"with them; or, in the want of so competent a chairman, the meeting itself will 66 supply the deficiency."

Unquestionably this anticipation is very satisfactory, as far as it goes;--but still it is difficult to forget all that is past. It is difficult to forget, that several instances have occurred, in which Socinians have claimed the rights which we have supposed them to possess ;-and that somehow or other it has happened, that in no one of these cases has "an intelligent Christian chairman" or "the meeting" been found ready to perform that duty which J. S.-H. recommends us to "rely upon" them for. Nor, let it be observed, did one of the advocates of Socinian membership at the last Annual Meeting venture to take this ground, or to lay the blame of the various interruptions which had taken place upon incompetent chairmen, or to promise more intelligent chairmen in future.

Nor, in fact, would it appear quite safe or prudent to rely upon this resource for the future; except some clear grounds could be shewn, upon which such a chairman might venture to act in the manner pointed out. Presiding officers, it is true, are powerful, and majorities are still more so;-but if they exceed the bounds of strict justice, a single individual resting upon his right is morally more powerful than either. Now J. S.-H, I am sure, contemplates nothing unjust, nothing illiberal, in the course he recommends. Difficulties, however, present themselves to my mind, of which he appears to feel nothing, and I should therefore have been glad if he had stated the grounds upon which a chairman might unhesitatingly silence a Socinian who prayed him, either to protect his feelings and his principles from insult, or to allow him liberty of reply and recrimination. Merely to tell such an objector that "the Society is, with respect to the great mass of its members, a Trinitarian Society," would be no answer; for he would reply, that the very object of such a compact as had been entered into, was, to protect the minority from being compromised by the acts or expressions of the majority; and that therefore to plead that Trinitarians were a majority in the Society, was no answer to a man claiming the benefit of that compact.

I confess myself quite unable to surmise how such a claim could be denied, or silence imposed on such a petitioner. Nor does past experience enlighten me; since, as I have already said, there is no instance upon record, within my knowledge, of an interruption of this kind being thus put an end to :-nor was the possibility of such a course stated by any of the defenders of the existing system, at the late Annual Meeting. Against the facts, then, that such interruptions have occurred;-that they have uniformly resulted in the triumph of the Socinian; -and that the original compact of mutual forbearance, upon which the Society rests, seems to warrant the course they have taken, we have nothing to oppose but the anticipation of J. S.-H. that "if such interruptions should take place, an intelligent chairman," or "the meeting," "will know how to Ideal with them."

III. Strong complaints are made by J. S.-H. and by many others, of the course adopted by the Sackville Street Committee, as running a great risk, and using mighty efforts to obtain a very trifling and inconsiderable advantage. J. S.-H. speaks of "the mighty efforts now made, at the risk of dissolving the Society, to exclude what, comparatively speaking, can scarcely be found in it." Now I would remark, on this point, that the Earl Street Committee are indeed defending, at no little risk and trouble, what they must consider to be a point of the most trifling importance, since the whole question, in their eyes, is only one of expediency. But with the Sackville Street Committee the case is widely different, since with them it is a matter of principle and conscience. At the last General Meeting, for instance, those who objected to union with Socinians, as dishonouring the Saviour, silencing the voice of prayer, and rendering the enunciation of Christian doctrine impossible, could not give way, whatever the majority against them might be, without wounding their own consciences, by consenting to what they believed to be wrong. But had the majority, even maintaining their own opinion, yet consented to give way, out of feeling for the consciences of their weaker brethren, what loss would they have sustained? They could not have reproached themselves with the sacrifice of any fundamental Christian principle, since the honour of God and his gospel could in no sense depend upon maintaining a union with those who blaspheme both. And as to any serious injury done to the Society, it is now stated that the Socinians, whom it was proposed to exclude, are, “comparatively speaking, scarcely to be found in it."

This line of conduct would, it appears to me, have been a proper following of the precept of St. Paul; who, although he knew that to him "all things were clean," and that "an idol was nothing in the world," yet determined not to make his liberty 66 a stumbling block to them that were weak." In his opinion it was "good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." And his resolution was, "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." Now, supposing that the advocates of the existing union felt themselves at liberty to unite with Socinians, still, at most, it could but have been in their eyes, like meat, or drink, a thing indifferent. They might do it, or not do it, as seemed expedient. How noble then, would it have been to have followed the Apostle's rule, and to have determined "not to do any thing; whereby a brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."

But they have unfortunately decided otherwise. Using their own liberty, they have disregarded the doubts and scruples of others. So they judged it expedient to do. But this expediency, being not the expediency of the Apostle, but the expediency which regards receipts, and revenues, and other human means, will prove in the end, the worst possible policy. They will retain two or three hundred, perhaps, Socinian members. They will lose as many Clergymen of the Church of England alone; and of members generally they will lose five or ten times as many. And those thus driven out constitute a large part of the real life and soul of the Society, consisting as they do, of men of real Christian zeal, and fervour, and piety. The Society, thus purged, will fall, more decidedly than it has ever yet done, under dissenting influence, and the result may be more easily conceived, than prudently described.

IV. But to touch, in conclusion, on the most important part of the question;— let us now inquire, What saith the Scriptures? On this point, I am referred by J. S.-H. to a little pamphlet lately published, which he honours with high commendation, as containing "a scriptural consideration of the question." I have read the tract thus referred to, but, I regret to say, without any profit, as far as the elucidation of the question at issue is concerned. The writer appears to me to shoot far beside the mark; proving any thing rather than that which he attempts to prove. His points are four ; 1. Our Saviour joined with the Jews in the service of the synagogue."-"2. Our Saviour associated with publicans and sinners."" 3. Peter and John went up to the temple to pray, the murderers of Christ being there."-" 4. St. Paul was made all things to all men.'"

Now, on the first and third of these points, I remark;—that no one has objected, as far as I am aware, to attending the worship of God, on the ground that Socinians or other unbelievers might be present. I have not seen any objection made to the mere presence of Socinians at Bible Meetings. I would willingly accompany a Socinian to a Bible Meeting myself. The objection taken is not to their presence; but to ranking them with Christian ministers, addressing them as Christian brethren, and giving them the rights of membership and even of management, thus enabling them to exclude Christian doctrines from the Society's proceedings. This is the real point on which a difficulty is felt. To prove, therefore, that Christ and his apostles attended the synagogue and the temple, whoever might be there at the time, is merely to prove what no one questioned, and to leave the real difficulty unanswered.

On the second point,-that our Saviour associated with publicans and sinners, by going and dining with them, I remark, that this allusion to Christ's example seems to me to be marvellously ill-chosen. The Saviour did, it is true, dine at the house of Levi, and also at the house of Zaccheus ;-I remember no other instance. But when did he thus "associate" with publicans? Not until he had first called them into all the privileges of discipleship. It was as his disciples that he associated with them. Does this circumstance, then, tell much in favour of Socinian fraternization?

But we will strengthen this writer's proofs a little. We will mention, though he has not, that Christ also visited Pharisees, who do not appear to have been disciples. This is true. But then observe that the Pharisees, superstitious and wrongly-zealous as they were, were yet the orthodox of the Jews. They were the depositaries of the true faith. In visiting, then, the Pharisees among the Jews, who held the truth, but overlaid it with human inventions, and the Publicans, who were mere tax-gatherers, and not necessarily of any sect, good or bad,-the Saviour

did nothing which can in the least degree countenance the union of his followers with Socinians, which is at present defended. It would have looked more like a justification, indeed, if Christ had associated himself with the Sadducees, for that sect had many points in common with our modern Socinians. This fact, therefore, if proved, we might have allowed to have some bearing upon the question. But no such instance has been adduced, nor, I believe, can be.

But there is one more point to be adverted to, concerning this intercourse of our Saviour with the Jews. He went among them, it should never be forgotten, to preach the gospel,-to preach himself,-to declare his own divine character and work. Whether in the Synagogue, or in Simon the Pharisee's house, his business and his message was the same; and that without the least regard to the assent or approbation of those present. If therefore, we now quote his example, let his example be followed. But it is not to follow, but to controvert his example, if we visit a Socinian, or invite a Socinian to visit us, or assemble with Socinians for a mutual object, upon a distinct understanding, whether express or implied, that the Saviour, and his deity, and his atonement, are not to be spoken of.

On the fourth point, the example of St. Paul, we shall be very brief. His "becoming all things to all men." is rightly interpreted by the writer of the tract before me, as accommodating himself to them in things lawful and indifferent.' Before we can apply this text, then, to the matter in hand, we must determine, whether it be lawful or indifferent' to suppress the declaration of Gospel principles at a Bible Meeting. This is the point at issue, and therefore, until this is decided, the text thus quoted cannot be brought in proof. The citation would be an obvious petitio principii.

I think, however, that we may learn somewhat of Paul's simplicity and uprightness from two other passages. In Galatians ii. 12, 13, we find him rebuking an elder apostle for dissimulation;—for professing fellowship where no fellowship existed ;— and for shrinking from the reproach of the cross. And in 1 Cor. x. 28. we have his directions concerning meats offered to idols. He there tells the disciples, that although an idol is nothing in the world, and that which is offered to it is neither the better nor the worse for being so offered,-yet " if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not, for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience' sake." That is, take the opportunity of bearing your witness to your entertainer, even though you offend him by it,-against false worship. Boldly declare unto him his error, and deliver your own conscience from the burden of a guilty silence.

Now the money offered by the Socinian to the Bible Society is to all intents and purposes offered to an idol ;—to a creation of his own imagination, and not to the God of the Bible. Shall we then accept it as a Christian offering, thank him as a Christian brother, and bear no protest against the fatal error which is destroying his soul?

I could wish to go into the Scripture evidence on the whole question, but my promise was to be brief. I will therefore only allude to a single example, and to a single precept.

The first Socinian on record is Cain. He first rejected the atonement, refusing to bring in faith the typical lamb. But, like the Socinian, he brought his offering, of the fruits of the ground, acknowledging the God of creation and of providence, but confessing no sin, and providing no sin-offering. In the eye of some who now glory, at Bible meetings, in forgetting all these little differences, this offering would have found ready acceptance. It had much that appeared good and pious, and though not strictly correct, yet it might have been asked, why refuse it? the eye of Him who is both All-wise and All-merciful, there was no acceptance found. The short but expressive sentence of inspiration runs thus :-" Unto Cain and to his offering HE HAD NOT RESPECT.".

But in

The precept I shall adduce, limiting myself to one, must be the most plain and direct that can be found. It runs as follows: "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son: If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." 2 John 9-11.

INTELLIGENCE.

AMERICA.

RESIGNATION OF BISHOP CHASE.

MISS F. HATCHARD.

THE CHOLERA MORBUS.