But there is another fact of the same kind. The Church Missionary Society has a small mission at Bhagulpur, on the borders of the Santal tribes, and when, in the late Santal rebellion, those tribes came sweeping over the plains, that little spot was preserved, like Gideon’s fleece, moist, when all around was dry, and dry when all around was moist with blood. The influence of the Mission over these people was so strong, and the tranquillizing power so clearly proved, that the East Indian Government, to their great credit be it spoken, have admitted the fact, and in order to keep the district quiet have actually requested the missionary of Bhagulpur to organize similar missions at Government expense throughout the Santal tribes. Who can doubt, then, the fallacy of the idea, that a plain, honest, and affectionate avowal of Christian principle would ever have weakened British power? But even if it were otherwise—if there were risk in introducing the Gospel and in fulfilling our Stewardship—suppose there were the deliberate choice between British sovereignty and the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ—suppose it to have been a fact that there was danger to our rule in India if we openly avowed our faith in Jesus—suppose that there were real risk in a plain, open, honest, Christian government, what, brethren, should have been the decision? Dearly as we love the prosperity of our land, thankfully as we recognise the many beneficial changes that have been effected by British power, fervently as we hope for still greater results when the present crisis has passed away, yet if there were antagonism between all this and the Lord’s Kingdom, there must not be one moment’s hesitation as to the verdict of the Christian man. Christ must be honoured at all costs; and God forbid that England ever hold a sovereignty either purchased or maintained at the awful price of the suppression of our principles or the keeping back of God’s truth! Here lies, I believe, the root of this sad calamity. The contrary has been in many cases our decision. England’s power has been preferred to the Lord’s kingdom. We have forgotten our Stewardship. We have not held India by Him or for Him. We have relied on our own arm, and have governed for our own purposes. And now that arm has failed us, and those purposes have been completely frustrated. The reed has broken and pierced through the hand that leaned on it. God has let us feel what we are in our own strength; and who could be surprised if He were now to say, “Thou mayest be no longer steward?” But there is danger in fixing our thoughts too much on governments, for by so doing we are apt to lose sight of our personal responsibility; whereas we ought to remember that the Church of God has had its trust likewise, and that every individual amongst us has been more or less connected with the question. Consider, then, the stewardship of the _Church_.