takes Socinians to be Christians. For our own parts, we think Mahometanism better Christianity, and Judaism infinitely better religion, than the Socinian scheme; and we have no doubt, that herein we have the pleasure to agree with Mr. Wilks, and with very many of his friends, who, strangely enough, require, as a "simple principle," the assent of every member of the Bible Society to the Christianity of those who deny the Lord that bought them.

The reply, that immorality is as much contrary to Christianity as Socinianism, and that therefore those who would exclude Socinians from Bible Committees, should also exclude notorious sinners, fails to touch the real question. The rule specifies members of denominations of Christians. Now a man may belong outwardly to some Christian denomination, without being a real or spiritual Christian; the rule, therefore, does not commit the Society on the point of moral character. But on this point it does commit them, that Socinianism is a Christian denomination; in other words, that a Socinian, supposing him conscientious in belief and practice, is a Christian; which no consistent Churchman will allow, or any orthodox Dissenter.

The Society's rule, therefore, was, it appears to us, a sufficient ground of secession, had there been no other. But the evil was far less merely nominal than it was represented by the Society's friends. It is said that no Socinian was ever elected on the Committee. But by the VIIth rule, governors are entitled to attend and VOTE at all meetings of the Committee. If, therefore, the orthodoxy of the general body revolted from the appointment of heretical delegates, this would be no security for the exclusion of any such persons, whenever they might be inclined to pay their subscription of five guineas, or donation of fifty. The XIIIth rule is even yet more objectionable. It gives to every Dissenting minister, who is a member, the privilege of a Committee-man. Thus, after vaunting that they have never elected a Socinian on their Committee, it appears that a Socinian minister, for the very reason that he is a Socinian minister, may elect himself! If the Society have always entertained that abhorrence of Socinian co-operation, which they assure us they have, why enact a rule whereby a Socinian, a TEACHER of Socinianism, may elect himself a director of their entire affairs, against the wishes of the whole body?

Mr. Platt, with whose scholarship, talent, and piety, none can be unacquainted, and whose attachment to the Bible Society was not slight, truly says:

My opinion is decided and unchanged, that the Bible Society, by giving the Socinian teacher a seat in its Committees, and inviting, or at all events permitting him, to stand up among its advocates at Public Meetings, does accredit him among the people as a minister of Christ. I believe that the pure doctrines of our own Church, and of our Dissenting Christian brethren, had spread light enough among the great body of our people to make them know at least that

the Socinian was a teacher "sui generis," and separated from all the rest by a wide distinction, though they might not justly appreciate the nature and importance of that distinction. But then comes in the Bible Society, speaking to them of the delightful harmony in which it has united all Christian sects and parties, and telling them how within its precincts all minor distinctions are forgotten, and Christians can all give each other the right hand of fellowship. And among these Christians stands forth the Socinian, equal with the rest, and undistinguished. What is, what must be, the effect?-Reply, p. 11.

Let the Christian, the Churchman especially, determine how far it is consistent with his principles to belong to a society for the distribution of the Bible in all languages, by the rules of which twenty-one out of a committee of thirty may be deniers of their Lord; which committee may be swamped, without control of the Society, by the accession of an indefinite number of Socinian volunteers; and in which every Socinian member who possesses a half-crown licence to perform the part of a public teacher, becomes, ipso facto, a legislator! And a legislator on what?—On the translation of the Holy Scriptures ! The authors of "the Improved Version" feeding, ex officio, the Church universal with the bread of life!

But it is said, the more Socinian subscriptions the better! Because, marvelling reader, the Bible Society circulates in England the authorized version only, and that tends to the ruin of Socinianism! And can it be thought that, when the Socinians made their "great concessions," they had not sat down first and counted the cost? Can it be supposed that they would subscribe money for no other purpose than to disseminate opinions directly opposed to their own? For, be it remembered, the Socinian is not circumstanced like Protestant Christians, he does not refer his faith to the Bible,— certainly not to our version of it. Much of the original Scriptures he calls spurious or apocryphal; indeed (for it is not here our business to sift all that Socinianism unbelieves), very little of the Scriptures will pass with any Socinian for the pure Word of God.* The Socinian, then, does not give his guinea, and impeach his consistency without prospect of an equivalent. And what that is, our readers may collect from Mr. Norris's account of the circumstances which led to the Dean of Carlisle's secession from the Society, and also from more modern, and even more objectionable transactions, to which we shall presently advert. It will appear that not only notes and comments have been obtruded on the Society's "simple

Did our space permit, we might here introduce Mr. Wilks's somewhat prolix enumeration of reasons why Socinians should not subscribe to a society faithfully performing all the Bible Society professes. The reasoning is sound; indeed, axiomatic : but Socinians do subscribe, nevertheless. Did not Mr. Wilks see the conclusion from this fact? Mr. Gurney's apology is, that "they make a large concession for the sake of that general good which the Society is effecting." (Terms of Union, p. 11.) What good can the Socinian see in the distribution of (what he must think) corruption as the true Word of God?

principle;" but that those notes and comments have been Neologian and Socinian!

Before, however, we quit this part of the subject, we must observe that the opinions of the remonstrants were not merely directed against the possible influence of heretics in committees; but they embraced the entire question of heretical co-operation. Many of the arguments by which they supported their views on this point, appear to us unsound; the scripture examples are, at best, very distant analogies, and, as we must think, inapplicable to the case; the scripture precepts refer rather to the constitution of a Church than of a society, as their opponents fail not to remark. But although the seceders may not have rested their cause on the strong foundation they were entitled to take, we think that, in point of principle, they were entirely right. The inconveniences, the worse than inconveniences, to which the believer was subjected by the Bible Society's system, were rational motives for dissolving a connexion which required them. Dean Hodgson made no objection to act with the Socinian, Mr. Clarke, in the mere matter of distributing Bibles; but it was soon found that their reciprocal neutrality could not be maintained. Mr. Clarke, by distributing Bibles, acquired a facility which he failed not to improve, of dispersing heretical publications and libels on Christianity; and the Dean, as a conscientious man, could not afford the semblance of countenance to such a proceeding. In like manner, Mr. Hawtrey, a clergyman, and one of the Society's officers, was actually PUBLICLY CALled TO ORDER on the platform, by a Socinian, for RECOGNISING THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT! To say that instances of this kind were few, is no reply to an objection upon PRINCIPLE. They were few, because Socinians are few. But "the offence is rank," though it may have been seldom committed. What must be the feelings of a promiscuous audience on the merits of the Bible itself, when, in a meeting of persons, whose "simple object" is its distribution, it is DISORDERLY to acknowledge the Saviour?! And if Socinian contributors were few, the more reason why, when the Society's funds could not be more materially impaired, and a most respectable portion of the subscribers might be conciliated, heretical co-operation should be altogether refused.

That heretics had some motive for joining a body of orthodox men in circulating a version perhaps the purest in the world, cannot be doubted. Their principal motive was, apparently, the character of the Society's foreign operations. These were necessarily less known to the English public; that "antiquated source of litigation" (as Mr. Wilks denominates a transaction, which came to light only six years ago), the Apocrypha affair, having been discovered, through what was, humanly speaking, mere accident. The circulation of the

Apocrypha as the word of God, had a manifest tendency to introduce doubts on the authority of writings which came in such suspicious company, and claimed no higher origin. The plain Christian, who made the discovery that the Apocrypha was human, could scarcely entertain very exalted notions of books from the hand of a Society, which had already palmed upon him an imposture as the word of God, and professed the circulation of "the Holy Scriptures," their "SOLE OBJECT." Hence, he would be especially well prepared for the entertainment of infidel and heretical objections. Nor was the Apocrypha the only stain on the Society's foreign proceedings, or the only merit which recommended them to the disinterested patronage of British heresy. Their foreign versions were not only heretical, but, in direct violation of the Society's fundamental rule, they were accompanied with heretical NOTES AND COMMENTS!

The permission of notes and comments at all, in versions circulated by the Bible Society, is a direct infringement of the fundamental rule: "The designation of this Society, shall be the BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY, of which THE SOLE OBJECT shall be to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures, WITHOUT NOTE OR COMMENT.” Mr. Wilks says most truly, but most extraordinarily, considering which side of the question he takes,

I say at once and unequivocally, that if the committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, has in any ONE instance violated, or connived at the violation of, this fundamental rule, it is no longer worthy of public confidence. The merit of a version is a matter of which few can judge; and mistakes may occur, notwithstanding the best intentions and the greatest vigilance; but an infringement of a plain rule is an obvious fact, and every person is competent to award the verdict. P. 104.

On this shewing, the question is settled, and the Society "no longer worthy of public confidence." Mr. Wilks, in another part of his work, while defending Professor Levade from the charge of Socinianism, quotes the "headings" of his Bible, of which the following are

some:

Even Mr. Wilks is at fault here. "The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge," says he, "circulates Bibles with the Apocrypha; even its Family Bible is thus furnished." True: but that is not the gist of the question. Has the Christian Knowledge Society any such rule as this, "The SOLE OBJECT" of the Society "shall be to encourage a wider circulation of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES?" The Bible Society has. The question then is, Did the committee in Earl-street believe the Apocrypha to be Holy Scripture; or did they violate the Society's "simple principle" and fundamental rule, and with it the plainest dictates of good faith and honour? There is no possible third supposition. Mr. Wilks takes credit to the Society for not adulterating the English Bible. There was, doubtless, a good reason for that. The "Clerical Member of the Society" says, "it is a matter of no small satisfaction that the Society has removed the stumbling block (the Apocrypha) out of the way," (which the Society put in the way first of all), and that it confines itself, according to the obvious meaning of its Rules, to the circulation of the Scriptures alone, unmixed with any human writing." So, then, the Society's own advocate here admits a violation of the obvious meaning of the Rules! But his "no small satisfaction," that the Scriptures are circulated "unmixed with any human writing," we shall be compelled, in justice, cruelly to dissipate.

John i. S. Jean enseigne que Jésus Christ est Dieu.

Rom. iv. La justification par la foi est prouvée.

1 John iv. Jésus Christ est le vrai Dieu, et la vie eternelle.

These certainly are not Socinian comments; but are they not comments? What difference can result from the mere circumstance that the comment is written at the head instead of the foot of the page?

The infraction is the more scandalous, inasmuch as prevarication is always more offensive than undisguised mendacity. In Professor Levade's version, there were actual notes which Mr. Wilks condemns, and which, according to him, the Society condemned also. But neither Mr. Wilks nor the Society had any scruple about these "headings ;" and headings similar to these are found in the Society's English Bibles. Yet the Society had the grace to bully poor Levade about notes explanatory of such words as Mammon, Hosanna, &c., (which notes, by the way, are no credit to him, or the Society. The word Mammon does not signify "Riches," nor does Hosanna mean "Glory to the Son of David," as every tyro in Biblical literature is well aware, though the Professor defended what he did on the authority of "the Bible Society's own authorised Bible)"* till the "venerable old man was bowed to the very dust with self-abasement and distress; †" while the assertions, "Jésus Christ est le vrai Dieu," &c. because they were "headings," were no transgressions against the Society. It is impossible to read these proceedings, detailed, too, by the Society's warmest, best, and most eloquent friends, without deep indignation. It is impossible that those who really subscribed their money to furnish the Bible without note or comment, should not take deep offence at this contemptible verbal juggle, whereby a religionist may print what construction he pleases upon the text of Scripture, provided he confines his opinions to the headings of a page or chapter.

But let us now advert to Mr. Wilks's defence of this most gross and audacious insult, to the common understandings of the Society's subscribers.

The Society distributes innumerable copies of the Bible in the English tongue, with the translators' headings and marginal references, which are a running ANNOTATION on the text. I CONFESS that this is a partial VIOLATION of the STRICT PRINCIPLE of there being neither NOTE NOR COMMENT: but it was admitted, under all the peculiar circumstances of the case, by all parties, by mutual compact; and, being well-defined and incapable of extension, no evil has arisen from this slight INFRINGEMENT of the abstract RULE. But, be this as it may, these NOTES and headings which the Society, in its corporate capacity, has so WIDELY CIRCULATED, vindicate for it the character of a strictly Trinitarian society. The only portion of human exposition which it publishes, is this orthodox COMMENT: a COMMENT SO orthodox, that no Socinian, without tampering with his own conscience, can give to it his sanction. I need not refer your lordship to any particular passages for examples, as the whole volume abounds in them. Thus, over the very first chapter of St. John, we read, "The