In 1839 the committee and secretary stood" in the relation of lay patrons to the missionary.'

In 1842 they condemn as a synod of ecclesiastics, and deprive as an ecclesiastical superior; to neither of which offices any patron, as such, is competent.

In 1839 it seemed "impossible to supersede the conventional understanding," by which the Society was pledged not to “act in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner, or withdraw the salary from a licensed missionary, without reason sufficient to prove to the licensing bishop the necessity of the proceeding."

In 1842 the whole case is exactly reversed.

To be sure, all these statements of the Society's plans and principles would not bind them, for like Law XXXII. they were intended to serve a present purpose; and that purpose was to cover the bad principles and bad practices of the Society with a veil of promises and pretensions. Indeed, Law XXXII. with the Society's limitations, is an absolute nullity. We defy Mr. Venn, and the rest of the secretaries of the Society, to suppose a case, with the utmost license of hypothesis and the greatest stretch of their ingenuity, to which that law can be applied, if its bearing on the case of Mr. Humphrey be denied. An individual would be scouted for such double dealing; and if he got a horsewhipping into the bargain, he would have no better sympathy than that which Agamemnon afforded to the scoundrel Polymnestor. Ἐπεὶ τὰ μὴ καλὰ

Πράσσειν ἐτόλμας, τλῆθι καὶ τὰ μὴ φίλα.†

With regard to Mr. Humphrey's case, it rests, we believe, thus. Satisfied with the integrity of Mr. H., in his explanation of his views, the Bishop of Madras refuses to withdraw his license; but Mr. Taylor has possession of the station of Myaveram, and is made the head (the blame is not with him) of a schism. Meanwhile the case is referred, not in pursuance of rules-no, who would make rules to bind themselves? not in obedience to apostolic order-no, the Church Missionary Society has always looked suspiciously on the maintainers of such a dangerous device-but of the exceeding humility and condescension of the Society, in the present instance, to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the Bishop of London. Justice, we doubt not, will finally be done; for we will not believe, as it has been insinuated, that the Society is only prepared to listen to an award in its favour: but meanwhile, where are the securities which simple Churchmen thought they had, first, in the very name-and then, when they were mistaken, in the loud professions-and then, when once more deceived, in the express laws of the Church Missionary Society?

We do not fear that any who will seriously enter into the merits of the case, will accuse us of writing in terms of too strong reprobation of the conduct of the Church Missionary Society in this case. Other charges we feel obliged to notice, just to show that we do not

*See Appendix ii. of Report for 1839. Had we had space, the contrast might have been much extended. Hecuba, 1226.

hastily condemn, and on a few grounds; and also to prove that there really may be reasons for withholding support from the Society which do not involve an absence of all evangelical truth, and all vital religion. Let us then ask-Has the very serious charge of "landsharking" in New Zealand, by its missionaries, to the cruel extent of depopulating portions of the country, been repudiated by the Society with sufficient indignation? And once more-Is it quite creditable that, as a member observes, it is a question whether so remarkable a disparity between income and expenditure could be discovered in the records of any similar institution?

Now, without the smallest wish to find fault with those who do support the Church Missionary Society, or to retaliate upon those who do not join the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, the charge which Mr. Dallas makes against those who do not subscribe to the Church Missionary Society:-without any such aggressive applications of what we have advanced, we do think that we have abundantly excused those who are not very hasty to join the ranks of the Society which Mr. Dallas has declared to be sectarian in its whole principles and course; of the agents of which, in his violent attacks against Church principles, he is not an unfair specimen; and against the conduct of whose affairs there are very strong objections. We have followed the Society in many of its operations at home and abroad; and while we admit the glorious aim which it has in view, we cannot wonder that some Churchmen are afraid to join the Society, because of the very anomalous methods by which that aim is pursued. There are some, who are not generally accounted bigoted, or uncharitable, or foolish, who hesitate to enrol their names with a society which has from the beginning (if Mr. Dallas is right,) pertinaciously separated itself from and opposed a large and most excellent body of men within the Church; whom the Church herself has not repudiated, and whom the bishops do not think unworthy of the highest confidence. There are some who do not like to be called on to attend meetings, where, as friends of a society, they must appear enemies to their brethren; where, in search of the means to proclaim peace to the Heathen, they must sow the seeds of discord at home. There are some who will not willingly cast in their lot with a society whose expenditure is too great to be prudent, if not too lavish to be honest;-being scarcely calculated with a fair regard to the proportion of probable future income, and of engagements which cannot be broken off without some degree of injustice to many parties concerned.* There are some who would feel needlessly pained (and would therefore gladly avoid the pain) at hearing

It is melancholy to see the loose way in which Mr. Close speaks of the debt of the Society, in a late speech at Bath; a speech in which bad taste and bad principles, earnestness and buffoonery, contend for the mastery. "Don't go away," says he, "with the idea that the Society happens to be 20,000l. in debt; because if those measures which have been recommended are not adopted, next year the Society will be 40,000l. in debt, and the next 80,000l.; because the very natural result, the necessary consequence, of missionary success is expense in geometrical progression,"

such fearful charges against the servants of the Society to which their name is united, as are substantiated against the grasping missionaries of the Society in question in New Zealand. There are some who would be revolted by the system of extempore prayer, wrought into a system of education; with the one-sided course of doctrinal instruction which is pursued at the Missionary College at Islington. There are some who would rather hold aloof from a society which has been found so very frequently to oppose its influence to the canonical authority of bishops, and who, if they were for a moment amused by the additional laws lately made by the Church Missionary Society, will be repulsed again, and that most painfully, by the wonderful exhibition of injustice, and contempt of all law, whether antecedent to their own existence as a society, or framed by themselves, which has characterized the dealings of the Church Missionary Society with Mr. Humphrey, their own servant in India -with the Lord Bishop of Madras, the ruler of the Church in which he was placed-and with the venerable names to whose judgment the original question (which never ought to have been a question at all) was referred. In all this there is surely enough, without any suspicion of hostility to true evangelical religion, and to the spirit of true godliness, to deter consistent members of the Church from joining the Church Missionary Society.

Yet we would not press the consequences of our charge beyond due bounds. We do not ask those who are already members to withdraw their subscriptions and their influence. "Rather," we would say to them, "keep the place that you have, and exert your influence to improve the character, and alter the conduct, of the Society." We must look on this Society as an impersonation of divers great and good principles, working with energy towards a noble end. We see, indeed, unworthy by-ends intervening, and an alloy of bad principles, and, (we must say it,) wicked conduct. But what then? we say not, Cut off the person, but call him to repentance and holiness; and so we say not, Cut off the Society, but call her to a consideration of her ways, that she may be wise in time.

It is not altogether foreign from the purpose of our remarks, if we here call attention to a matter which we cannot but consider full of very serious import to the cause of the missions of our Church. We will state the matter historically; and present our readers with the documents:

"I (said Mr. Close, at the anniversary meeting of the Cheltenham Society for Propagating the Gospel) have no wish to allude to topics likely to create discussion. In the large body of clergy belonging to this Society there will, of course, exist great variety of opinion: it is possible that many of them hold opinions which you or I utterly discard. The conduct of the missionaries of the Parent Society is spoken of as the most spiritual, most humble, and most devoted; and while they bear witness to the truth as it is in Jesus; so long as they show an anxious desire to preach the gospel to the Heathen and to the Christian; so long shall the Society have my support. (Hear.) That support, however, must inevitably be withdrawn if the governors and managers of the Society choose to pursue a different course. (Hear.) If they send out clergy

men to disseminate the doctrine that oral tradition is superior to written tradition that the writings of the Fathers are superior to the word of God-then must I beg to quit the Society. ("Hear, hear," and cordial cheering.) I accuse them of no such design; I believe them to be men who would prefer honesty and sincerity to casuistry and sophistry, and that their principles are the oldfashioned Church of England principles. (Hear.) I shall be glad to hear the Society's Secretary on this vital point." (Loud cheers.) [Report from the Cheltenham Journal.]

Probably this report of what the Rev. Chairman said is not quite accurate. He must have said, we conceive, "If they send out clergymen to disseminate the doctrine that oral tradition is of equal authority with written tradition-that the writings of the Fathers are equal to the word of God-then must I beg to quit the Society;" for the sentiment, as we express it, is that only which is in harmony with Mr. Close's recorded judgment, while either Mr. Campbell or Dr. Wiseman might urgently deny the case, as put in the newspaper report, with the complete adherence to Puseyite or Popish principle and practice.

In answer to this appeal Mr. Campbell, the chief Secretary of the Society for Propagating the Gospel, expressed himself as follows, and we have ascertained, on competent authority, that his language was more explicit and pointed than is given in the following report, which we also extract from the Cheltenham Journal: "With respect to the important inquiry of the Chairman as to the principles of the missionaries the Society sent out, he would first call the attention of the meeting to the Charge of the Bishop of Montreal, just published, and which he held in his hand; it is a most beautiful composition. In one part the Bishop urges his clergy not to conceal the truth. (Hear.) In another, he warns them against the danger of passing the limits of truth, and exhorts them to be good Protestants. (Cheers.) He (Mr. C.) was extremely glad to hear such opinions and sentiments from the Bishop of Montreal-he had known him many years previous to his appointment-and was now in constant correspondence with him. He was delighted to be favoured so opportunely with this charge, which seemed peculiarly adapted to the present occasion. He would go further in his answer to the Chairman. Not only were the directors uniformly careful in their appointments, but on a recent important occasion, when they were called upon to fill up one of the most responsible offices, they had rejected the claims of a candidate-against whom there was no other earthly objectionsolely because it was known that he held the opinions pointed at by the Chairman. (Cheers.) That the Society had some belonging to them holding extreme opinions, he was not prepared to deny, but this he could affirm, that they never, with their eyes open, appointed a missionary to a foreign station, who held those opinions; to prevent this, they took double and anxious pains. (Cheers.)"-From the Record, November, 21, 1842.

The feelings of churchmen on this matter may be best gathered from the following extract from the Times, of November 17; the exact phrases of which we are not bound to defend, but its general bearing will sufficiently recommend it.

"We do not consider it of the slightest importance what Mr. Close may think on any one given subject. We dare say he is a very sincere man in his way. But we know him to be an ignorant, vain man-vulgar in his ordinary address, and offensively vulgar in his mode of handling the most awful and solemn topics of religion. Neither do we think Mr. Campbell's personal opinions of much moment. But then Mr. Campbell speaks, or assumes to speak, the sentiments of an old and venerable Institution, founded by Royalty, and still governed by the hierarchy of our Church. He may therefore be supposed to speak the language of a certain, although we believe a small, party in that Society. What says Mr. Campbell in reply to Mr. Close? How does he remove the scruples of the anxious Vicar? Why, he, the recognised agent of the Society, declares that its Governors had rejected the claims of a candidate against whom they had no other earthly objection, solely because it was known that he held the opinions

pointed at by the Chairman.' And he further added, that they never had appointed a missionary who held those opinions, and to prevent this they took double and anxious pains.'

Now, what does all this mean? Are we really labouring with a religious surfeit in this country? Are we suffering from a plethora of missionary zeal, that any Society should take double and anxious pains' to prevent a worthy, pious, and devoted man from engaging in the noblest arena of human exertion? And all for what? His opinions-opinions neither repugnant to his ordination vow, else he would have been ungowned; nor at variance with the Articles of our Church, else they would have been condemned by its bishops; nor such as involve any moral turpitude, for the Society, through their mouth-piece, Mr. Campbell, aver that they had no other earthly objection against him.

"Talk of tyranny after this! We have heard of priestcraft, pious frauds, and profitable superstitions; but we are convinced that there is no tyranny so abominable as that which is exercised by an ignorant, meddling, clap-trap preacher over a weak and equally ignorant congregation; and that nowhere in England but at Cheltenham, and under the auspices of such a man as Mr. Close, would Mr. Campbell's protestation have been received with other feelings than those of scorn, loathing, and disgust."

To this we desire to add, and we speak authoritatively, that at the last board meeting of the Society, the Archbishop of Canterbury presiding, the question was asked by one of the incorporated members, "whether the holding or not holding the theological opinions advocated in the Tracts for the Times had ever been made the ground of rejection for missionary or any other employment connected with the Society." The answer given by the Secretary present, (not Mr. Campbell,) was to the effect that "such had never been the case."

Now on this few words are the best: but we may remark that the case stands thus at present. Either Mr. Campbell suffered himself at Cheltenham, under the influence of Mr. Close, to state that which he knew to be untrue; or he did what amounts to the same thing, or is even worse; viz. he distorted facts and made falsehood pass for truth; for we quite accept the Record's statement about the meaning which he intended to convey: we rest nothing upon the exact phrases extracted from the Cheltenham Journal. And in either case we feel bound to state that Mr. Campbell's character is seriously compromised.

Or, the whole report of the Cheltenham meeting is false from first to last; and then Mr. Campbell is bound to take some steps to vin

dicate himself.

And here we leave this painful business: only congratulating the Society, that, at any rate, whatever becomes of the Secretary, its own character is safe; and it is important that the formal disclaimer on the part of the board, about which there can be no doubt, should be known; because many thought of withdrawing their subscriptions, which, had the Society committed itself to the principle of exclusion announced by Mr. Campbell, they would have been perfectly justified in doing.*

* And we would remark how forcible an argument may be drawn from this untoward event, against the employment in the Society's service of travelling deputations, and preachers, and platform oratory. Had this unfortunate anniversary never taken place, the chief Secretary would not have been entrapped into his present sad position, by the wily artifice of the Cheltenham chairman; nor would the best friends of the Society itself have to deplore that diminution of confidence in its integrity, under which it now labours.