for I assume, after my last letter, that it is abstractedly lawful.

Let us apply the case. I am a member and a clergyman of the Church of England; let me bring the matter home. Will it hurt my church, my parish, my neighbourhood? I see nothing in any of these quarters to render the plan inexpedient; unless indeed my opposition to what my flock will naturally consider a work of Christian piety and charity should cause such a result.

I discern indeed many cases in which this broad basis of union would be inexpedient. It would be impossible, I think, to conduct a Mis. sionary Society upon this principle. In the case of the very first con vert, the question would arise, Åre his children to be baptised? Yes, says one man; No, says another; and so on of innumerable other instances. But I see no such difficulty in circulating the word of God; in doing which there is little or nothing to legislate upon, that neces sarily calls in conflicting theological opinions. Here then I perceive no inexpediency in the union.

But the expediency of the plan becomes more visible by contrast, from the inexpediency of the schemes that have been proposed to be substituted for it. I have carefully looked at the various propositions for a test, which have come before the public, and many which have been urged in private, and I find a two-fold fatal defect attached to them all: first, that they shut out many who ought to be let in; and, secondly, that they let in many who ought to be shut out.

First, they exclude many who deserve to be admitted. They exclude those who object to all tests whatever, even in church-fellowship; they exclude those who, though they admit tests in a church, do not approve of them in a Bible Society; and they exclude those who, though they do not shrink from a test in either, yet disapprove of the phras ing of the particular tests proposed, notwithstanding they agree in opinion with the proposers. Among one or other of these classes will be found not a few of the most pious and zealous adherents of Bible Societies. The Society of Friends, in particular, would, I believe, be excluded to a man; for they, as well as many other classes of dissenters, object to all human tests, as implying, they think, an acknowledgment of man's authority in matters of faith. I need not remind your lordship what the Quakers (so-called) have done for the Bible Society; their zeal, diligence, and liberality in this institution, as well as in various others, particularly the Prison-Discipline, the Anti-Slavery, and some of the Education Societies, deserve the warmest gratitude

of their countrymen. Nor need I add, what they themselves have gained by the Society, by means of its reaction upon their own body; for to their connexion with it may, I believe, be chiefly ascribed under God, that widely-spread revival and extension of true piety which have of late years visited them. Would it then be expedient, that this much-esteemed class of persons should be shut out from the Bible Society; and that both their pecuniary liberality, and their personal exertions should be rejected? I may say the same of the great majority of the Dissenters, who could not, or would not, bind themselves down by tests in a voluntary charitable society, even though those tests related only to points in which they were quite as orthodox as the propounders. Our friends say at present, that they are content with excluding Papists and Socinians: but how long will they be so? A few months ago they were content with excluding Socinians only, and Papists were an after-thought; and since the formation of the new Bible Society, a third secret test appears to have been agreed upon, by virtue of which Mr. Perceval was banished from his office, in the very institution that had just been formed under his own presidency. Now, however, at length they say, the expurgatorial process is complete: at least some of them say so; for others refuse to hold out any such expectation. The gentlemen, for instance, who are endeavouring to subvert the Hibernian Bible-Society, when asked this very question, reply, that they can only say that they have gone as far as the Lord has hitherto enlightened them; and that if he shall enlighten them further, it will then be their duty to act up to their clearer knowledge, and to propose new tests. And thus the whole will be afloat and in confusion, as often as some weak, conscientious, but self-opinionated and headstrong individual shall fancy that God has enlightened him beyond his brethren, to disturb the peace of all our religious institutions. One of our good friends, writing on the matter in the Christian Guardian last October, in reply to this argument, that if we began with one test, we must go on to another, and so on to infinity, was much displeased at such a surmise, and said, " Is not the line proposed (namely, the exclusion of Socinians) sufficiently clear? Has any one proposed or even hinted at any future drawing closer of the boundary; or can any such consequence, inference, or corollary be pointed out as likely to flow from the adoption of the single rule now proposed?" Yet, at the very moment when this good man was thus confidently writing, this infallible never-to-be-altered "single rule," was being split into two by the addition of Roman Catholics to the proscribed list. Aye, it is rejoined, but we did not think of the Papists at first; it was a serious omission; but, now that they are excluded, and we have formed a society wholly Trinitarian and Protestant, all is right, and no further exclusion will be necessary. But scarcely is the ink dry upon the new constitution, before new exclusions, not recollected before, come into play; and Mr. Perceval is among the first victims. Now, however, at length we are again told it is all settled. Alas! I doubt it. The Wesleyan Methodists say that they stand in bodily fear of being excluded for not being predestinarians; and though the alarm may be thought preposterous, yet in reading over the pamphlets of Mr. R. Haldane against the Bible Society, I am not sure that it is ill-founded; for he complains again and again of persons of Arminian views being permitted to share the management of such institutions; and he constantly places neologians, and those who do not believe in the doctrine of personal election, side by side, as the bane of the continental Bible Societies. Nor is even this the limit of his system of exclusionism; for he makes the whole a national question between England and

Scotland; complaining that the former is utterly unsound in the matter of Divine inspiration and the canon; to understand which, the clergy, dissenting ministers, and laity of England must adopt the theology of Scotland. Who knows then how far the system of exclusion may be eventually carried? but, even if carried no further than at present, it shuts out, as we have seen, the Society of Friends, and not a few other persons, dissenters and churchmen, who might object to the principle of exhibiting a test, even though they concurred in its doctrines.

But, besides the evil of shutting out persons fit to be admitted, the new tests take in persons who ought to be excluded-that is, from a society professing a close degree of spiritual union. The new plan is content to denounce two or three heresies, and to admit all others; making no account of a man's being an Antinomian, Swedenborgian, Southcottian, Universalist, Irvingian, provided he be not a Socinian or Papist. Besides, there is another defect, that it does not embrace character as well as doctrine; for never has Mr. Simeon's well-expressed objection been answered, that "if piety imposes a test of opinions, it ought also of tempers and practices." If spiritual purity is intended to be attained, outward transgressions are a stain as much as false doctrine and a society professing purification, though it cannot name every distinct sin, ought at least to have a general rule, that no person known to be guilty of any offence, such as would lead, in a church under discipline, to excommunication, shall remain on its books.

Thus, then, all the tests that have been or can be proposed, are partial and, being partial, they are attended with this evil, that they are a direct compromise with what is wrong. The Bible Society compromises nothing, for it has no test it does not say that this sect is good, and that bad: whereas a society that excludes one, thereby endorses the remainder; professing to have tests that render it a spiritual brotherhood, it fraternizes with all that it does not expel: those whom it meets are not the miscellaneous body who come in a man's way in his daily walks of business, but the private few whom he invites to his table, and with whom he professes to hold peculiar communion. It is impossible to get over the objection to a partial test, that by rejecting some, you accredit all whom you do not reject ;-by expelling Socinians and Papists, as not being "Christian denominations," you assume that all others are so; virtually acknowledging their orders, and vouching for their creed. The Report of the Naval and Military Bible Society, which lately adopted a rule to exclude Socinians-Roman Catholics not being then thought of-says, that, under its system as thus defecated, the members" are an association of Christians held together by one common bond of union, and acting in faith on the eternal Son of God." Can this be truly said of the motley group that remain, after rejecting merely the two or three Socinians? Why, Satan himself might be in the company; for he knows who Christ is, and he believes and trembles, as respects the mere doctrinal acknowledgment of the Trinity; so that he comes within the Society's" bond of union." Is it not, then, evident that much more is necessary to truly spiritual fellowship than just a cold, doctrinal admission of one article of faith, however important or fundamental? It is an utter fallacy, that, by rejecting one, or two, or many classes of known heretics, you of necessity become a religious fraternity. Alas! much more is needed; and it is no small evil, that any society should hold out such a delusion. But this ad-captandum statement was necessary, in order to attract persons of weak judgment but tender conscience, who readily grasped at the idea of a more select fellowship than the junction of a Bible Society, and ignorantly took for granted that a test, which from the nature of the case could be but