Here I humbly submit that the author has given up his cause. If the apology now presented would avail for a Baptist, why not for a Moravian, a Presbyterian, an Independent, or a Methodist? On what grounds of Christian justice or forbearance is a Baptist to be entitled to a plea which shall be valid in his case, but irrelevant in every other? Why this vast charity and gentleness in reference to one party, and the language of severity to others? If in reference to them it is admitted, that were such a tone of moderation and simplicity adopted, "diversity of opinion and practice would cease to be a great evil," then I contend it must be no less applicable to others. I will go farther; the "moderation and simplicity" exist-they are the spirit and principle, so far as I can judge, of all the existing societies for the propagation of the gospel, with the exception of certain institutions, which, though it may be offensive to the author of the "New Model," he must be told, belong, exclusively, to the order under which he would wish us all henceforth to rank. [I shall not be supposed to refer to the Church Missionary Society.] I believe the moderation and simplicity referred to, belong to the workmen abroad as well as to the workmen at home. For what then is the author contending ?-The veriest shadow of a shade.

On one point more I must remark-the representation of the fundamental principle of the London Missionary Society. After stating that

principle correctly, and referring to the practice of the society, which he supposes sends out only Independents, which is not altogether the case; and even in the extent to which it does, it acts from necessity, not from choice; he says,—

"It is not then true, either that the London Missionary Society sends abroad no form of Christianity, or that it sends indiscriminately and at random, this form and that. The practice of the society must be deemed the best interpreter of its professed principle; and this principle we are compelled to understand as meaning simply that forms and modes are, in the esteem of the society, things of very inferior importance; and that if it can but diffuse the blessings of the gospel, it cares not at all, or cares little, whether the Christianity it propagates assume the garb of Presbyterianism, of Independency, or of Episcopacy." pp. 117, 118.

The fundamental principle of the society is not intended to convey any such idea of the regardlessness of the parties composing it of forms and modes. It is intended to secure and guarantee the right of private judgment to all who belong to it, both at home and abroad. Its object is to secure co-operation, without compromise the most enlarged and united liberality, without sacrifice of principle. It has gained its object; and its principle is as inviolate at this moment as it was at the beginning. The author asks,—

"Has not the society always invited favor and aid from serious persons of all denominations, on the broad and no doubt sincere profession, that its object is much larger than sectarianism of any sort ? Has it not, in order to win universal concurrence, formally and solemnly re.

nounced the exclusive and sinister designs of party? Has it not virtually given to the world a pledge that nothing should be done under its auspices which might fairly shock the peculiar opinions of any who profess the same great doctrine of salvation?" p. 118.

I answer, Yes, it has done all this, truly and sincerely; and I trust the day is far distant when it shall cease to act in this manner, and to place before the world its noble and catholic principle. The author goes on

"The London Missionary Society has always, and with marked respect, and even solicitude, invited aid from the clergy and lay members of the Established Church; and in so doing has tacitly acknowledged that there exists no such difference of opinion or practice between itself and them, as must imply a forfeiture of consistency on their part in bestowing upon it their good wishes, their prayers, their eloquence, and their money. In other words, the London Missionary Society, as a body, seeks and desires to accomplish nothing among the heathen which a consistent churchman may not approve of and promote.

"This is assuredly a truly catholic profession, and it were extremely uncandid to insinuate that there lurks under it any sinister purpose of sectarianism; or that it is not founded upon a perfect mutuality of feeling; or that there exists any reluctance to follow the Fundamental Principle' wherever it may lead. We are, I say, forbidden to suppose that the society would, for a moment, hesitate to throw the whole amount of its means into the chest of the Church of England-if once convinced that, in so doing, it would more effectually than in any other mode, promote the one and only object it has in viewthe spread of the gospel abroad." pp. 119, 120.

The society does not, nor ever has done any thing in its corporate capacity which any Christian may not approve and promote. No sinister

purpose of sectarianism lurks under its catholic profession; nor is there any reluctance to follow the fundamental principle, wherever it may lead. For that very reason, the society never can throw its means into the chest of the Church of England. It would then cease to be a catholic, and become a sectarian society; its fundamental principle being violated, the society would be dissolved; faith would be broken with its Missionaries, and with all who have intrusted their property to its management.

We live in an age of enterprize and discovery; schemes and projects of all sorts are continually obtruding themselves on public attention, and are advocated with various ability and zeal. "The March of Intellect " we cannot expect should confine its movements to the arts and sciences; we may expect to find it in religion, and in religious projects also. It is impossible to hear daily of steam-ships for traversing the seas, of steam-carriages for wheeling along the roads, with a velocity which is to leave the wind behind; of power-looms by which a few manufactories may supply the world with cloth; and of gas-works which furnish, by distillation, a metropolis with ten thousand lights, without congratulating ourselves that we live in such an age. The influence of such circumstances on our religious opinions and reasonings, is likely to be considerable. It sets ingenuity and ima

gination to work.

We become tired of what is

old; it is heavy, lumbering, unsatisfactory;

things must be done on new principles and on a different scale. Hence new systems of doctrine -new speculations in prophecy-new schemes of government, civil and ecclesiastical. Hence, among other things, MISSIONARY REFORM. By all means let us reform; but let it be on scriptural principles, and well-ascertained experiments. It is not long since Mr. Irving proposed that every man should be his own society, and his own Missionary. He has only to take up his scrip and his staff, and proceed, and the work of missionary societies is done. A little while ago a work from the Serampore press, (by Dr. Marshman, I believe,) recommends that every church, or even smaller association, should send out its own Missionary; and this is pressed by a variety of plausible considerations, enforced by the character and experience of the author. Either of these schemes would reduce all our societies at once to broken, unconnected, and inefficient fragments. Yet each is supposed to be the only effectual method of propagating the gospel all over the world. By the author of the "New Model," we are assured that units are nothing, that unconnected societies, however powerful, labor under fundamental errors, and that unless we dissolve, and re-unite in a grand episcopal confederacy, our efforts will be vain and fruitless.

There is a portion of truth mixed up with a considerable quantity of error in all these speculations, Individuals ought to do more than is