and foreign missions, as to make us content with the action of voluntary associations? Take for example, by way of answer to that question, the amount which is given to those societies by this wealthy Church. What is it? Ridiculously small when it is compared with the work itself, or with the enormous wealth of the Church with which it is associated. So apparent is this indeed, and so deeply is it felt that most strenuous exertions have been made lately to increase the funds of these societies. Your Grace knows that the four Archbishops of the Church recently joined together in appealing to the people to increase their contributions to the Gospel Propagation Society and what was the result? The appeal, unanswerable in its statements was, my lord, with all due respect, so far as the increasing of the funds of the society was concerned, a complete failure.

Now the moral which I would draw from all this is two-fold. And first, I would suggest a moral for the societies themselves. I think every one who is in any way connected with these societies should have prominently before his mind the necessity of common action, either in the way of bringing such societies together-whether it be in a church-house, such as has been already mentioned as in process of erection, where they may all have common offices under the same roof, or by engaging unitedly in any common or joint operation—which I believe is sometimes done and with advantage -or in promoting in every way possible the catholic management of thes several societies.

But above all things I think that we are guilty of a very great sin if we endeavour, under any temptation or inducement, to try and make our societies less catholic and less general than the Church to which we all belong. I hope I am not a bigoted man. I am aware from my own personal experience of the great work for Christ which has been done in New Zealand by the Church Missionary Society and its agents, and I would be very sorry to say one word to hurt the feelings of those good men who have done such good work for the Church in that locality; but I heard with pain that extract which was read here to-day, from what I am bound to assume is an authentic publication of the Society.

This is the moral which I would draw from the facts I have mentioned for those who manage the affairs of these societies, but I think the great lesson ought to be laid to the heart of the members of the Church themselves. The root of the matter has always appeared to me to be but in the address of the four archbishops which I referred to a moment ago. I have not got it by me, but in it there occurs this passage which I quote from memory-your Grace will be able to correct me if I state it wrongly"that the collection of funds for the spread of the Gospel should be made a part of the parochial organization in every district." I think we ought to have at once a proper Church organization for the spread of our Church and her principles both at home and abroad. I think the time is gone by when we ought to trust for the accomplishment of this great work to voluntary societies or voluntaryism, and that the Church should rouse herself up to see what is her own work and rouse herself up then to do it. Here it would not do to attempt to enter into any details of what that organization should be, but the Church organizing itself for the purpose of doing this, her own work, would gain a strong, a most enormous advantage against the adversaries with whom she is at present working, and by whom she is surrounded. The mind of every true Churchman is at the present time agitated by the thought of whether the Church is to

be allowed to last any longer—whether the Church in England or Ireland, or any part of that Church, might not be thrown now upon its own resources. We do not know the future nor what it may bring to us in this matter: but every one is doubting whether we ought at once to form ourselves into a voluntary society or remain, as I hope we shall remain, a National Established Church. But whether that question be decided in one way or in the other, there can be no objection to the Church organizing itself for doing her own work at home and abroad: and doing it, moreover, through the parishes, and dioceses, and provinces, and all the existing machinery and constitution of the Church itself. If the framework of the National Church shall be taken away it may be disastrous, it is true, but it is the duty of every one to place the Church now in such a position that under any circumstances she will be enabled efficiently to do her work at home as well as abroad.

The Very REV. MAURICE F. DAY, D.D. (Dean of Limerick).

I shall only detain the meeting for a moment or two while I say a few words in answer to what may be considered a 'challenge' offered to the Church Missionary Society. I have the honour of being one of the Hon. Secretaries of that Society in Ireland. I do not see my brother Secretary here. If he were I would put the answer in his hands as being much better able to give it than I am. You will, however, allow me to occupy the important time of this meeting only for a moment or two in answering this question which has been put here to-day-"Is the Church Missionary Society as Catholic as the Church herself?" I answer without any hesitation, my lord, that it is; but I desire, at the same time, to make a distinction which is very important. It is as Catholic as the doctrines of our Church, as they are defined by herself in her Articles and Prayer Book it is not as Catholic as we find the opinions of members of our Church, or professed members of our Church. And, my lord, it is because there are such a number of persons in the Church holding-in all sincerity, we are willing to admit, but still holding-opinions which we believe the Church does not warrant. That the Church Missionary Society, and I believe other religious societies, find themselves unable to cast themselves upon the ordinary machinery of the Church, or to accept, as a genuine member of that Church, and as one fitted to bear a part in the working and management of such societies, every person who bears the name of ChurchIt is on this account, my lord, that the basis of the Society has been narrowed-narrowed not as compared with the doctrines of the Church herself, but, narrowed, as compared with those doctrines as we see them taught around us by many in our Church.

man.

I fully agree with what was said as to the good which may be effected by greater economy in the management of our societies; but I believe that if that economy were to be carried out by any disregard of their doctrinal teaching or character, the loss would be greater than the gain. I believe that there are earnest Christian people who will give their means for the support of what they believe and know to be the Truth as taught in our Church and as defined in the Articles of our Faith, who, if our religious societies became less definite in their character, and embraced a great variety of religious opinions amongst those employed by them, would withdraw their support because their confidence in the societies would be shaken, and as a consequence infinite damage would be done to such societies. I have to ask your Grace's pardon for occupying the time of the meeting

in thus giving an answer to the observations made respecting the Church Missionary Society.

The Ven. GEORGE A. DENISON (Archdeacon of Taunton).'

In listening to Mr. Turner's excellent paper I began to be almost afraid that since I had left London the Church had been disestablished, although I had not read of it in either the Times newspaper or the Pall Mall Gazette; for, if I understood Mr. Turner's paper right, it shewed that he objects to Convocation, because it does not include an admixture of the laity. Now, I have always understood that Convocation is an assembly of representation of the spiritualty of the realm, and of these alone, and that the control of the laity lies not in Convocation, but in Parliament; and we must all admit that Parliament is not usually very slow to exercise that control. Convocation is not a legislative body;—it is a consultative, a deliberative, advising body upon Church matters; and if the laity were to be admitted to Convocation, there would be at once trouble created between Convocation and Parliament. The reason of this is obvious. In Convocation, the laity might there agree with the spiritual members of that body in accepting decisions which, in the larger lay gathering of Parliament, might be reversed or opposed; and the result would be, that discontent would inevitably be created. At present, however, while the Convocation might meet and consider subjects, and express an opinion upon them, that opinion has no validity as a law binding upon the country until Parliament has affirmed it; and even then the decision becomes binding, not because it is the voice of Convocation, but because Parliament has ratified what Convocation has advised. Í did not think it would have been necessary, at this time of day, to state anything about what Convocations are and what they are not. I thought that was all quite clear and well understood. But is there no place where the laity may meet, together with the clergy, to consult about Church matters, without interfering with the legislature of the country? To be sure there are-where? Why there is a place in every diocese--I mean Diocesan Synods; and I believe if we had Synods in every diocese, then the Church in England and Ireland would be secure. I think it is of great importance to-night that we should know that what Mr. Turner suggests will not accomplish what he wishes.

Now, as regards these poor Societies, I really never heard them so much spoken against before; but if you ask me my opinion, I will say that I don't believe they are to blame; but I think the blame lies in the fact, that the spiritual assemblies of the Church of England have been so long in abeyance that it was necessary for Voluntary Societies to fill up the gap which the silence of these assemblies created; and it lies next in the fact, that the clergy-the parochial clergy-do not take that interest in Missionary work which they ought. It was suggested by some one to-day that instead of having persons connected with each different society to go round and collect funds for that society in each district, the work of collecting for all the societies might be entrusted to some one person in each place: and I think it was thrown out as a good idea that in places where there are Cathedrals, the dean and chapter-being people who have nothing to do-might thus be usefully employed. For my part, I believe that if the parochial clergy in their several parishes would preach about missionary work—if every clergyman said in his own mind when he entered a parish "I will not only preach the Gospel of Christ, as what concerns my parishioners separately, but I will preach about home and foreign missionary work, and

that not only in my pulpit on the Sunday but in my week-day visits from house to house," and acted up to it, an immense amount of benefit would accrue to the societies themselves. Deputations are necessary at times, but I believe they would become almost unnecessary if the parochial clergy took their proper place in the great missionary cause instead of waiting for the societies to take it. Why, since I have been in this room to-day I saw a very distinguished layman who has been very often "a deputation" very modest and retiring kind of man he is too-who has quite as frequently had to administer a word of advice and a word of warning to the clergymen whom he meets on these rounds, as he has to the people whom he addresses.

a

I believe that central organization may do something to remedy the evils which are complained of regarding the management and working of our religious Societies; but I believe the true and effectual remedy is to be sought in parochial agency and by parochial action. If the parochial clergy, instead of waiting or asking for deputations, to awaken the minds of their congregations on the great topic of Missionary labours, would only consider it their duty, as ministers, to advocate the cause of such Societies, and to impress upon their people that the work of such Societies was identical with that of the Church itself, namely, the preaching of the Gospel to every creature, I believe a great machinery for this improvement would be brought into operation, and incalculable good would result to the Societies as well as to the Church itself.

REV. H. B. TRISTRAM.-I simply rise, my lord, to answer a question which has been put respecting the Church Missionary Society, and the per centage which its working expenses bear to its receipts. I ask those who have stated that matter if they have ever estimated that per centage by the per centage which the expenses of collecting the revenue of this Empire bear to the amount of that revenue? Then as regards the subject of deputations and the apathy of the clergy. I may state that the gentlemen who act as deputations for the Church Missionary Society are not paid at all— there is no such item of expenditure at all, and all that we ever pay them is their travelling expenses. I believe that by means of these deputations we receive large sums of money which otherwise would never probably reach us at all, and therefore I think that deputations are useful helps to our societies. It is necessary to diffuse useful information concerning our work throughout the country. It is quite a different thing when funds have to be collected for a special work of local interest, such as that of our Durham Church Building Society, which raised in a very short time a sum of £40,000 for a special work. But for general work, such as that of a large missionary society, I believe deputations are requisite. A great deal of that work might of course be avoided if the clergy in the different dioceses brought forward the society's claims as a part of their ministerial duty, but still even then it might be useful at times to send a branch of holly amongst them to stir up them and their people to renewed exertion.

HINDRANCES AT HOME AND ABROAD TO THE PROGRESS OF MISSIONS.

Rev. DR. KAY read the following Paper:

Having so wide a subject as "Hindrances to the Progress of Missions" to deal with, I have thought it best to confine my remarks to one department of the mission field-India. That one department, indeed, is so vast, that in any case my sketch must be very imperfect. Yet I hope that a plain and frank statement of some of the actual hindrances to the progress of Missions in India may be helpful towards dispelling the misapprehension which now appears to prevail on the subject.

That misapprehension has arisen very naturally.

The fact is, that the Missionary, on whom, of course, Churchmen at home depend for their information, is unwilling to speak much of the hindrances to his work. The predominant thought with him is one of thankful wonder at the facilities afforded to him for working at all. That a land which has been for 3,500 years occupied by the best-organized and solidest system of paganism the world has seen,-the land over which only 170 years ago one of the most fanatical of Moslem rulers held absolute sway,that this land should now be traversable by the Ministers of Christ without let or hindrance, seems to him one of the greatest of Providential miracles. It may well do so. A thoughtful French statesman (M. de Tocqueville) said that "the conquest and government of India by the English appeared to him the most wonderful event in the whole history of the world."* It cannot be surprising if the missionary sees in so unique an event the over-ruling hand of Him who has "all authority in heaven and in earth." This is his habitual view. He who enabled Paul to stand at the centre of the Roman Empire, and preach the Gospel akwλúrwe, has opened to us the approaches to the mightiest stronghold of heathenism. There in the heart of Satan's kingdom,-at Delhi or at Benares, at Lucknow or at Puri,-we may announce the fact of Christ's sovereignty.

To use this precious opportunity well and wisely is the missionary's main care. To work on at his appointed post with patient diligence is his chief joy. He spends no time in counting the enemy's forces. He wastes no energies in anxious examination of results already attained. That considerable Christian congregations should have been formed at many, points of the country; that eminent men-both Hindus and Mussulmans-should have embraced Christianity at the sacrifice of their dearest earthly interests; and that around the chief foci of mission-work a large amount of knowledge of Christianity should have been diffused;

*See Quarterly Review, July, 1866.