3. Because the Society was incapacitated by its charter from engaging permanently in any but colonial missions. We still continued our labours, however, being determined to work
same system of missionary operations cannot consistently be pursued towards all. I think there can be no doubt, that it is the duty of the Church to restore the bodies held to be heretical, even if she is ultimately obliged to resort to individual proselytism. Here, however, the existing communities already formed therefrom, through the efforts of Latin missionaries, and styled severally the "Syrian Catholic," "Armenian Catholic," and "Chaldean" Churches, present an obstacle in our way. These three dissenting bodies have abjured the heresies for which their forefathers were originally excommunicated by the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and so far we may cordially rejoice in what has been done by the Church of Rome; but with their return to orthodoxy, they have either retained or embraced other doctrines which have not indeed been formally condemned by any œcumenical synod, but which are, according to our Articles, repugnant to Holy Writ, and perhaps equally dangerous to the soul's salvation. Are these communities to be regarded as true and lively branches of the Catholic Church, and may we conscientiously and approvingly look on whilst Rome accomplishes her triumph by reducing the whole of these alleged heretical sects to the obedience of the sovereign Pontiff, and to the creed of Pope Pius IV.? I trow not; and I think that our own recognized formularies, as well as the theory of the Church's doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline in the earliest and best ages of her history, will bear me out in regarding the new "Churches " formed in the east by missionaries from Rome as schismatical and hence ought not to be held as sound branches of the Catholic Church. But if so, let them be led, some may say, to join the Holy Eastern Church from which they originally dissented. Most heartily might we sanction such a return and union; but here again another difficulty arises. We ourselves are now separate from that Church, and there may be found to exist doctrinal as well as other differences, which may prevent our re-union thereto for some time to come, greater than exist in the way of a successful attempt to restore the heretical and schismatical eastern sects to the communion of the Catholic Church, by inducing them to abjure what is contrary to Sacred Scriptures in their present doctrines and practices. Moreover, the Greek Church makes no attempt to this end, and is in fact in too low and depressed a condition, spiritually as well as temporally, to make any such effort. And must we forbear to carry out the last command of the Saviour to His Church because another branch of that Church neglects its duty, or is unable to perform it?
I am aware that individual opinion is of little worth in deciding questions of this nature; but I think it will be allowed on all hands, by those who wish to be guided by the spirit of the Gospel, that missionaries generally, but more especially those who are sent to regularly organized Christian communities, ought to bear with them the authority of the Church, whose alone it is to lay down on what principles missionary efforts should be conducted. This subject, in its numerous bearings upon the welfare and prosperity of Christ's kingdom in the world suggests a powerful reason for the re-establishment of our two houses of Convocation.
