[188] The following striking testimony in favour of the system of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts comes from a quarter by no means unduly biassed in its favour. “How have thousands and tens of thousands been raised in Scotland, for the last forty years, to fit out and to maintain beyond seas whomsoever the dissenting ministers of London chose to ordain as missionaries to the heathen? God forbid, that I should ever whisper a syllable against missions to the heathen! But I have seen too many missionaries, not to have seen more than I choose to mention, whom men possessed of the least discernment would never have presumed to send forth on such an errand! The colonies, however, were the first field to be occupied; and if that field had been properly occupied, it would have afforded much assistance to missions to the heathen.“—Lang’s New South Wales, vol. ii. p. 260.
If any reader of this passage should feel disposed in his heart to help in a good work, which greatly needs his assistance, let him take at once his humble mite, or his large offering, as the case may be, to the clergyman of his parish, or to the office, 79, Pall Mall, London, for the use of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.
[189] Gal. v. 19-21.
[190] See Mr. Montgomery Martin’s New South Wales for further particulars on this subject, pp. 168-177.
[191] “Catholic,” a most honoured term in ancient times, has in modern days been very unfortunate. Even now the Romanists misuse it for “Papistical,” the Dissenters occasionally use it to signify “Latitudinarian,” and the members of the Church of England are either afraid to use it at all, or else are perpetually harping upon it, as though it were a mere party-word.
[192] See a pamphlet entitled “Australia as she is and as she may be,” by T. Potter Macqueen, Esq., published by Cross, Holborn, pp. 12-14.
[193] It is right to state here that the cause of a supply of religious instruction having been so long delayed in Norfolk Island is said, by a Roman Catholic writer, to have been the impossibility of finding a clergyman to undertake the charge. See Ullathorne’s Reply to Burton, pp. 39, 40. Supposing this account to be correct then, undoubtedly, the English Church must share the blame of neglecting Norfolk Island along with the government, and it is not the wish of the writer of these pages to deny the applicability of the prophet’s confession to ourselves: “O God, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against Thee.” (Dan. ix. 8.) Still, even according to Dr. Ullathorne, the penal settlement was established six years before its religious instruction was thought of by the government.
[194] Burton on Education and Religion in New South Wales, p. 260.
[195] The reason given by the Roman Catholic, Dr. Ullathorne, is that the two priests divide the salary, and receive together no more than the one chaplain.—Ullathorne’s Reply to Burton, p. 76. The reader must bear in mind the different scale of expenses required by a person who must be single, and that of a person who may be, and generally is, a married man.
[196] See Committee on Transportation, 1838, pp. 137, 138.