(

specious maxim, however, must not be pushed too far, it would otherwise supersede all the particular claims of individual friendship, all special affection between parents and children, man and wife, not less than the peculiar relations existing between the members of any society, or even towards our native country, in preference to that of foreigners. It is therefore manifest that the arguments in behalf of the modish system in question is greatly overstrained; that it is practised by few or none but Catholics against their own body is another feature of its real deformity, for where shall we find, even among the higher ranks of Protestant liberality, persons giving a decided preference to Catholic servants, Catholic tenants, Catholic agents and stewards in the absence of all superior merit, unless, perhaps, to favour the recommendation of some particular friend? But in this case the Protestant gentleman has not to reproach himself, that by so doing he has exposed his neighbour to the terrible inconvenience and necessity of placing himself for his subsistence in a situation where both himself and family, if he have any, must be destitute of religious instruction, left almost without the possibility of attending at the solemn duties of public worship, and in the greater danger of gradually neglecting all religion whatever. These are evils which a poor Catholic, at the distance, perhaps, of six or eight miles from any chapel, to which the roads are frequently of the worst description, has not unseldom to complain of, in consequence of the above uncharitable scheme. Placed as he is, by the iniquity of the laws, out of the reach of constitutional emolument, it is hard he should be subjected to further exclusion, by the partiality, or the littleness, or the vanity, of the more fortune-favoured members of his own communion. It is scandalous, that the very thing which ought to recommend him powerfully to their notice, should act as a check to every prospect of advancement, even among his own brethren! But so it is, Mr. Editor, and I see no remedy but from hints of this nature, through the medium of the Catholic Miscellany, and the good example of the more pious, and the more reflecting part of our aristocracy. The mansions of the higher ranks of our communion ought, in fact, to be in some measure the nurseries of our divine religion, and their proprietors, if they would wish to do their duty as Christians, must remember what

L

St. Paul requires at their hands, when he says, "if any one have not care of those of his household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than the infidel.” But the safest and most easy way to avoid so dreadful an alternative, evidently must be to choose those for domestics and their clients, who are members of the true religion, and of course are more susceptible of admonition and instruction than those who are sworn enemies to our principles, and highly prejudiced against our religious tenets. Besides, what a satisfaction must it not be to one who loves his religion, to see his domestic chapel diligently attended with a decent and orderly tenantry, and with a respectable train of menial servants, remarkable for their pious demeanour. This is a satisfaction which every Catholic gentleman of property in the country may easily procure himself, and which, if he neglects to do, he evidently incurs the sentence denounced by the apostle. Others, better qualified, will, I hope, from time to time, handle the important subject, and expose the futility of the grounds of defence, which some will not fail to conjure up in favour of this ungenerous and absurd, and, in my ideas, very unchristian practice. I am not positive that it has not been already canvassed in your Catholic Miscellany, but until the grievance is redressed, the oftener the better.

OBSTACLES TO THE SUCCESS OF MISSIONS.

HAVING enumerated the means which Protestants consider likely to promote the success of their missions, I shall now proceed to point out what I, as a Catholic, consider great if not insuperable obstacles.

To begin with the first impediment, viz. Variety in Doctrine. I should have no right to reproach the different societies with this difference, but that I find they all adopt the principle that

variety in religion is good-they agree to co-operate togetherthey second each others views, and rejoice in each others success. Now see the consequences of this. Let us suppose the Church missionary teaches the poor Indian, that he cannot be saved without a belief in the holy Trinity, and being baptized in this sacred name. He then falls into the hands of an Unitarian, who tells him that the Trinity is all a fable, and he must look for salvation in very different means. They both demonstrate the rectitude of their own opinions at least in their own ideas, and from the very same book of scripture, which they both tell you at the same time is quite clear, and easy to be understood by the meanest capacity. In this distress, what shall the poor infidel do? That he shall believe both is impossible. That he shall believe either is not very probable. If he be a sensible man, and the Indians do not want acuteness, he will say to the missionaries, "Go back, ye teachers of falsehood; first reconcile your own contradictions, and then come and teach us; for among all our superstitions, we have no such contradictions as these to believe." This is only one instance; innumerable others might be proposed. To present such a picture of christianity, what is it, but to expose religion to contempt, and make themselves a derision to the gentiles.

2. Want of fixed doctrine. By this title I mean that unintelligible, undefinable, nondescript thing, which they call Christianity. I declare I have read hundreds of pages to find out what are the doctrines which they teach, and I have yet approached no nearer the object of my search. I cannot find that even the Church missionary takes along with him the 39 articles, or any other positive doctrine. What then do they go for? They tell you, "to carry the glorious gospel to the heathen, and salvation through Christ.". But what is this glorious gospel, and what does it teach? In their mouths, it is a word without a precise meaning. It is an enigma, which no sphinx can unravel. It teaches any thing or nothing, as each one pleases. And how must we expect salvation? From Christ, as God, who gives it? or as man, who teaches us how to obtain it? The Churchman, says the former, the Moravian the latter, while the Methodist assures both, the spirit saves us by con

vincing us of sin. Thus is the glorious gospel made with them, "Vox, vox et prætera nihil."

3. Improper missionaries. According to human calculations the success of converting heathens, depends more upon the persons sent for that purpose, than upon any thing else. Now who and what are the persons employed for this purpose? You shall learn from the speech of Charles Marsh, Esq. spoken in the house of Commons, July 1, 1813, "Are these missionaries," says he, "whom this bill is to let loose upon India, fit engines to accomplish such a revolution? With what weapons shall they descend into the contest with the acute intelligent Hindoo, prepared to defend his religion by reasonings drawn from the resources of a keen and enlightened casuistry, and wielded with all the vigour of a sharp and exercised intellect. Will these people, crawling from the holes and caverns of their original destination apostates from the loom and anvil-and renegadoes from the lowest handicraft employments, be a match for the cool and sedate controversies they will have to encounter, should the Bramins condescend to enter into the arena against the maimed and crippled gladiators, that presume to grapple with their faith? What can be apprehended but the disgrace and discomfiture of whole hosts of tub-preachers in the conflict? and will this bring us one inch nearer to our object? In whatever light I view this question, the impracticability of converting India by such means, looks me in the face."

"But making some allowance for the declamation of eloquence, or the warmth of feeling in one, who had been upon the spot, and witnessed the reality, it must still be allowed that there is too much truth in this description. Whoever has read the accounts, which have been published in the Missionary reports, must have observed in the men whom the society has sent out, a great want of education. So true is this with regard to the greater part of them, that a regularly educated clergyman of the church of England would be ashamed to associate with them in this country, or introduce them as part of his hierarchy. I know very well that virtue does not depend on education -but surely the dignified church of England does not approve of the intrusion of such creatures as these into the sacred ministry; much less choose them as the fittest men to convert heathen

nations to christianity. Either send men of known character, of tried virtue, prepared by much study, and inured to selfdenial, or abandon the project altogether, for none but such will ever convert infidels. With regard to the missionaries themselves, they seem to think that a nauseous, whining, methodistic cant will supply for every other qualification, natural or acquired. It has hitherto been the praise of the estab lished church, in opposition to her numerous sectaries, to have adopted on public occasions the language of education and common sense so natural to Englishmen. What man, then, of education, will not be sickened at reading the following expressions used by men who call themselves her missionaries.→ "Many are stirred up to ask the way to Zion, with their faces thitherwards." "I desire to raise an Ebenezer in grateful acknowledgments to the Lord." 103. with opening doors of usefulness." 123. small things abundantly prosper." 133. religion of Christ are his living epistles among the heathen." 181. It would be tiresome to continue extracts of similar trash, which abound in all the reports.

To encourage them "May the day of "Proselytes to the

4. Lutheranism. Another circumstance, which ought to astonish us, is, that so many of these missionaries are foreigners, mostly Germans and Lutherans. How is this to be accounted for? Is it, that there is no missionary zeal among Englishmen ? or that they are willing to contribute their money, but not their personal exertions abroad?-Or is it, that there is not sufficient encouragement held out to allure Englishmen ; while the Dutchman, whose relish for the good things of England is proverbial, is ready enough to seize any proposal in preference to starvation -and to be transported to any part of the world in the character of missionaries, or in any other character, provided they receive regular pittances to support their hungry wives and children? What will an Englishman say, when he reads among the rest the following names of missionaries, for whose support he so liberally subscribes his money? Jetteer, Deer, Nylan der, Steinkopf, Schwartz, Ringletaub, Schonane, Decker, &c.

All these references are to the pages of the 20th Report of the Church Mission Society, except where otherwise mentioned,