ON BOARDS OF MISSIONS, No. II. HEN in our June number we adverted to the propositions made in Convocation for the establishment of a Board of Missions, the consideration of the question had not extended beyond the Lower House. After many years of deliberation the proposal was at the last moment hurried through with a haste which to outsiders was most inexplicable. By what seemed almost a coup de main it was brought, without anything which could be deemed final consideration, under the notice of the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury who constitute the Upper House. We believe that we are not wrong in affirming that up to the present moment the Convocation of York has not expressed or been distinctly asked to express any opinion, or indeed been in any way formally or officially consulted. In point of fact, although it has been many years in contemplation, the project has not yet gained ground much beyond the restricted numbers who have been throughout the promoters of it. So few take cognizance of the proceedings of Convocation that it may be doing some service to our readers to keep them informed of the progress of this scheme, which is still in agitation.

We propose reviewing what has occurred from May 17th, when the question was discussed in the Lower House. The resolutions proposed on that day by Canon Wilkinson, which had been somewhat modified from their original tenour, were as follows:

"1. That it is desirable for a Board of Missions to be constituted, consisting of Bishops, representatives of the Colonial Church, members of the Lower House of Convocation, and laymen. 2. That his Grace the Archbishop be requested to direct the appointment of members of the Upper and Lower Houses, and to invite the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Colonial Churches to elect, in any way that they may think desirable, representatives of the Colonial Churches. That his Grace be also requested to invite the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and the Church Missionary Society to elect lay members, representatives of those societies, to serve on the proposed Board of Missions. 3. That the Prolocutor be

requested to forward a copy of this report to the Upper House."

In the course of his address, the Canon called attention to a portion of the Committee's Report, which stated

"That nothing be done by this Board which shall directly or indirectly interfere with the great missionary societies, or the numerous associations established in connexion with the different missionary dioceses.

"That the Board, in the first instance, be prepared to accept a humble position, and to put forward no claims to attempt startling reforms, but content itself with such simple work as, for lack of such an organization, is at present left undone.” We cannot admit that there was much force in the arguments by which the resolutions were urged. It was stated, for instance, that every other body of Christians, except the Church of England, took up the work of the Church abroad "as an essential part of the corporate life and corporate action of the Church." The reference in particular to the Church of Rome was singularly unfortunate, for it is notorious that in that body a special department has been organized which has almost exclusive control of Missions, and that to a degree which might

fairly be considered to be unwholesome. It is an excrescence upon the ecclesiastical system of the Romish Church, managed with little, or no, reference to Episcopal authority. It was further urged that the new organization would be successful in stirring up interest in half the parishes of England which now do nothing for Missions. This would of course be very desirable, and is not easily, as a mere theory, to be gainsaid. Those, however, who have practical acquaintance with the subject will still entertain serious doubts as to whether a vis inertia which is proof against all appeals from Bishops and the persevering solicitations of organizing secretaries is likely to be overcome by the action of Convocation. The same remark would apply to the present ignorance on the subject of the Colonial Church and Missions to the heathen. This is unquestionably very great and extensive among those who are indifferent. But it is not for want of information, which abounds in all directions. It arises rather from the proved hopelessness of inducing persons who are indifferent to religion to take interest in a subject which pre-eminently requires spiritual qualifications in order to be appreciated. The utmost that Convocation could hope to effect, would be to issue fresh batches of pamphlets, circulars, and appeals, which would proceed from an authority itself almost wholly unknown to the large mass of professing Churchmen. The truth of this last assertion might be easily tested by any one who would take the trouble of inquiring among his neighbours and friends what Convocation is and does. do not urge this in any invidious or offensive spirit, but merely as a fact that, except within very limited ecclesiastical circles, Convocation has yet to get itself recognized in English society. Among the middle classes and the poor it has not at present even the shadow of a name. Canon Gregory, in connexion with his remarks upon this question, called attention to the fact that

We

Convocation, moreover, possesses no executive, and has neither the power nor the wish to create one; it could not therefore undertake any part in providing funds for the support of old Missions or the origination of new ones. This is a fact which must be kept steadily in view in any propositions which may be made for creating a Board of Missions.

Some very judicious and sensible strictures were made by Canon Pownall and Archdeacon Smart. The latter moved the following amendment which was negatived:

"That the duties of the Board of Missions be limited to enforcing the respon sibility of the Church with respect to Missions upon all members of the home Church in such ways as from time to time may seem desirable."

With some trifling amendments the original resolutions were carried, and were taken to the Upper House. They were the fruit of eleven years of deliberation.

The following week (May 20th) the resolutions were taken into consideration by the Archbishop of Canterbury and twelve Bishops who formed the Upper House. The Bishop of Gloucester, supported by the Bishop of Hereford, thereupon urged postponement, that what he described as "a really complicated matter" might meet with due con

sideration from their Lordships. He characterized the new scheme as "a complete modification-to use the very weakest word-of that which was formerly the deliberate judgment of the Upper House." It did not seem to be within the recollection of some of their Lordships that they had come to any resolution in former years. Eventually the subject was postponed, for, as the Archbishop remarked, it was evident that it would not do to settle off-hand "a very difficult and intricate subject, which from its having hung over for ten years showed that there were great difficulties to be encountered in dealing with it." It may be noted here that before the report had reached the Upper House, according to the Bishop of Gloucester, "the representatives of some dioceses had actually been chosen" to a body not yet called into existence! Plainly there are some persons more than ready to be the "Board of Missions"! This cannot have proceeded from disrespect, but is a curious exemplification of the precipitate manner in which the proposed action of Convocation was being urged by the promoters. In the secular Parliament it would correspond to definite action and appointment of officers by a Committee of the House of Commons upon a Bill under their consideration before the House of Lords had even heard of the subject. Eventually the resolution for the establishment of a Board of Missions was postponed till the next meeting of the House.

The subject was again brought up in the Upper House (July 19th), when the Archbishop and eight Bishops were present. The Bishop of Gloucester then declared that he was not in favour of the proposal of the Lower House :

He was afraid his reasons would be rather hastily excogitated, as he had not thought of the subject since the last meeting of Convocation, but, as far as he could remember, his objection was first on the matter of principle. It seemed to him that the resolution arrived at and acted upon by the Upper House had been entirely traversed by the action of the Lower House, and without any communication with the Upper House on the subject. He could not conceive a Board of Missions for the Church of England without every English Bishop occupying a place upon it, and if he took only that ground he should feel it his duty to oppose the resolution of the Lower House. He could conceive no reason whatever why that which was agreed to by the Upper House, and acted upon, should not stand. He thought after persons had been chosen in the dioceses it would not be easy to tell them their services were not wanted, as the Lower House of Convocation had taken the matter into their own hands. That was his first objection, and his second objection was that one of the great missionary bodies of the Church was strongly opposed to the Board of Missions as proposed by the Lower House. He thought it would be very unfortunate if at this period in the history of the Church they should find themselves in any serious difference of opinion with one of the two great missionary bodies. He could not conceive that this Board of Missions would have any real effect, and that, far from exercising a wisely directed and gently controlling power, it would rather bring about antagonism and animosity. He quite felt that the good men who had taken up the movement were sincerely attached to the spread of Christ's blessed kingdom throughout the world, and he would be the last to imply anything to the contrary; but he might, with great respect, doubt if they had done wisely in putting forward this agency, and if they had taken the right time for it.

It would be interesting to know when, and by whom, and under what circumstances these representatives to a Board which might never exist had been so prematurely selected; also the names of those individuals already chosen who are to form the future committee. Q q

We must confess that in the first objection of the Bishop of Gloucester we wholly sympathize. If there is to be a Board of Missions at all, which is to extend its operations throughout all the dioceses of the Church, it does seem to us unintelligible how those who entertain high views of Episcopacy could consent to the elimination of the larger portion of the Episcopate. Whether, however, high or low views are entertained upon this point, it would seem matter of prudence and common sense that if the Bishops are to intervene authoritatively in Missions it should not be in any partial manner but in their collective capacity, so that they should be amenable to the tribunal of public opinion for their proceedings, and that no imputation should rest upon them that while professing to be the Church they were after all only a selected clique. The object of a partial nomination may have been that the deliberations of the other members should not be overweighted by the whole body of the English Episcopate. In this there is some show of reason, but if once this notion is admitted, what becomes of the corporate action of the Church, and, indeed, of the raison d'etre of the Board of Missions? The dilemma is one not easily to be solved. As to the other objections of the Bishop, especially those affecting the Church Missionary Society, it may be perhaps more convenient here to leave them as he stated them. The remarks of the Bishop of Gloucester were followed by an address from the Archbishop:

The President said he wished to explain a document which had been placed in his hand. He expressed no opinion upon it, but would simply state what he believed was its effect. A deputation waited upon him at Lambeth on the 6th of July, headed by Lord Chichester, as President of the Church Missionary Society, who put the document now before them into his hands. The document stated that a considerable diversity of opinion existed between two sets of persons in the Church. One of them held the doctrine of non-interference among Protestant missionary societies working abroad, provided the body doing the missionary work could be considered in any sense a body advocating the doctrines of pure Christianity. There were also two ways in which operations might be carried out in Native Churches with a view of giving them a finally formal Episcopal position. One looked forward to a future Native Church independent of European control, as the end generally to be aimed at. Churches might be, not for localities only, but for particular races; for example, an Armenian did not wish, as a general rule, to make converts of any who were not by birth Armenians, while the Nestorians restricted themselves to certain races. The Syrian and the Coptic did not claim command over the whole district, but over persons who have certain blood in that district, and each Church looked to their own race rather than claim authority over an entire province. Native Churches could be established for Native converts, and yet the English residents in those districts might fairly claim to have their own ministrations, and to be presided over by their own countrymen. The other party held that the union of all races in one Church is essential; that as in England so in the East, you should establish a territorial Episcopate, which should have control over all persons who were within certain defined limits. They were totally different principles of action, and it would be difficult to discuss them in Convocation so as to acquiesce in the views put forward. Some, again, would begin with a missionary Bishop, while some would look upon the Episcopate as necessary for a work which was already in some degree developed. These were some of the difficulties suggested by the deputation which had met him at Lambeth.

It will be noticed that two most important points were noticed, not only in the Memorial but also in the speech of the Archbishop. One

If

concerned non-interference with those Protestant Missionary Societies abroad which were inculcating pure Christianity. If such interference were contemplated or attempted by the proposed Board of Missions, it would be the most mischievous endeavour that could possibly be imagined. It would be, too, as futile as it would be mischievous. The bare notion of such a contingency ought to make men pause before committing themselves to any scheme that might even remotely venture upon results so disastrous. The other question discussed by the Archbishop has already been partially ventilated in our own pages.* It is, however, interesting to find one in his Grace's exalted position recognizing and admitting the notorious fact that racial as opposed to territorial Episcopacy is no novelty in the Church of Christ. "The unchangeable East" has always admitted it. Copts, Armenians, and Syrians, all alike have their own Bishops for their own nationalities, and it is reasonable that it should be so. In Jerusalem itself we believe that there are at least five Bishops exercising jurisdiction over their own followers. It is no business of ours to estimate their respective claims territorially, if they can assert any, but it is notorious that they coexist, and there is no sufficient reason why they should not. once this common-sense principle were fully acknowledged, which our own circumstances here in England prevent us from seeing the importance of, many anxious questions which now seem hardly to admit of solution, and which may be fraught with most serious evils to nascent Churches among the heathen, would be most readily and happily determined. What is of chief importance here at present to note is that in the judgment of the Archbishop, so far from the proposed Board of Missions being likely to suggest a satisfactory composition of these difficulties, it was improbable that there would be general acquiescence in the views put forward there. This is in the highest degree likely, for the question, instead of being in the hands of experts, would be for the most part decided by those whose acquaintance with the perplexing questions of foreign Missions must be of the most limited character. We do not for a moment dispute the value of a territorial Episcopate in a country like England, or even like the United States, where English is the prevailing language and where what are substantially English principles and habits obtain; but we draw attention to the needless complications introduced into Mission work by territorial arrangements which can, unless they are practically ignored, only be a hindrance, whether they are parochial or Episcopal. We refrain at present from quoting instances in the missionary field, but they are becoming frequent. Some desultory conversation occurred afterwards among the Bishops present, in which it transpired, although the Bishop of Truro was not aware of the fact, that eleven years previously 66 a board for consultation had been formed, but it had never done any"On Episcopacy in Missions," March, 1881.

† A curious instance has come to our notice even in England of the idle enthusiasm for territorial arrangements in what is really Mission work. A society has recently been established for promoting the Conversion of the Jews on parochial principles. We believe that there are only five parishes in the country in which there is a sufficient number of resident Jews to justify such a course!