ON THE PROPOSED CHARTER FOR THE BAPTIST MISSIONARY SOCIETY.

To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. DEAR SIR, The Magazine for the present month contains the report of a subcommittee respecting the propriety of seeking from the crown a charter of incorporation for the Baptist Missionary Society. Will you kindly spare room in your number for March for a few lines on this grave subject?

It may be needful to inform your readers that this question of the charter has been before the Committee of the Baptist Missionary Society for some time. That after much discussion, and listening to counsel's opinion upon it, it was condemned, upwards of six months ago, by the all but unanimous voice of a quarterly committee. That the question was revived at a weekly sitting of the committee, and having been re-opened was again discussed at the last quarterly assembly. That had the vote been taken on the question, charter or no charter, it would, from all appearance, have been negatived. That a small majority only was in favour of publishing the report which is now before the constituency. The committee, it will be seen, is much divided in this matter.

I have confidence that the discussion on both sides will be untainted by a party or a factious spirit, and that it will be conducted in the temper of earnest interest in the welfare of the society, and with a holy jealousy to maintain, in all their purity, the principles, aims, and spirit, which sanctified its origin.

The intention for which the Baptist Missionary Society was instituted, was not the acquisition and the holding of property, but the diffusion of the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The possession of property is an accident which attends it in its course, not an end in connexion with its institution. To charter the society merely to enable it to compass the more easily what is purely incidental to it, and which may drop off from it any year in its progress, seems to me to be at variance with a truly wise and sound policy. If it be said that whatever facilitates the carrying out any incidental advantage must be subservient to the main object the society has in view, it has to be shown that the possession of property is advantageous to the society. So far from this, it has hitherto proved an evil rather than a good, a fruitful source of anxiety and of discord. Why then seek the power of effecting more readily, and attaching more

closely, acquisitions which are embarrassing rather than beneficial. Far better that the churches which are formed at the several stations should be encouraged to take local property under their own control as soon as practicable, than that the society should be bowed down beneath the ponderous load. But a charter of incorporation will prove a temptation to the accumulation and retention of property, rather than supply a motive for transferring it, since a society with the right of holding property under a special act of grace, without property to hold, would make an approach to the ridiculous.

Suppose a charter to be obtained, it is by no means certain (but there are strong reasons for arriving at an opposite conclusion), that it would be of universal application. The regulations of local governments in many parts of the world, and even within the British dominions, would neutralize the privilege granted by the crown of England. So that the proposed advantage, such as it is, would be restricted, and within how comparatively narrow limits, as the society extends, nobody can divine. It might happen, moreover, that many reasons might combine to render it wise in the society to break new ground, to carry the truth to some hitherto unvisited people. But it is found out that though the agents of the society may enter the contemplated territory as missionaries of the cross, the society cannot do so as a corporate body. The gospel may make its way, but the charter cannot follow. Might not this introduce into the deliberations of the society, on the highest affairs, a merely secular element? Might it not weaken the inducement to enter on a field of labour, which might otherwise have been chosen and cultivated? It might be felt to be desirable, in the first place, to save souls; but when the society wears the dignity of a royal incorporation, it might be deemed expedient to attempt to do so by preference, where it can, in the exercise of its high prerogative, hold property too!

We are told that the society will save money by a charter of incorporation. The expenses under the present system, which are incurred in the renewal of trust-deeds, are computed at a hundred pounds a year. How far it might be possible to lessen this sum we are not informed. But admitting this figure, the cost of obtaining a charter, it is said, will be about six hundred pounds; these matters connected with law are always understated. I believe that, including the outlay occasioned by consulting counsel and in other

ways, it would be safer to reckon on, at least, a thousand pounds; an amount which would be equal to the alleged annual cost, under the existing plan, for ten years to come. Would it be wise to incur this outlay when before the ten years have expired, the society might deem it right to change its policy, with relation to the subject of property, altogether? Besides, if it be “clearly natural and just," as we are informed, "that the parties for whose particular use the property is conveyed to trustees should bear the expenses of renewing documents so indispensable to them," why is the society to be saddled for ever with them? Has it no power to compel these parties to take upon themselves a burden, or at least a part of it, which "is clearly so natural and just ?" To seek a royal charter of incorporation to enable the society to do for itself with a little more ease that which others ought to do in its stead, seems very odd! Indeed, it appears to me, I must confess, to be splendid trifling. It is further to be borne in mind, that the charter, if obtained, would not release the society from all legal expenses connected with the holding and the loosing of property, but only from those which are involved in creating and renewing trust-deeds.

The opinion of counsel has been sought. In all legal points it seems that opinion is "entirely satisfactory;" in other than legal respects, and by far the most important ones, that opinion is unfavourable to the project. The decision of "an eminent counsel remains, in these respects, in full force, notwithstanding the strange attempt of the sub-committee to overrule it.

Should the charter of incorporation be obtained, the freedom of the Baptist Missionary Society would be destroyed. Take an illustration. The society, as at present constituted, has for its object the diffusion of the knowledge of Jesus Christ throughout the whole world, beyond the British isles. It might be deemed desirable, both on financial and on incomparably higher ground, to include Ireland (to say nothing of more radical changes) within the range of the society's operations, to merge the Irish in the Foreign mission. But this could not be done without the permission of the queen, or making way through the tortuosities of courts of law! This objection has been met by the very sage reply, that it would be easy, before asking for the charter, to accommodate the definition of the society to meet the supposed case; as though this touched the principle on which the objection rests. Whatever may be the designation, constitution, or aim, of the society, it must be left unfettered and independent, and capable of any modification which experience or circumstances might suggest. To take any course which might supersede the practicability of effecting any such change, would be to place it in ignoble

bondage, and to mark with the brand of slavery all who might continue to support it. If no other objection lay against the incorporation of the society, this, with me, would be insuperable. Do not let us sell our birthright for a mess of pottage.

The application for a charter would be derogatory to the position of the Baptist Missionary Society as a religious institution. An attempt has been made to break the force of this objection, by the extraordinary position, that the government would regard the society simply as a public charity. I reply, if it be a "public charity," let it by all means appear before the a thorities, whose favour it seeks, in its proper character; but if it be a religious society, having a high and sacred mission derived from the Great Head of the church, to fulfil, let it pause before it degrade itself in the presence of statesmen and politicians by receiving a boon in one capacity, when in fact it sustains another.

In this matter we are in danger of compromising ourselves as dissenters. Regarding the Baptist Missionary Society as a religious society, set up specifically and exclusively for religious purposes, we cannot, as nonconformists, ask for it the patronage of the crown or the favour of parliament, without detriment and dishonour. The report of the sub-committee, not satisfied with assuming a dignified superiority to “an eminent counsel," politely intimates that the "objectors," poor things! to the charter," do not seem to know that not only municipal bodies, but banking companies, insurance companies, railway companies, water companies, are all corporations, together with many scientific, charitable, and religious, institutions." The objectors, no doubt, are deeply obliged for this piece of recondite information, but what it has to do with the argument in question may not be quite so clear to them. If there be nothing peculiar to a missionary society by which it is distinguished from the cork-cutters' society, the royal victuallers' society, the worshipful the tailors' society, why then there may be some propriety in the position assumed; but if these societies are totally dissimilar, having nothing in common, the argument from the one to the other will not hold. The distinction between these societies is that those referred to in illustration are, to all intents and purposes, secular, civil institutions, that the one in question, the Baptist Missionary Society, is, to all intents and purposes, a sacred religious society; and it is just because it is a religious and not a secular society, that it would be a departure from our principles as nonconformists to seek its incorporation. May not a little attention to this very obvious distinction serve in some degree to relieve the sub-committee from its very painful embarrassment. "Why," says the report, "the Baptist Missionary Society should be ashamed of oc

cupying the same civil status as such bodies, the sub-committee have yet to be informed." But it seems that "religious associations" are "corporations," as well as others. Just so, but these are such as the society for the "Promotion of Christian Knowledge," the supporters of which are friendly to state patronage in ecclesiastical affairs. Though there might be no inconsistency in the friends of such societies seeking royal incorporations, does it follow that conscientious dissenters can do so with impunity? How far the government, whom we have been told will look upon the society as a "public charity," may feel the force of the argument founded on the analogy between the Baptist Missionary Society" and the "water companies," it may, perhaps, be difficult to say.

"No reason appears to the sub-committee, however, why a body in the strictest sense religious, that is ecclesiastical, should be scandalized at the thought of accepting from the crown a charter of incorporation." Perhaps the sub-committee will allow me to suggest a reason or two why such a body should not commit itself to such a course. "A body in the strictest sense religious," cannot consistently, in its capacity as such, recognise the existence of the crown. The members which compose that body may, as subjects and as civilians, cherish the utmost loyalty and render the most scrupulous obedience to the first authority in the state, but as the followers of Christ, "as a body in the strictest sense religious," they know of no such power. They may derive from the spirit and from the precepts of their religion motives wherefore they should render every legitimate honour to the "powers that be;' but they are prohibited by the principles of the religion they profess from taking cognizance of those powers in their deliberations and councils as members of the body of Christ. Besides, if it be a secular and civil advantage which is sought, no reason can be adduced, founded on the fact that the party seeking it is a "body in the strictest sense religious," without the most wretched compromise, wherefore the favour should be conferred, since other bodies have an equal claim on the consideration of the state. The Mormonite, the socialist, the worshippers of Juggernaut, have as much right to a royal charter of incorporation, if it be a purely civil privilege, as the Baptist Missionary Society can have; but is that society prepared, as a "body in the strictest sense religious," to appear at the foot of the throne to ask a boon in furtherance of its high and holy designs, in such company, without feeling itself "scandalized ?" A further reason rests on the very tangible ground of profit and loss. The benefit which it is alleged will flow from the proposed incorporation is a saving of money and of trouble, the loss which will be sustained, according to the sub-committee, is, that of

The

freedom of action, for "it is no doubt true," says the report, "that the movements of an incorporate society cannot be absolutely unfettered; a certain measure of restriction, or rather of permanence, on the one hand, is the necessary and just correlative of acquired rights and standing on the other." difference in the quality and the worth of the thing saved and the thing lost, is a material element in the argument. What saving of money and of trouble would a right-thinking man deem an equivalent for the surrender of ever so small a portion of that liberty which is at once the birthright and the trust of a "body in the strictest sense religious?" There really is every reason why we should not give away our "bread" and take a "stone." But if no objections based on great principles existed, why a body, as defined in the report, should not solicit the proposed charter, it by no means follows that it would be wise in it so to do. Were it lawful, it might nevertheless be highly inexpedient. Give all the force to the position assumed by the sub-committee which the ingenuity of the report may deserve, the incorporation of the society will still be regarded by thousands, and as I think justly, as at least a partial surrender of principle, as a leaning in a wrong direction, as an unhealthy indication; and these are not the days in which the slightest pretext should be given to such suspicions; it is rather incumbent on us, in fidelity to our Great Master and to the times which are passing by us, to place the principles of nonconformity and of Christian liberty, by all our proceedings, in bold and unmistakeable relief.

"The sovereign in such an act," says the report," that is, in granting a charter of incorporation, is the representative not so much of the state as of the law; and that which is received from the sovereign is neither personal nor official favour, but a modified and more equitable position in relation to the law.” I suppose this sentence is intended to confirm the doctrine previously laid down, that a

body in the strictest sense religious" ought not to regard itself as "scandalized" in accepting a charter of incorporation from the crown. Are we to infer from this, that in the opinion of the sub-committee, such a "body would be "scandalized," were they to receive a charter from the "sovereign," supposing her in granting it to represent the "state rather than the "law?" if not, what does the sentence mean? What is gained to the argument by divesting in this case the sovereign of her high and peculiar prerogative, and in robing her in legislative functions? But this is a perfectly gratuitous assumption, nor is it the only one which disfigures the report. Had the sub-committee designed to collect the greatest possible number of sophisms in the least possible space, they could scarcely have been more successful. In confutation of the assertion, that that which is "received from