Maryland and Pennsylvania; the benefit of which is felt by all and acknowledged by all. The colonial legislature of New York had at one time exclusory laws operating on the Catholics: their repeal produced nothing but good. From these circumstances, may we not cherish the hope that the day is approaching, when England will adopt a similar policy towards them? Let not that country which was the first to exhibit to the world a government founded on rational principles of liberty (for the Grecian and Italian republics were badly framed) be the last to perform an act of justice to men who profess the same principles as the Barons at Runnymead.

CHAPTER XV.

THE FRIENDS.

THOUGH the Friends are a more numerous body in the United States than in Great Britain, their influence in society at large is evidently less. Instead of co-operating with other Christian professors, as far as they can without compromise of principle, they stand aloof. Instead of trying to find points of union, they seem to delight in proving the incompatibility of reconciling their principles with those of others, in a harmonious design to promote the general welfare of the community. The Friends in England are known to be warm supporters of the Bible Society. The Friends in America on the contrary, are in conjunction with Deists its principal opponents. For though the Catholics are averse to it, they content themselves with neutrality; and though some of the Episcopalians are of similar sentiments, the great body of them are friendly to it. The Friends not only speak against it in private, but some of their ministers denounce it in public. On enquiring of several of them the reason

of their hostility, I learnt that it arose principally from a notion that the Bible Society is founded on priestcraft, and is auxiliary to it. In former ages they say, priests opposed the circulation of the scriptures, from a fear of the people's becoming so enlightened, as to see the road to salvation sufficiently plain without paying for guidance. Now, since the people have learnt to reverence the Bible, priests avail themselves of this sentiment, and advocate the Bible Society to ingratiate themselves into public estimation; since, whether they desire it or not, the Bible cannot be confined to the sanctuary. But the Friends do not confine themselves to the appearance of argument. They speak of the clergy and of other professors with a degree of asperity which their English brethren have long since disused, notwithstanding the examples for it to be found in the writings of some of their early ministers; and which is the more remarkable in the Americans, from the mildness generally adopted by the other religious professors in their country when speaking or writing of those who differ from them,

An examination of the history and regulations of the Bible Society is sufficient to convince an unbiassed person that it did not originate in

priestcraft. In what way it is peculiarly calculated to support the interests of priests distinct from the well-being of the people, I cannot imagine. At any rate, as the Friends in England are as jealous of priestcraft as the Friends in America, it might be well for the latter to examine anew the grounds of their opposition to an institution which the former support. Let them also discard unworthy prejudice. Were Wickliffe, Luther, Knox, and the whole host of reformers from Papal superstitions, actuated by priestcraft when they translated and circulated the Bible? Did Hooper, Latimer and Ridley suffer martyrdom for the support of priestcraft? Why then should it be supposed that the priests of our time are influenced solely by secular considerations when they promote the Bible Society? And if they are so influenced, is that a reason for supposing that no good can result from their labours? The money wrung from the grasp of the miser at the approach of death as a penance for sins, or that given by the profligate in ostentation, is no less serviceable to the relief of poverty, than that given privately by the compassionate and charitable. The man who forms a good action from a bad motive, may fail to obtain the approval of heaven, but the benefit to others is the same as if the motive were good.

per

The Bible Society has had some injudicious advocates; fanaticism has had some influence in enlarging the sphere of its operations; and it is indisputable that many of its supporters have been enemies to godliness: but as its tendency is to weaken the strong holds of bigotry, infidelity and superstition, and assist the cause of morality and piety, it seems foolish to oppose it from the supposition that priests make it an instrument subservient to their spiritual predominance and worldly interests. As well might we oppose Christianity itself, because one of the Apostles betrayed his Lord for gain.

But after all, I believe that a strict scrutiny will lead to the conviction, that the opposition made by the Friends to the Bible Society, arises mainly from the spread of deistical opinions amongst them. I do not make this assertion hastily, well knowing that it is one which they will be reluctant to admit. But facts so fully confirm me in my opinion of this matter, that it would be wrong to disguise it. Doctrines such as Fox never preached, and for which the writings of Barclay and Penn may be searched in vain, are now openly promulgated amongst them. One of their ministers resident at Jericho in Long Island, has travelled much in New York, Penn