and the measure, also, of doctrine contained in tracts; and to discourage a too lavish dispersion of the word of God, without a teacher at hand to explain it ; and to exclude prayers, through Christ, from being taught in heathen schools, by heathen masters.

2. "To revert to the ancient divisions of the people into hearers, catechumens, and faithful, so as to admit the first mentioned only to preaching, appropriate, and prayers for them. The catechumens to be instructed separately, and to join in certain prayers for their fuller illumination; and the faithful, or baptized alone, to be admissible to the present Liturgy of the Anglican Church. 3. "With this view, I wish to build a Church, in the early English style, substantial as to material, with as much ornament as our funds may allow of ;* and of such a form, as to combine under one roof distinct portions for each class, so as to hold out the portion of the faithful to be the holiest; and in this way to symbolize the inaccessibility of heaven without holiness, and cause men to see and feel that there is a privilege in becoming a Christian, of which heathen are not possessed, and thus, one would hope, lead them more to desire it. A portion should also be assigned for future penitents, who, in conformity with Church censures, should be inadmissible to full communion.

4. "To have, daily, matins and even-song for the faithful, with all the adjuncts available, viz. organ, chanting-which is much more agreeable to the Tamil rhythm, than is singing of Tamil hymns to English psalm tunes, which entirely changes the sound of words, and, also, all the ceremony allowed by the English Church.

5. "The body of catechists-native deacons, when practicable-to be centralised as much as possible, so as fully to carry out the above principles, by assisting at the prayers of the faithful, instructing catechumens, and arguing (under the immediate eye, or directions, of the missionary) with the heathen, who might be collected easily, by a little stir, and by the character for piety, which, by our attention to form, we should gain.

6. "The adoption by the missionary, and his assistants, of an ecclesiastical dress, such as should be appointed by the bishop-white, if possible-and of such manner of living, as would most strikingly convince the native of his being a teacher sent from God; for, until we ourselves act in such a way as will show to the Hindoos that we believe our religion to be divine, we may labour long enough before we shall make them reverence it; until they see us reverence our faith, they will cavil and jeer; but once boldly meet them on ground which they think sacred, and the captious exercise of their reason will be checked by their deeply rooted principles of faith.”—P. 7.

To the letter from which we have made the above extracts, the bishop replied in a tone of encouragement, dictated by his sympathy with the zeal and candour of the writer; and having heard from the bishop, Mr. Humphrey thought himself justified in stating his plans to the Madras committee of the Church Missionary Society, which he accordingly did, in a letter, dated August 31, 1841, in the very same words (so far as all important matters are concerned) which he had already addressed to his bishop, and which we have quoted above; adding certain estimates of expenses, and details of plans, which are

It would seem that anything like an adequate degree of attention to the size and beauty of the Lord's house, must come with all the suspicion of a novel experiment before the Church Missionary Society. Capt. Fitzroy, describing the state of the missions in New Zealand, where the missionaries have actually depopulated parts of the country, by purchasing out the poor inhabitants-sometimes under pretence of holding land for their benefit, complains of the mean aspect of the chapels, which are low, and little better than school-houses, while he found the mission-store a handsome building of stone, having its tower and clock.

nothing to the present purpose. What, then, will be the surprise of the reader to see that the gracious answer of the M. C. C. C. M. S. (for thus does the Madras Corresponding Committee of the Church Missionary Society write itself) inclosed the following resolutions: :

"The M. C. Committee of the C. M. Society have received, with the deepest pain, the communication of the Rev. Mr. Humphrey's views, as explained in his letter of the 1st of September, 1841.

"They feel that, neither as members of the Church of England, nor, as representatives of the C. M. Society, can they in any manner sanction views which they believe to be entirely opposed both to the doctrines of that Church, and to the principles on which the Society is founded. And it is their deliberate judgment, that the maintenance of such principles as the Rev. Mr. Humphrey has now distinctly avowed, necessarily disqualifies any person from labouring in connexion with a Missionary Society of the Church of England.

"Resolved-That the Rev. Mr. Cotterill, Acting Clerical Secretary, be requested to communicate to the Rev. Mr. Humphrey, the Committee's sentiments upon this subject; and that copies of Mr. Humphrey's letter, and of the present resolution, be transmitted, by the next mail, to the Parent Committee. "Resolved, further-That copies of the Rev. Mr. Humphrey's letter, and of this resolution, be also submitted, by the Acting Clerical Secretary, to the Right Rev. the Bishop."-P. 14.

This tardy mention of the bishop, is certainly not for direction of the Society's judgment and conduct, which was already recorded, and carried out. If it was merely that the Society might find an instrument of tyranny in the use which they would make of the bishop's power, they found themselves mistaken.

The question of Mr. Humphrey's orthodoxy, is not that with which we are concerned. Even supposing, for argument's sake, that he was as unsound as the M. C. C. C. M. S. would make him, still the gross injustice, and want of all ecclesiastical propriety, in arraigning him for matters of doctrine before a lay tribunal, and of condemning him unheard, would be disgraceful to that committee: so that it is quite needless to refer to the long, and we must say, ignorant letter of the Acting Clerical Secretary of the M. C. C. C. M. S., which accompanied their extracts from the minutes; we may, however, state, that there is nothing in them which can weigh for an instant against Mr. Humphrey's protest, immediately sent to the bishop, and to the Society, against three of the inferences drawn from his letter.

1. "That the gospel of Jesus Christ is not to be preached to every creature. 2. "That God's word does not bear so manifest an impress of its divine character and commission as we poor sinful creatures may bear; that we can be holier, and better suited to the wants of God's creatures, than his own book.

*

"I think it is right I should explain, that it is not to the bishop, but to the Parent Committee, that the recent correspondence has been referred; though, of the whole has been laid before the bishop."-Extract from Letter of the Secretary of the Madras Corresponding Committee of the Church Missionary Society, of 22d of Oct. 1841.

course,

3. "The obscuration of the doctrine of the atonement, or of Christ crucified.'

-P. 15.

With wonderful forbearance," the Madras Committee❞—we use the words of the Church Missionary Society's own rehearsal of the

matter:

"The Madras Committee took no further step toward the dissolution of Mr. Humphrey's connexions with the society, till they received the resolutions of the Parent Committee of November 30, 1841.

"On the resolution of the Madras Committee, with its accompanying documents, being brought, in due course of business, before the Parent Committee, they, on the 30th of November, passed the following resolutions:

"(I.) That the committee record their entire satisfaction at the promptitude with which the corresponding committee have acted, in the painful affair of the Rev. W. T. Humphrey's letter, of September 1, 1841.

"(II.) That the committee fully concur in opinion with the corresponding committee, that the maintenance of such principles as Mr. Humphrey has distinctly avowed, necessarily disqualifies him from labouring in connexion with this society.

(III.) That the principles of action to which the committee more particularly refer, are:

"1. The restriction which Mr. Humphrey would place upon the dispersion of the Holy Scriptures among the Heathen.

"2. The reserve which he would practise in declaring the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, in his preaching to the heathen.

“(IV.) That while the committee acknowledge the honesty and candour with which Mr. Humphrey avows his intention of adhering to these principles of action, in the discharge of his office as a Missionary of the Church Missionary Society, and declares that the adoption of them has been the result of long deliberation;-they feel that they are precluded, by this very circumstance, from making any attempt to produce a change in Mr. Humphrey's views; and that they are therefore under the painful necessity of declaring their conviction, that it is impossible for a person to continue in connexion with the Society while he acts in direct opposition to the instructions which the Society has delivered to its Missionaries, and to the practice by which its operations have ever been characterised.

"(V) That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the Right Reverend the Bishop of Madras; and that immediate steps be taken to supply the post at Myaveram, held by Mr. Humphrey.”

With an announcement of the resolutions of the Omnipotent Parent Committee, Mr. Humphrey receives notice also that Mr. Taylor is written to, that he may be prepared to receive the charge of the mission, and its property. Surely it might have occurred that the mission, at least, was a spiritual trust, and could not so be resumed, and so transferred, by a lay-committee. Mr. Humphrey, at any rate, so judged, and we defy all the committees of all the societies in the world to gainsay his judgment: and we are sure that the voice of all England,-yea of all the whole Church, will be with him, when he says:

"I feel, however, that I should be disguising the truth, and sacrificing the interests of my brethren in the ministry, if I did not protest in the most explicit manner against the right of any such body as the committee, to censure and to proceed to deprive a Clergyman, on grounds unquestionably those of doctrine, without the recorded judgment, or at least, the consenting voice, of his diocesan.

"I conceive that until such sentence or such voice has been issued, the Com. mittee proceed beyond their power, when they dismiss a Clergyman supported by them; and under this conviction I am bound, as well for the preservation of my clerical character, as for the interests of the missionary body at large, to appeal to my diocesan against the Committee's sentence.

"I have, however, according to your instructions, delivered over to Mr. Taylor, this day, the charge of the Mission."

Meanwhile the Lord Bishop of Madras lays the whole case before His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Parent Church Missionary Society; pleading the cause of Mr. Humphrey, in a way which would be triumphant against anything but most tyrannical prejudice, and his own cause also, as the ecclesiastical judge in such cases. It is with this latter branch of the subject only that we have to do. He asks them:

"Has any committee of a society, which claims to be considered as a society of the members of the Church of England, any power to pass a sentence which virtually amounts to a deprivation from his cure, on any clergyman, without reference to his diocesan?

"The sentence of a committee is a virtual deprivation, because if entitled to any consideration, it must subject the censured to the loss of his means of support which are disbursed by the committee.

Are the opinions and views of the clergy, until they are declared heterodox by the diocesan, a fit subject of condemnation by a committee? and if any doubts are entertained by a committee as to the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of a clergyman, supported by the Parent Society, are not the committee bound, as members of the Church of England, to seek the interference of the diocesan, and an explanation of doubtful views through the same channels?

"The diocesan cannot now decide the question, because the pre-judgment of the M. C. C. C. M. S. prevents his doing so, with that unshackled liberty of judgment which he ought to possess;-the fact of the judgment of the M. C. C. C. M. S. being reiterated without hearkening to the wish expressed for time for explanation, and without listening to the disapproval of the committee's proceedings which the diocesan had conveyed, leaves the diocesan unable to act otherwise than to protest against the conduct of the committee, on the grounds of its having attempted to deprive the Rev. W. T. Humphrey of his diocesan's superintendence and protection. It appears to the diocesan, however unintentionally such a line of conduct has been taken, the consequence has been, the invasion of the episcopal office. The diocesan hopes that the M. C. C. C. M. S. could not have intended to neglect his office altogether, and freely acquits them of any intentional disrespect towards himself, but he believes that the M. C. C. C. M. S. acted under erroneous views of the duty of a committee; and the case is now submitted to superior judgment, not only with an anxious desire to see the character of a faithful clergyman re-established, but in the hope that the decision which may be given will prevent any irregularity in future."

Just in time, as it should seem, to have insured attention to the Bishop's appeal, and to have subjected the Society most absolutely to the definitive sentence of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and the English Bishop, the C. M.S. had framed their Thirty-second Law.

XXXII. "That all questions relating to ecclesiastical order and discipline, respecting which a difference shall arise, between any Colonial Bishop, and any committee of the Society, shall be referred to the Archbishops and Bishops of the united Church of England and Ireland, whose decision thereupon shall be

final."

But the next law of this Society is so cunningly framed, and in this case so shamelessly applied, that the public learns to doubt, whether it is possible that any case can occur, in which the judgment of the Archbishops and Bishops shall be accepted. The law is as follows:

"XXXIII. That the object of the preceding law being only to provide a mode of settling questions relating to ecclesiastical order and discipline, as to which no provision has yet been made by the society, it is not to be so construed, as in any other respect, to alter the principles and practice of the society, as they are contained in its laws and regulations, and explained in Appendix ii. to the Thirty-ninth Report."

When, therefore, the parent committee are required by the Bishop of Madras, to refer the case of Mr. Humphrey to the Archbishops and Bishops, under Law XXXII, they feel themselves

"Called upon, by the terms of Law XXXIII., to inquire whether the points raised by the bishops in that statement fell within the scope of Law XXXII., as explained by Law XXXIII. And after careful consideration, they arrived at the conclusion, that they did not fall within the scope of that law, as thus explained, and that they could not, therefore, become matters of reference under those laws." And so, forsooth, the judging of the doctrine and character of a minister licensed by a Bishop; and the withdrawing his salary on the issue of the judgment; and the sending another person to occupy his place; and the requiring him to give up the charge which the Bishop, that is the Church, had committed to him ;-these are not matters of ecclesiastical order or discipline, such as may be committed to the Bishops! Shame to the Society that any law should be wanting except the law which is of paramount authority over all, to enforce the claim of the Church to judge in such matters! Not of ecclesiastical order or discipline?-Why, where they are not so, it is because they touch even higher matters, and such as are still farther removed from an irresponsible lay tribunal: theology and the determining and reverential handling of the truth! Do words mean anything? Do self-imposed laws bind at all? Does the Church lose all prior authority, because an interpretation of a law of the Church Missionary Society deprives it of power in a particular case? What! was Rule XXXII. so merely and absolutely a bait to catch Churchmen, that it is not allowed even the slightest hold on the Society itself? No, this is too much; and wonder indeed we must, that Henry Venn, Richard Davies, and Dandeson Coates, could be prevailed upon by any "order of the committee" to put forth such reasoning.

Whether the Society's apologetic writings are of more force than their laws we know not; but, however, let us compare Henry Venn and the Society in 1839, with Henry Venn and the Society in 1842. In 1839, "the Society recognised the uncontrolled discretion of the bishop to grant or withhold his license. . . . . so that a missionary cannot be removed from one district to another, without the sanction of the bishop."

In 1842 Mr. Taylor is sent to Myaveram, against the bishop's will, to supersede Mr. Humphrey, from whom the bishop will not withdraw his license.