We may have more hope in the conversion of the Hindoos, and consequently more zeal than this author. We certainly do hope by the good hand of God upon us, to produce something more than merely an increased esteem for Christianity" among the heathen but so far as his advice goes to recommend temperate men and measures, it meets our cordial approbation.

The writer recommends to Government that "the number of Missionaries should be limited, and that they should be required to enter into covenants with the company, calculated to insure their prompt obedience to the restraints which it may be found necessary to impose upon them." It is possible this gentleman may have formed his idea of the number of Missionaries from the reports circulated in such pamphlets as those of Major Scot Waring, as if "a great number of sectarian Missionaries were spread over every part of India." If he had known that this great number does not exceed sixteen; and that the greater part of them reside at Serampore, under the immediate eye of the supreme government, he would scarcely have thought of such a proposal. As to "covenanting with the Company," the quotation from Mr. Marshman, proves their willingness to give every possible security for their peaceable and good behaviour.

*

The sum of this gentleman's advice is, that that “ with the growing zeal of this country for Indian conversion, the vigilant control of the India Government should keep pace." A vigilant control and a system of intolerance sound very much alike. I hope, however, he does not mean such control as would impede the work itself: and if no more be meant than a restriction from intemperate language and behaviour, such restraints, I trust, will not "be found necessary to be imposed upon them."

*See Part I. pp 289, 290, of this volume.

REMARKS

ON

THE PROPRIETY OF CONFINING MISSIONARY UNDERTAKINGS TO THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH, IN ANSWER TO DR. BARROW.

I AM aware that on this part of the subject I have strong prejudices to encounter, especially from those who know little or nothing of Protestant Dissenters, except from the opprobrious names given them by their adversaries.

Of an Ecclesiastical Establishment for India, I say nothing. We shall rejoice in the success of all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Whether such an establishment take place, or not, I am persuaded no force will be used towards the natives; and I should not have suspected a desire to exclude Protestant Dissen. ters, had it not been expressly avowed in a late discourse before one of our Universities.* There are thousands, I am persuaded, in the National Church, who would utterly disapprove of the illiberal wish, and whose hearts would revolt at the idea of recalling men of approved talents and character, who, with great labour and perseverance, have in a measure cleared the ground and sown the seed, to make way for others to go after them who should reap the harvest.. Attached as they are to the Church of England, they would not wish, in this manner to promote her interests. They would, I presume, consider such a measure as strictly sectarian ; that is, establishing a party at the expense of the general interest of the church of Christ.

*See Dr Barrow's Sermon before the University of Oxford, Nov. 8, 1807 PP. 13, 14

But should Churchmen of this description be out-numbered by others of a different mind, we appeal from them to the temperance, the wisdom, and the justice of GOVERNMENT. A Government distinguished by its tolerant principles, and which guards the rights of conscience even in Mahometans and heathens, will not we trust, exclude Protestant Dissenting Missionaries from any of its territories, especially men of learning and character, against whom not a single charge of improper conduct has ever been substantiated.

Dr. Barrow says "Missionaries of various interests, or parties, ignorantly or wilfully differing in their comments, their opinions, and their designs, should not be suffered to appear amongst those whom we wish to convert." Surely Dr. Barrow might have supposed, from the disinterested labours of these Missionaries, and from the good understanding which they have always endeavoured to cultivate with Christians of other denominations, that they had no "design" in view but that of extending the Christian religion; but that if they differ from him,or others, in some particulars, it may arise from other causes than either ignorance or obstinacy.

He adds, "If we permit the ministers of various sects and denominations, Lutherans and Calvinists, Armenians and Baptists, to inculcate their respective tenets without restraint, the unlettered Indian, will not be able to determine what that Christianity is which we would persuade him to embrace and the more learned convinced that the doctrines of all our teachers cannot be equally true, may be led to conclude that all are equally false." Plausible as this reasoning may appear on paper, experience and fact are against it. There never has been and I trust never will be, such an opposition in the doctrine of the Missionaries as to furnish any stumbling-block to the natives. cording to the reasoning of this gentleman, if the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge had sent out an English Clergyman as a Missionary to India, they must at the same time have recalled Schwartz, Gericke, and their fellow labourers, as being "Lutherans."

Ac

The errors which exist in the Christian world, to whomsoever they belong, are doubtless an evil, and tend to obstruct the progress of the gospel. Could we be all of one mind, and that the mind of Christ, we might hope for greater success; but seeing

this is not the case, what are we to do? Surely there is no necessity for our all sitting idle; nor yet for one party, which happens to be established by civil authority, to exclude the rest.

Let us suppose an agricultural mission among the American Indians. Fifteen or sixteen experienced farmers are sent to teach the people how to cultivate their lands. After a few years' trial, some good fruits arise from their instructions. But a certain theorist, sitting at home, finds out that these men are not all perfectly of one opinion as to the best modes of husbandry: and therefore proposes to recall them, and to send others in their place. Common sense would, in this case, check the presumption. It would say, 'Let these men alone. There is no such difference between, them as materially to affect the object. There is room enough for them all, so that no one will need to interfere with his neighbour. Even the less skilful among them will do good, perhaps as much as those whom you would send in their place, and who, after all might be as far from unanimity as they are.'

Such is the extent of the British empire in the East, that if we could divest ourselves of the sectarian spirit of “desiring to boast of other men's labours, no two denominations of Christians need interfere, and all might be helpers one of another. But though it were otherwise, and the evils alleged were allowed to arise from it, yet the measures proposed by this writer would not diminish them. It is by subscribing" the creed of the National Church" that he wishes all who engage in this work to be united but the unanimity produced by subscribing a creed, however good that creed may be, is little more than nominal, and therefore could have no good effect on thinking heathens. They would soon discover that there had been almost as many different " comments and opinions" about the meaning of the creed, as about the scriptures themselves; and that as great an opposition existed among those who had subscribed it, as between them and others who had not subscribed it.

The truth is, if we wish to convert heathens to ourselves, we must do as the Church of Rome does, set up for infallibility, and withhold the scriptures from the people, lest they should read and judge for themselves. But if we wish to convert them to Christ, VOL. III..

41

we shall put the scriptures into their hands, as the only standard of truth, and teach them to consider all other writings as in no wise binding on their consciences, nor even as claiming regard, any farther than they agree with them. By this rule let them form their judgments of us, and of our differences, should they deem it worth while to inquire into them; but the aim of a true Missionary will ever be to divert their attention from such things, and to direct it to the truth as it is in Jesus.

It cannot be very marvellous to them, that fallible men should not be perfectly of one mind. Whether they be Pagans or Mahometans, they know very well that this is not the case with them; and though the Christian religion professes to contain one consistent doctrine, yet it were highly presumptuous to encourage in them the hope of finding this any where in perfection, save in the holy scriptures. However proper it may be for a church to express the leading articles of its faith in a creed, yet to make that creed "A RULE OF CONDUCT, AND A STANDARD OF TRUTH, TO WHICH APPEALS IN DOUBT AND CONTROVERSY ARE TO BE MADE," is to invade the divine prerogative, and to make void the word of God by our traditions. I have too high an opinion of the Reformers to suppose that they ever intended a composition of theirs to take place of the oracles of God. Should such an idea be held up to the Hindoos as that which was delivered in this sermon, it were indeed to cast a stumbling block in their way but if we be contented in giving them the word of God as the only standard of faith and practice, and in being ourselves, in all we say or do among them, measured by it, no material evil will arise to them from our differences.

To this may be added, if no great temptations of a worldly nature be held up as motives, it may be presumed that few will engage in the work but those whom the love of Christ constraineth : but between such men the differences will not be very important; and as they know one another, those differences may be expected to diminish.

Dr. Barrow recommends "one,uniform and general attempt, to the exclusion of all others, where we have the power to exclude