division and concentration of labour, would not in the least tend to the overthrow of a single Missionary Institution.

Let us then glance at the other feature of our Author's model. With a view to this more advantageous division of labour, he pleads for a co-operation of sects in a Missionary Union, such as already exists in our Bible Societies, but which, we are all aware, could not be carried out into our Missionary Institutions, with the same facility, and at the same trifling cost. In the one case, we have only been required to strip ourselves of prejudices and aversions disgraceful to our common Christianity. In the other, real concessions would be necessary. The Writer, nevertheless, contends, that the moral exigencies of the world demand this sacrifice of our party distinctions and sectarian interests, for the purpose of a more effective promotion of the great cause in which we are all engaged. He contends, too, that we have, as it were, unwittingly overpassed the main obstacle to a combination which would once have been deemed chimerical.

'Churchmen have supported the Missions of Dissenters; Dissenters have contributed to those of Churchmen; Congregationalists have helped to send out Wesleyan preachers; Wesleyan eloquence has provoked Calvinistic audiences to greater zeal; the practisers of sprinkling have subscribed towards Serampore translations; and Baptists have given their gold to those who do not immerse.' p. 55.

In proposing such a plan of catholic union, in zealously insisting upon its necessity on the score of duty as well as advantage, we really cannot see that the Writer stands chargeable with putting any thing in risk, or that his views, though they invite scrutiny, need provoke alarm or jealousy. Mr. Orme, however, is of a different opinion; and from the eminent station he holds, as well as from his high personal respectability and weight, he is entitled to be heard.

If the system we are pursuing be indeed fundamentally defective, then, of course, little good is to be expected from it, and the sooner it is overthrown, the better... The impression which the cited paragraph is calculated to make, is mischievous; though, I am sure, the Author had no mischievous intention in framing it. For, suppose that he does not succeed in "dissolving the present elements of Christian zeal," and in recomposing them upon the " New Model, (which it does not require prophetic augury to foresee that he will not,) it will then follow, that the whole Christian world is engaged in the fruitless prosecution of a scheme which is radically and fundamentally wrong. A more discouraging view of matters, or one more likely to paralyze exertion, it is not possible to present.' pp. xxxi, ii.

If Mr. Orme has found any such impression to be actually produced, in any instance, by the perusal of the pamphlet, he is

warranted in speaking of it as mischievous; although we cannot, for our own parts, perceive that the paragraph in question, much less the entire tenor and spirit of the work, is at all calculated to make an impression so remote from the Writer's intention. The supposed inference would by no means fairly follow from the premises. A system of exertion may be fundamentally defective, and yet neither be wrong nor fruitless; just as a system of husbandry may be defective and capable of great improvement, and yet, it would not follow that the labour had been fruitless, or that the cultivation ought to be suspended. If the success has hitherto fallen below the expectations of the husbandman, we should conceive it to be anything but a discouraging view that should be presented to him by a friend who should assure him, that the fault was not in the unproductive soil, but in his defective system. The scheme and its object must not be thus confounded: the object must be prosecuted by any means; the scheme may, and must undergo modification. In other words, our missions must be supported: our Missionary Societies may possibly undergo reform. Nay, Mr. Orme says, 'By all means let us reform; but let it be on scriptural principles ' and well ascertained experiments.' This is all, we imagine, that the present Writer would wish for.

Are there any conceivable principles or conditions upon which the Protestants of different communions could be brought to co-operate in a Missionary Society to the heathen? There is surely no harm in propounding the inquiry, nor in framing, hypothetically, the terms of pacification. If the Writer's particular scheme be exceptionable,—if his plan, however plausible, is not adapted to the present circumstances of the Church, why should we refuse to admit, that the circumstances which would render it practicable, are devoutly to be desired?

But it must not be disguised, that the feature of the Author's plan, which is the most likely to excite an outcry, is that which calls upon Protestant Dissenters to concede the lead' to the Established Church, by an adoption, in their missions, of her forms and ritual, with such modifications as the most enlight'ened friends of the Church have sighed to see effected.' It is upon this part of the work, that Mr. Orme has commented with the greatest warmth, as if it implied a tacit reflection upon Dissenters, or as if the Writer called upon them to bow down to a 'new system of expediency', such as would involve a dishonourable compromise of principle and consistency. Although we cannot see the matter in this light, nor admit the fairness of Mr. Orme's reprehension, we shall not undertake the Writer's defence; partly, because he is well able to fight his own battles,

Upon one point only, we feel inclined to say a word on the

and partly because we are not concerned to vindicate any specific plan of conciliation; nor are we inclined at this time to enter upon so thorny a discussion as the topic would involve. There are, however, a few desultory observations which we wish to submit to our readers, before we close the present article.

We may be allowed, we suppose, to set it down as an axiom, that the power of the Christian religion to propagate itself, will always be in proportion to the purity and unity with which it is held and taught. And if so, our sectarian divisions must have a natural tendency to weaken the diffusive force, as well as actually to obstruct the progress of Christianity. And hence', remarks Mr. Howe, is the growth of the Church obstructed, 'not only naturally, but penally too. Whence it is most evi'dent, that they cannot with judgement pray for the spiritual 'welfare of the Church of Christ, who pray not for its union; ' nor with sincerity, who, to their utmost, endeavour it not also.' It is to this point we are anxious to bring back our readers. We should consider it as a great point gained, were the desirableness of such an event honestly avowed and steadily contemplated, although not a single step were directly taken towards bringing it about. We are inclined to doubt, in fact, whether the union of the Church will be effected by any voluntary concessions or any spontaneous movement; and we found this opinion upon the unconscious manner in which the several parties have been brought into the state of comparative harmony which now prevails. The union which has been the result of the awakening of the Missionary spirit, was not in the anticipation of those who led the way in the field of evangelical enterprise. And it is highly remarkable, that it has commenced, not in the heart of Christian society, but at its extreme points; in which respect, the Romish Church furnishes a singular contrast, which has been pointed out by a writer in the Quarterly Review, who can be no other than Dr. Southey. At this time', he remarks, 'there are Protestant Missionaries abroad from all those com'munities which are agreed upon the fundamental doctrines of 'the Christian faith; in other words, which hold the same ' creed, and believe in the validity of the same ordinances. Lutherans and Calvinists are thus employed, Presbyterians and

6

Writer's behalf. He is represented as speaking with amazing ten'derness for the scruples and feelings of churchmen', and again, with 'vast charity and gentleness' in reference to the Baptists. Why is this? Mr. Orme asks. We venture to surmise, because he is neither an Episcopalian nor a Baptist; and in dealing more plainly, as he may feel entitled to do, with his own denomination, he pays at least some compliment to the degree of sound understanding and liberality prevailing in the body.

'Independents, Baptists, Moravians, Methodists, and members of the Church of England. But, among heathen nations, as in 'Popish countries, the points of difference between them are 'overlooked or forgotten; and they have, in every instance, 'without a single exception, given to each other the right hand of fellowship in cordial co-operation. Whereas, among the 'Roman Catholics, those divisions and animosities which are 'kept down in Europe by the temporal authority of the Church, 'have broken out in their missions. Jesuits, and Dominicans, ' and Franciscans, and Carmelites, have intrigued against each 'other; and in some instances, have engaged their converts in ' actual hostilities; for the boasted unity of the Romish Church 'bears examination no better than its other pretensions.'*

Now no circumstance can be more satisfactory, as an illustration of the genuine spirit of our religion,-its tendency to unite its true disciples, in the absence of counter-working influences; and it presents at the same time a striking evidence of the truth of our common doctrines. An immense concession has been made by the various sects, in the persons of these their attorneys and representatives,-far greater than would have ever been gained in any conclave of divines. But it has been wholly unpremeditated. We meant no such thing. It is of God, not of man. Nay, this may be said of the whole business from the beginning. Our Missionary societies have in no instance been undertaken by the deliberate act, or even with the general concurrence of the religious body from which they have emanated. On the contrary, they have severally had to surmount indifference, neglect, or opposition from the religious world. The rise and progress ' of the Missionary spirit which is at this time prevailing 'throughout the Protestant world', remarks Dr. Southey,' will 'be one of the most remarkable features in the history of the 'present age. It has not been sudden and violent, like that of the 'Crusades; and yet, it may be doubted, whether even the im'pulse whereby that great movement was produced, extended 'so widely through all classes of society, or was felt with equal 'force. Its rise was so obscure as hardly to be noticed. Little ' attention had been excited by the Danish Missionaries; scarcely any by what the Dutch had effected in their Asiatic possessions; and the labours of the Moravians would hardly ' have been known beyond the bounds of their own little com'munity, if it had not been for Crantz's account of their most 'extraordinary exertions in Greenland, and the entire success ' of that painful mission. By that book, this singular labour of 'love was made known to a few general readers, and to what 'was then the still smaller number of persons who took a reli

* Quarterly Review, No. LXIII. p. 5.

'gious interest in such subjects. But no general feeling was ex'cited. The honour of giving the first impulse to public feel'ing, belongs to the English Baptists.'* It was not, however, the act of the denomination. The undertaking originated, we believe, in an obscure village; the original society consisted of five individuals, including the venerable Carey and his friend, Andrew Fuller; and the first subscription for spreading the Gospel to the heathen world, amounted to 13l. 2s. 6d.! This was in the year 1792. Many years elapsed before the proceedings of the Mission attracted the general attention of the Baptists themselves, and it slowly won the condescending patronage of the religious public in the metropolis.

The London Missionary Society had been in the meantime formed in 1795, not without exciting the open ridicule of the project from some of the learned and orthodox, while many others stood aloof from measures which were certainly not characterized, at the outset, by sagacity or discretion. The only Wesleyan Missionary Society, for many years, was-Dr. Coke. He was the founder of the Mission to the West Indies, which dates as far back as 1786, and the Mission to Ceylon owes its origin entirely to his zeal and beneficence. He had often met with discouragement and opposition from his brethren in the Conference, with regard to the Missions he had proposed, in consequence of the state of their finances; and up to the year 1813, scarcely a pound had been expended in the Missionary cause, that had not been furnished out of his own income, or obtained by his personal application. At length, the Conference sanctioned an annual public collection for the Missions which he had established; but it was not till the year 1817, four years after the commencement of the Mission to Ceylon, that the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society was established. The Church Missionary Society was instituted in 1800; and we need not say that, up to the present day, it has had to contend against peculiar difficulties arising from the jealousy or open disapprobation of a majority of the clergy. Thus, in every instance, our Missionary Societies have originated in the pious zeal of a few individuals, unauthorized, unsupported, and even shamefully opposed by their brethren of the same communion. And shall we take credit to ourselves for our respective Missions? Non nobis, Domine, sed tuo nomini da gloriam.

The mutual concessions and the spirit of union to which these simultaneous operations have led, have, we say, been forced upon us; or at least, we have entertained the angel of concord unawares. In some such way, we expect that the union of sects and parties will be brought about, so as to be manifestly the

* Quarterly Review, No. LXIII. pp. 23, 4.