expressing my readiness to see you at any moment you might please, for the purpose of conversing with you on the subject.

3. You were good enough to call upon me accordingly; and I flattered myself I had satisfied you, that the sentence was merely of the nature of a caution addressed by a Bishop to his reverend brethren, grounded on his own past and long observation of the whole field of Missionary exertion, in all the Protestant Societies of every part of Europe, and having a view to the highest qualifications which belong to that highest of all earthly callings, in the most difficult of all circumstances.

4. I am persuaded that this private conversation will still be considered by you as satisfactory. Should it, however, prove otherwise, I must beg leave to decline any farther intercourse upon that subject. The Charges are before the world. My own fallible judgment is open to every remark, and every animadversion, which other minds may suggest. I believe it is not usual to drag into minute verbal conflict the paternal advice offered by a Bishop to his own flock. But this I must leave. I have already gone further than, perhaps, was strictly becoming in me. But I have done it for the sake of peace. I decline correcting the précis of the conversation which you have sent: indeed I have not read that précis-the conversation was in my view so entirely private, and was so readily capable of being communicated to the very few individual Missionaries in whose name you addressed me residing in Calcutta, as to render any formal reduction of it to writing unnecessary. I take the liberty of returning you the transcript, and begging your forgiveness for the numerous faults in these hurried lines,

I subscribe myself, Rev. Sirs,

Your most obdt, humble servant,
(Signed) DANIEL CALCUTTA.

As the injurious paragraphs in the charge had received an extensive publicity, it was deemed advisable that the explanation which had been given by Bishop Wilson should receive, as far as possible, an equal circulation. This was done nearly, if not entirely in his own words, in a paper in the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER for May, and we appeal to every unprejudiced mind whether that paper contained one offensive epithet, or unchristian sentiment. Would that we could say as much for the language and sentiments of the Reviewer! He did not form this estimate of it. He comes to the warfare in the true spirit of knight errantry, determined to find fault and battle with the man that has offended his friend. In this spirit he accuses the correspondent of the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER of envy, malice and uncharitableness-and why? Let us hear the reasons.

Because the charge was delivered to the Missionaries of the Church of England, and intended for their private admonition and advice. We are ready to admit that this is the character of the substance of the charge. We have our private opinions on some of the subjects mooted (independent of church polity), which do not quite accord with the Right Reverend Author's views, but feeling conscious that they were not addressed to us, we have not expressed our opinion upon them; and if the Bishop had confined himself to his own church entirely,

we should never have interfered with him in the exercise of those powers with which he is invested. But when we find him introducing other Missionaries, and referring to their general character, in a manner calculated to depreciate them in the estimation of the Christian public, we feel that not only we have a right, but that it is our imperative duty, to demand either a lucid explanation, or explicit denial of the charge. We did ask that explanation from Bishop Wilson, and amongst the several views rendered, that which was deemed the most satisfactory was adopted and published, and we have yet to be convinced that we have erred in the act.

This introduces us to another subject in the Review. We are told that the whole charge was private. We think we shall be able to set this matter at rest very briefly. We believe, and we gather our information from the title page, that it was delivered to a public body in an open audience. If this be deemed private, then, under the name of private admonition, may any person calling himself a public teacher despoil the character of any individual or body of men, and then turn round and say, “Oh, it was quite a private affair between some 2 or 300 of us." We may observe too, that it was printed and circulated by the author not only among his own clergy, but among ministers of other communions, the heads of the Government and Civilians. Was this private? Besides, the Bishop himself declares that it is" before the world," and we are informed, by public advertisements, that it can be purchased for two rupees at Madras and at Calcutta. Granting the Reviewer however the full force ofhis argument concerning the private nature of the charge, it put us in mind of that privacy which is couched in the mischievous language of gossip, "I have heard so and so of such a one, but don't tell it to any one else; be sure of that, do you hear." Such privacy in fact is the worst kind of publicity, inasmuch as it never reaches the injured parties till the evil has extended itself in quarters where they have probably no means of counteracting its influence. Thus much for the privacy!

The next subject to which reference is made, is a breach of confidence in the members of the deputation. It is said that they "have made public the substance of a private conversation, in a manner calculated to make the Bishop appear one of the most inconsistent of men. Now we ask the Reviewer, Did he ever hear of such a thing as a private deputation from a public body? This deputation went to ask, in the name of their brethren, for an explanation. Of course they communicated the result of their interview to the body deputing them, and that body, we think very properly, gave the same publicity to the explanation, which had been given to the charge. It is not the fault of the Mis

sionaries that the Bishop in a moment of haste penned a paragraph which could wound the feelings of one individual, or that could require such an explanation, as would tend to render his Lordship either ridiculous or inconsistent.

We are next introduced to a singular paragraph in which it is said, that the Bishop's is the broad unmeasured language of faithfulness, which was never intended to be analyzed and reduced to its apparent literal meaning. The latter part of the sentence we fully believe. We think, but we may be wrong, that there is something highly irreverent in the comparison instituted between the passage complained of, and the figurative language of the Bible. Is there no difference between a figure of a speech and a plain numerical statement-no difference between," It is more easy for a camel," &c. and " perhaps not one in twenty," &c.-no difference between the indisputable truth of the Bible, and this, which meets with the most unqualified denial at the very threshold of its existence ?

Next comes the passage, and we say with the Reviewer, Let us look it full in the face,-let us take it in its plain and simple meaning. We challenge to the proof; as it regards CalcuttaIndia, the world; and, until that proof is given, we dispute its accuracy. What would be the impression that an unprejudiced reader would receive on perusing this combination of words, even with the "PERHAPS" printed in capitals, and the Reviewer's meaning rendered to "multitudes," a meaning, certainly neither "literal' nor apparent.' Why, that a very large majority of Missionaries in India are more lovers of money than of God, more concerned for the welfare of their families than for the family of Christ. It has been said that the charge does not apply to India; but that it does apply to India, and India only, is evident from the expression," all that come out," meaning, of course, all that come from England to India. We are as willing to admit, as the Bishop, that many, too many, lose the ardor of their first love to the heathen, but we differ from him as to the causes. We ascribe it to a combination of depressing mental and physical circumstances, things which should have elicited sympathy rather than censure. When men have but little success to cheer their hearts, and inspire their friends, the only thing to which they can appeal, in connection with divine promises, is an unsullied character, and purity of motives; and when that character is attacked, it makes them as tenacious to vindicate their integrity, as the Reviewer appears to be to vindicate his friend.

We will now consider the various explanations which have been rendered. 1st. It is said it was intended for Church Missionaries only, and no others; but does it not explicitly refer to all * Christian Intelligencer, p. 259.

the Missionaries of all the Protestant Societies? 2nd. It is said, it was not intended for the Calcutta Missionaries, but that it applied to all the Missionaries in the world, and was founded upon long and practical experience. Does not this include the Calcutta Missionaries? 3rd. It does not apply to any living Missionary in the field*, and therefore does not apply to any Missionaries, except those who have left the field, and the dead. Now bear in mind the "not one in twenty;" and then we ask, Do the majority of men return to Europe? If not, how can it apply to them? Dead men of course tell no tales, and therefore our beloved brethren might lie under the stigma, if the condition of their families did not prove how confident they were that the God of Missions would not allow their seed to beg its bread or be forsaken. 4th. It is alleged, that the Bishop intended it in the highest sense of disinterestednesst. Now we regret that we may be charged again with having a "jaundiced eye," but we cannot find this subject even hinted at in the whole division in which the passage occurs. It is headed disinterested personal example. The sentiment is the necessity of its being manifested in a Christian Missionary's life. The illustration given is that of Swartz in his negociations with Hyder Ali. The close of the paragraph is the disputed passage, but not a word of the highest disinterestedness.

We shall notice only one more incongruity, which the Reviewer himself supplies. In the paper which appeared in the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER, the writer represents the Bishop as saying, "that the paragraph did not apply to them, or to any Missionary now in the field." This sentence the Reviewer calls, at page 262," an absurd and unintelligible withdrawal of the Bishop's sentiments; and yet, at p. 260, his own words are, "The Bishop assured the deputation that the passage was written and delivered without any intended personal reference to them or other Missionaries in the field. How shall we reconcile these explanations, and which of them are we to receive?

"We view it as a breach of courtesy," says the Reviewer, p. 262,"that any explanation was asked." This is only absurd. The charge of a breach of confidence is again repeated: we should pass over it in silence, having previously referred to it, were it not coupled on this occasion with the following assertion, "That the Bishop's private explanation was made public, against his express request and understanding." We say in answer to this, that if the deputation had been told at the commencement of the intercourse "this is private," they would have immediately withdrawn; this was not done, nor did the deputation give any pledge whatever; indeed, how could they?

* Ibid. p. 360. + Ibid. pp. 260 and 263.

We have then a singular paragraph; it states that the Bishop was willing to give as a private explanation what he would have refused to give as a public one; thus making his Lordship say, "I, as a Bishop, will privately tell you, that I did not mean so much as is implied; but I cannot say this publicly, lest it make me appear inconsistent in the estimation of the community." We think the Bishop will not thank the Reviewer for such a vindication; for while reading it we were forcibly reminded of a thing called principle, which if it be the basis of a man's actions and words, will induce him to court the light under all circumstances and on all occasions. We sincerely acquit the Bishop of being a party to this excuse-we think far too highly of him to believe it.

The writer of the Review then asks with an air of lofty contempt, "Are the Calcutta Missionaries to be the censors to sit in judgment on his Lordship ?" The Missionaries answer, No.— They simply deny the charge brought against them, and leave a just public to form its estimate of the transaction. They are not judges, but plaintiff's in this case;-Can the Reviewer see no difference between the two characters?

The writer, (p. 262,) touches upon the subject of sensitiveness. The Missionary, he says, is like the bashful man, who thinks all eyes are upon him, and all thoughts absorbed in the contemplation of his affairs. Did the conduct of one eminent in Israel never suggest itself to his mind, who, when he imagined that he might lie under the shadow of suspicion, said, "Whose ox have I taken," &c. Did he never read of the open and fearless manner in which Paul vindicated his injured character in the Corinthian Epistles? Did he never hear of such a course of conduct as that now pursued, terminating in the disgrace of the accuser and the honor of the accused, and when all eyes were upon the vindicated, not in the spirit of the Reviewer, but of sympathetic approbation?

We now take leave of this painful subject. We cannot believe that Bishop Wilson has given the shadow of a sanction to the sentiments in the Review; our reasons are, 1st, the evident disposition which his Lordship has manifested to conciliate all parties since the appearance of the paper in question, which he could not have done, had he inherited the feelings of the Reviewer; and 2nd, the character which the Reviewer himself gives of the Bishop, "that you have only to do him an unkindness, and you make him your friend for ever." Of course we do not dispute the testimony of one, who must be much better acquainted with his Lordship than we can possibly be.

In this paper we have purposely not interfered with the Bishop; our business was with the Reviewer, and we have confined