REV. W. GOODE ON BROTHERLY COMMUNION.

be well allowed to be a boast and a gratification, that so early this ground was taken by so many celebrated divines of that Church. After quoting Archbishop Whitgift, and Cooper, Bishop of Winchester, and Bridges, Dean of Salisbury, to this effect, he says:

They did not, therefore, justify the form of government and orders of the foreign non-Episcopal Churches on the ground merely of their case being a case of necessity as to the relinquishment of episcopacy, which was the mode in which some of our subsequent High Church divines got over their scruples and difficulties on the subject, but on the ground that they had a right to choose that form of Church government which they thought most suitable to their circumstances, Holy Scripture not having prescribed any particular form.

Mr. Goode next cites testimonies to show that as the form of Church government was thus considered indifferent, so the doctrine of these Churches was esteemed to be essentially the same as that of the Church of England; and that the foreign Confessions of Faith, in the opinion of the best writers, both English and foreign, coincided in all essential matters with her Articles. He also refers to a striking fact, viz., that "until the period of the Restoration and the passing of the Act of Uniformity, ministers of these Churches were freely admitted to the cure of souls in our Church without any fresh ordination." Any hesitancy on this subject appears to have at that time, and for long after, arisen, not from any ecclesiastical scruples, but from doubts as to the enactments of the statute law! Hence the corollary, that "any difficulty that now exists in the way of the manifestation of communion with the foreign Protestant Churches, arises, not from any doctrine laid down by our Reformers, or to be found in our Articles, or from the principles acted upon in our Church for more than a century after the Reformation." The next link in this precious chain is the mission of four English divines to the Synod of Dort, in 1619; and the testimonies of Bishops Hall, Davenant, and others to similar doctrines and sentiments. At that time, and for some time after, the only impugners of these sentiments were the Papists; and against these, various defenders of the Church of England did also vindicate the character of the foreign Reformed Churches and the validity of the ordination of their pastors. This part of Mr. Goode's address is very interesting.

Mr. Goode then refers to the rise of the new school under Laud, when first began to be insisted on, as necessary, "Episcopal succession regularly derived from the Apostles ;" and it was the elevation of Laud to the Primacy which caused the disruption between the English and Foreign Reformed Protestant Churches. Yet, even during this and the subsequent period, there are not wanting testimonies from High Churchmen themselves to prove that Laud's views were by no means universally received. Amongst the Non-jurors, also, Archbishop Sancroft and others not only opposed the "idolatries and tyrannies" of the Church of Rome, but also longed and prayed for a reunion with the foreign Reformed Churches.

During the eighteenth century we have Archbishop Sharp, of York, saying, “If he were abroad he would willingly communicate with the Protestant Churches where he should happen to be." Tenison, Archbishop of Canterbury, "thought the narrow notions of all the Churches had been their ruin; and he believed the Church of Scotland to be as true a Protestant Church as the Church of England, though he could not say it was as perfect." Archbishops Wake and Secker, and Bishop Tomline, and Archbishop Howley in 1835, yield similar evidence; and on the summing up, Mr. Goode says::

Nor must it be forgotten, that the missionaries sent out for a long series of years as ordained ministers, by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, which is under the especial direction of the bench of Bishops, used to be, for the most part, only in Lutheran orders.

From these testimonies it is quite clear that the original doctrine of the Church of England, the principles upon which our Church was founded, and the opinions of nine-tenths of her great divines are all in favour of the cultivation of a spirit of brotherly communion between that Church and the foreign Protestant non-Episcopal Churches.

On these data Mr. Goode proceeds to argue in favour of taking some decided steps on the road towards brotherly intercommunion. We must refer our readers to his pamphlet

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION FOR INDIA.

for this argument. He says it is in the abstract a duty of the followers of Christ to hold intercommunion, and to manifest their union chiefly in meeting together at the Lord's-table, and assisting each other. Upon those who decline to perform this duty there devolves the responsibility of proving that there is "something in such an act which militates against the obedience which they owe to Christ."

But the principle being admitted; the

We rejoice to see this ground taken by so sound a divine and so able a controversialist as Mr. Goode. The issue of such an argument cannot be other than satisfactory. To what extent we may logically be led by the argument, or to what extent a practical obedience to an acknowledged command and performance of an acknowledged duty may be possible, must be left for consideration. figment of a divinely essential form of Church government being disposed of; the utility of Protestant combination being felt; the desire for union being stimulated, we may leave the leaven to work as it surely will. We rejoice to see such a testimony coming from the bosom of the Church of England, and we shall finish by quoting the following from the concluding pages of Mr. Goode's most excellent address :—

I believe that if we were permitted to draw aside the veil that conceals heavenly things from our view, and behold that spiritual Temple which is being gradually and silently built up of the “living stones," as St. Peter calls them, of Christ's true followers, we should find that they are taken not merely out of many different nations and tongues and people, but out of many differing Churches, sects, and communions; that the stones of which that sacred edifice is composed are drawn from many different quarries, varying much, it may be, in character, beauty, and value, but all suited for the position assigned them by the great Architect. There may be as much diversity between them as there is between the pure alabaster, the various orders of marble, the granite and the common stone, but all, in the places assigned them, adding to the strength and beauty of the building; some forming the solid base, others the polished shaft, others the beautiful Corinthian capital; some ministering more to the adornment, and others to the stability of the edifice; and all manifesting the favour and the power of that Divine hand by which they were formed and chiselled and moulded and fixed in their appropriate place in that holy temple. And such will be the mode, we may well believe, in which that spiritual building will be carried on even to the period of its completion, even until the top-stone shall be laid with rejoicing, and the triumphant voice be heard, "It is done, the mystery of God is finished."

We cannot fail to have observed, in reading the history of past times, how men influenced by the genuine spirit of Christianity have drawn towards them those who belonged to ecclesiastical bodies of a very different kind, how the manifestation of the Spirit of Christ has produced communion in spirit where visible communion was altogether prevented by outward circumstances. Love for the image of Christ, as feebly reflected in His follower, has broken the fetters of earthly laws and ordinances, and triumphed over the prejudices of alienated Churches and sects. A remarkable instance of this is no doubt familiar to many of us, as occurring at the funeral of the apostolic Bishop Bedell. Attracted by a feeling of respect for the Christian character of the deceased Protestant Bishop, the Roman Catholic priest accompanied his remains to the grave, and as he beheld the body committed to the earth could not help exclaiming, "O sit anima mea cum tua, Bedelle!" His conviction of the Protestant Bishop's membership in the Church of Christ was such that none of his Church's sweeping sentences of excommunication against all such persons could prevent his earnestly desiring, that where Bedell was, there he might be. And that communion which was so earnestly desired in a future state could hardly be less earnestly wished for, in the abstract, in this world.

This commandment," says St. John, "have we from God, That he who loveth God love his brother also"-that is, no doubt, his brother in a spiritual sense, as one of the "household of faith." And it is difficult to understand how this commandment can be carried out but by at least the desire, and, as far as is in our power, the endeavour, to "maintain communion with all those who are in communion with Christ. And this communion may exist among bodies preserving their separate corporate existence, and differing from one another by a not inconsiderable diversity both of Church government and doctrine."

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION FOR INDIA.

THE more we consider this difficult and momentous question, the more clear will its vastness and difficulty be made apparent, as well as the necessity that our exertions should be well directed in order to be adequate. "If the iron be blunt and he do not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength;" and it is to be feared that waste of power has ensued and will ensue in respect of the subject before us, unless that Wisdom which is profitable to direct be eminently present to accelerate the force employed.

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION FOR INDIA.

When we hear, for instance, that out of 180,000,000 of peoples, there are at least 170,000,000 who cannot read a single verse of the Bible for their own improvement; or that out of 30,000,000 of children, not one three-hundredth (not more than 80,000) are under Christian instruction; this picture, dark and appalling as it is, presents but an imperfect prospect of the difficulties before us. For it is further to be taken into account that these million multitudes constitute in reality many nations, speaking many languages, different from each other, and difficult to be acquired by our educators and missionaries. No less than fourteen principal vernacular tongues, with numerous dialects or modifications, are in use in India. And to these are to be added the unspoken Arabic and Sanskrit, which if not absolutely essential to all, are, however, of primary importance, as being not only the roots and keys to all the rest, but the languages of their sacred books and literature. How far a competent knowledge of vernacular tongues may be attained, sufficient for use without these roots and keys, we need not inquire. A person ignorant of Latin may no doubt land in Italy, Spain, or France, and learn how to speak, and even to preach in public; but it is obvious that, coming in contact with learned priests and literary persons who have a false religion and philosophy to uphold, he would feel himself at a loss without some learning beyond his acquaintance with the vernaculars there. Even this, however, is a case not at all parallel with that of a person ignorant of Sanskrit, coming in contact with learned Brahmins, or dealing with peoples who revere their learning. The Vedas, their sacred books, contain a mass of theology and philosophy on which they pride themselves, and to which the thorough knowledge of the Sanskrit tongue is the only key. Without this it is only groping in the dark; nor will an ordinary grammar and dictionary superficial knowledge, suffice even for practical purposes, as we believe is too commonly supposed. A striking illustration of this point has met our eye in the preface to a recently published work of Professor Ballantyne, with reference to a desired translation of the Bible in Sanskrit. He says: "The writer is very far indeed from ignoring the Sanskrit version of the Baptist missionaries; but his own investigations have shown him that this version, valuable as in many respects it is, was made at a time when Sanskrit literature had not been sufficiently examined to make a correct version possible. The mere mastery of the grammar and dictionary does not give one the command of a language. As well might it be expected that the study of a mineralogical cabinet should make a geologist. Words as well as rocks, to be rightly comprehended, must be studied in situ. A single example of our meaning will suffice, and we need go no further for it than the first verse of the first chapter of the book of Genesis, in the Sanskrit version of the Baptist missionaries. The Hindu is there told that, in the beginning, God created (HUN) ākās'a and (¶¶¶1) prithivi.

(आकश

(पृथिवी

Now, in the dictionary, ākās a will, no doubt, be found opposite the word 'heaven,' and prithivi opposite the word 'earth,' but if the books of the Nyaya philosophy be looked into, it will be found that akas'a is to be regarded as one of the five elements (the five hypothetical substrata of the five diverse qualities cognised by the five senses severally), and that prithiri is another of the five. Consequently, when the next verse proceeds to speak of the waters -a third one among the five-the learned Hindu reader is staggered by the doubt whether it is to be understood that the waters were uncreated, or whether the sacred penman had made an oversight. A Pandit once propounded this dilemma, in great. triumph, to myself; and he was much surprised at finding that the perplexity could be cleared up. But it is obvious what powers of mischief we may place in the hands of unscrupulous opponents by leaving our versions of Scripture thus needlessly open

to cavil."

In quoting this opinion of Professor Ballantyne, we do not wish by any means to onvey that we agree with all his views; and in a subsequent number we may probably

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION FOR INDIA.

examine his book at large. As to the Baptist Sanskrit version, we have been informed that it has been revised several times, and is generally a very valuable one. We have not been able to ascertain whether or not the two words (ākās'a and prithivi) remain in the most recent version or not; and even if they do, it is possible that no better words may be available to express the popular notion of heaven and earth, though they do not correctly convey the philosophic notion. But the foregoing observations may perhaps throw light on a point of which we made mention in an article in our October number as stated by some missionaries-viz., that peculiar words in the Book of Genesis in Bengali are unintelligible to the village teachers themselves as well as to their hearers; and that some missionaries give an oral paraphrase, or analysis, instead of reading the text. Wheresoever the obscurity lies, we at all events sce, that not merely translators, critics, and literary men, but missionary teachers and preachers also, need a solid acquaintance with the Sanskrit tongue, and with the sacred books themselves which are in that tongue. It is known that, whatever respect may be paid to their other ancient Sanskrit literature, the Vedas alone are esteemed inspired or revelation (Sruti); and as Suttee is not mentioned in them, advantage was taken of the omission in the putting down of Suttee. Also, caste not being mentioned in the Vedas, but only in the laws of Manu, not considered to be revelation, but tradition (Smriti), an argument is thus afforded, both against the obligation of caste and the authority of Manu. These well-known instances illustrate the point in hand; and it is also obvious that in dealing with Mussulman populations, a knowledge of the Arabic language, and of the Koran itself, is similarly useful, not to say essential, to instructors and missionaries.

Considering, then, this uninstructed condition of nearly two hundred millions of population, placed in relations to England of such vast importance; considering the temporal welfare and eternal interests of these poor races; considering the missionary exertions which for so long time past have been directed towards them, if not, under the circumstances, with discouraging results, at all events with but imperfect success; and considering the amount of labour requisite, and of difficulty to be overcome, to which we have alluded above; is it not surprising that, even to this day, so insignificant are the measures adopted, and so slight the attention paid in England to these subjects of Oriental language, philosophy, and literature? Nor have the stirring appeals and elaborate arguments, even of such men as Max Müller, Nassau Lees, and Monier Williams, produced any very sensible or adequate results in these respects. For some time past, Germany has been cultivating this Oriental field with characteristic industry, perseverance, and success: induced apparently by a passion for linguistic and scientific pursuits-for their own sake. And Russia, with more coldly material views, according to her nature, has been evincing and exercising no little foresight and energy in this department. Especially since the war of 1854-5, has she been concentrating and organising her efforts, having established at St. Petersburg an Oriental faculty, with chairs for no less than twelve Oriental languages. And she has placed in these chairs not merely European, but also native Asiatic professors of high qualifications and renown. Is there to be found any one who will hardily assert that these preparations of Russia are objectless? or that they will be without fruit? or that they bode nothing ominous towards England in the end? Nor is it Russia alone, but almost every other Power in Europe that does more in this field than England, though of all the Powers she has the greatest interest at stake herself, and has the greatest charge and privilege of evangelisation committed to her trust. We have seen it stated in trustworthy publications, that even Sardinia and Denmark exhibit respectable qualifications (compared with England), in her schools and employés; and that documents in some Oriental tongue (Circassian) have been sent by England to St. Petersburg to be there for us deciphered-or left unrcad! And one learned authority has asserted, that as a general rule even our missionaries

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION FOR INDIA.

in India are "so ignorant of the native languages, as to be unable to communicate with any degree of fluency with those whom they term the heathen; and that from the same cause their translations of religious tracts are too often unintelligible-nay, sometimes even blasphemous!" Now, without conceding the whole of this strong statement, it is evident that it is not void of foundation. And we have recently seen letters from religious men, themselves in India, deploring the defective linguistic qualifications of many missionaries, and the natural tendency, manifesting itself in consequence, to a disinclination for colloquial intercourse with the natives generally.

Whatever, then, may be the designs of Russia, or the shortcomings, past and future, of British rule, the time seems come for a new and adequate effort by Christian men. The happiness of millions, the welfare of immortal souls, and the glory of the Redeemer, call for enlightened attention, and vigorous effort, in relation to this vast and momentous duty devolved upon the Church of God. In every department of intellectual, material, or social activity, we are developing fresh instrumentalities and exhaustless resources. How is it that we seem to stick so fast in the Slough of Despond, in the matter of the Oriental languages? Railways, Great Easterns, telegraphs, rifled cannons, steel-clad ships of war, geology, everything, whether for commercial, or destructive, or scientific purposes, can command millions of money and the best intellectual faculties in the market; but not all our Oriental interests; not the valuable literary and philological results which enamour the scholars of Germany; not the substantial rewards which attract and direct the policy of Russia; not the cry of hundreds of millions of souls, and the glory of successful soldiership for Christ, seem able to attract attention or excite exertion in the just proportion of the magnitude of the object before us. One eminent professor speaks of "the general neglect of almost every branch of Oriental study in England," as a matter of course, and beyond dispute; and points to France, Germany, Holland, and even Norway, as better off. Another learned authority traces the Sepoy revolt to the English ignorance of Indian vernaculars. A third says: A third says: "The popular prejudices of the Hindus, their daily observances, their occupations, their amusements, their domestic and social relations, their local legends, their traditions, their fables, their religious worship, all spring from and are perpetuated by the Sanskrit language. To know a people, these things must be known. Without such knowledge, revenue may be raised, justice may be administered, but no influence with the people will be enjoyed, no claim to their confidence will be established, no affection will be either felt or inspired." In fact, all opinions of all qualified men distinctly prove that not merely for literary researches, but for practical intercourse, and evangelising proceedings, a knowledge of Arabic and Sanskrit is most important, in order to be able effectively to deal with the Indian millions through their own vernaculars. Professor Ballantyne says: "As regards our educational proceedings, the importance of native learning in India is not to be measured by the value, real or supposed, of the amount of information contained in the Arabic and in the Sanskrit. The disparagers of the one or the other literature will scarcely be found among those who really possess any knowledge of either. The best judges have long ere this decided that the Arabic and the Sanskrit languages are noble, disciplinal studies; and that they are fountain-languages, from which the ver naculars can be indefinitely supplied with fresh forces. But in order that the fresh additions may become naturalised, it is indispensable, first, that the additions should be made by persons thoroughly qualified to make them rightly; and, secondly, that the learners should have access to complete information respecting the reasons why such particular addition was made exactly as it was."

We doubt not that the Christian Vernacular Society for India, to which, in our October number, we made reference, will take these remarks into their consideration. When the American missionaries began their work of evangelisation amongst the