Chapter XV (continued, part 3)
General Assembly should, in the judgment of a portion of its members, err in their testimony or injunctions.
Fourth: This Assembly teaches the scriptural doctrine concerning slavery. It distinctly asserts that slaveholding is not a sin or a bar to Christian communion. This it does in two ways: First, by declaring that the recent testimonies on this subject are not to be understood in any sense inconsistent with the former deliverances of the Church. But, in 1845, the scriptural doctrine on this subject was not only distinctly stated, but elaborately sustained. The Assembly declares that it still adheres to that deliverance, and virtually reiterates it. Secondly, by saying that the errors intended to be denounced, the renunciation of which was insisted upon, were: 1. That slavery is a divine institution, "in the same category with marriage and civil government," (and therefore to be perpetuated and extended)—and, 2. That it is the mission of the Church to conserve the institution. These declarations of the Assembly are contained in the paper offered by Dr. Krebs and in the Pastoral Letter.
Fifth: The Assembly takes scriptural and liberal ground on the subject of Christian Union. It declares that it is desirous of retaining, or receiving into the Church, all who sincerely adopt our standards of doctrine and government, who adhere to the testimony of the Church, as just explained by the Assembly, and are willing to submit to its legitimate authority, that is, who are not schismatical in their spirit and measures. These principles are, in the paper presented by Dr. J. T. Smith, specially applied to the Southern churches. With regard to whom the Assembly says that it "greatly deplores the continued separation between ourselves and our Southern brethren, so long united in the bonds of Christian love and ecclesiastical fellowship; and expresses the earnest desire that the way may be
soon opened for a reunion on the basis of our common standards, and on terms consistent with truth and righteousness."
In view of these declarations, it is the obvious duty of every minister and member of our Church to labour to allay all further alienation and strife. We have here a platform, broad, scriptural, and just, on which the whole Church, North, South, East, and West, may unite.
d. Power to Remove a Sentence
[Comp. Digest of 1873, p. 688.]
As soon as the preceding subject [†] was disposed of, the Rev. Dr. Maclean proposed the following preamble and resolution:
"Whereas the Rev. Archibald McQueen was suspended by the Presbytery of Fayetteville from the exercise of his ministry and from the communion of the Church, for marrying the sister of his deceased wife; and whereas the General Assembly of the last year, affirmed the decision of the presbytery; and whereas, in the judgment of this General Assembly, the censure which has been inflicted, hitherto submitted to, ought to be removed; therefore, Resolved, That the Presbytery of Fayetteville be directed to remove the aforesaid sentence of suspension, and to restore the Rev. Archibald McQueen to the communion of the Church and the exercise of the ministry."
This unexpected motion added much to the excitement which the preceding question had produced; and Dr. M., while proceeding with his remarks was repeatedly called to order. The moderator, however, decided that he was speaking in order. At length the question was raised, whether the motion itself was not out of order, inasmuch as it proposed to review and reverse a decision of the last Assembly, a motion which this Assembly was incompetent to entertain. The
moderator decided that the motion was in order, which decision was, upon appeal, sustained by the house. Dr. Maclean then proceeded with his remarks, advocating the restoration of Mr. McQueen; principally on the following grounds; first, the diversity of opinion in the Assembly, by which Mr. McQ. was condemned; some censuring him mainly because he had violated a rule of the Church; others because the act charged merited in itself a limited suspension, while others thought he ought to abandon his wife before he could be restored. Secondly, he urged the excellent character of Mr. McQ. and the painful circumstances in which he was placed by the action of the Church. Thirdly, the great hardship of leaving one man under this severe censure, while so many other men were allowed to remain undisturbed in the bosom of the Church. He urged further the obsolete character of the law under which the sentence had been passed, and the respectful submission which Mr. McQ. had rendered to the painful sentence under which he laboured; and especially the consideration that the highest judicatory of our Church, whether the old Synod, or subsequently the General Assembly, had never been disposed to take extreme action in such cases. In support of this last position he cited various decisions of our earlier Church courts.
Dr. Nott moved the reference of the motion to the same committee to which the proposal for an amendment of the constitution had already been referred. Both the reference and the original motion were strenuously opposed by Messrs. Junkin, Breckinridge, I. W. Platt, and Chancellor Johns. The last named gentleman remarked that this was a case of discipline. When we find where we are, then we know what rule ought to govern us. It being a case of discipline there is no doubt what course ought to be pursued. To take up such a case when the parties are out of court, the record gone, and all the pleadings out of view would be an unheard of proceeding. But viewing the matter in the light of a mere resolution it is a prejudging
of the case. You may call it legislation, but the name will not alter the nature of the transaction. What would be thought of an appellate court, taking up a case already decided, and without hearing any of the parties or calling for the record, sending it down with all the weight of its influence, in favour of a reversal of the sentence? And shall we send down a mandatory writ to the presbytery, which has the exclusive right primarily to judge in the case? Let us stop here. My great desire is to preserve the purity of this high ecclesiastical court. As in civil matters a judge must not express an opinion in advance, so here we should cautiously avoid the expression of an opinion on a case that may yet come up before the General Assembly by reference or appeal. Let Mr. McQueen, if he is so disposed, apply to his presbytery, and if they refuse to entertain his application or to do him justice in the premises, let him complain or appeal to the Synod or General Assembly; but I beseech you, moderator, let not this high court of final resort disqualify itself for such a review, by prejudging the case.
As soon as Chancellor Johns concluded, the previous question was called and sustained. The motion for commitment being thus cut off, the question on Dr. Maclean's resolution was then put and rejected by an overwhelming vote, very few voices being heard in the affirmative.
The principle involved in this case is one of no little importance. The question whether the Assembly had the constitutional right to entertain the motion to restore Mr. McQueen, or to order his restoration, is of course very different from the question, Whether it was expedient to pass such a motion, or whether the method proposed was the right way of reaching the end aimed at. Dr. Maclean supposed he had sufficiently guarded his motion from the objections so forcibly urged by Mr. Johns, by avoiding all expression
of opinion as to the decision of the preceding Assembly. It might be assumed that their sentence was perfectly equitable and just, and yet if it had been submitted to, and been endured for more than a year, it might be proper that it should now be removed. But has the Assembly the right, by a mere resolution, to inflict or remove a judicial sentence? A negative answer to this question does not appear to us to be sustained by saying that the Assembly has only appellate jurisdiction in such cases. This is a very prevalent doctrine, but its correctness is at least a matter of doubt. It is certain that the Assembly of the Church of Scotland has ever claimed and exercised original jurisdiction, acting as the presbytery of the whole Church. It is certain that similar ecclesiastical councils, have in all ages of the Church, acted on the same principle. And our own Assembly, in some few cases, has done the same. It has taken up a foreign minister whom one of our presbyteries refused to receive, examined him touching his qualifications, and passed a vote of approbation, and authorized any presbytery to whom he should apply to receive him as a member. There may be cases in which the exercise of this right might be expedient and necessary. But whatever may be thought on this point, it should be remembered that the Assembly, though it is an appellate court, is a great deal more. There is no exact analogy between our judicatories, and the civil courts of the country, because in our civil government, the legislative, judicial, and executive functions are carefully distinguished, and in general committed to different hands; but with us all these powers are vested in the same bodies. The Assembly is the highest legislative, judicial and executive body in the Church. It was not called upon to act as a court, but as the executive. It was not asked to review a decision but to remit a sentence; to do what the executive of a state does, when it grants a pardon or remits a penalty decreed by a judicial tribunal. The Assembly could not be called upon to inflict a sentence, without parties, without records, or without argument, for from the very
nature of such an act, it could only be performed by the body in its judicial capacity. But this does not prove that it might not remit even the most justly inflicted sentence, if the occasion called for the exercise of this executive grace.
Whatever may be thought of the abstract question of the right of the Assembly, in its executive capacity, to remit a sentence judicially inflicted, the argument against its exercise, in the case under consideration, seems to us unanswerable. There is the general objection founded upon the difficulty of discriminating between the executive and judicial functions of such a body, or of preventing the one from interfering with the other. We do not see how the argument of Mr. Johns is to be disposed of, that the Assembly was liable to be called upon to sit judicially on the very question which it was then called upon to decide by resolution. The question whether the censure inflicted on Mr. McQueen had been endured a sufficient length of time, was one which he might at any time bring before the Assembly, by applying to be restored to the exercise of his office. This suggests another of the arguments urged against Dr. Maclean's motion, that it aimed at accomplishing in an irregular way, an object which could be attained by the ordinary operation of our system. It was not a case for which the constitution provided no remedy. The lower courts were open to Mr. McQueen, and to them he might at any time apply, and in case of their refusal, he could seek redress at the bar of the Assembly. There was great weight also in the objection urged by Mr. Breckinridge, that the Assembly was called upon to act in ignorance of the facts necessary for a proper decision of the case. They did not know that Mr. McQueen even wished to re-enter a Church whose laws condemned his conduct; they knew not officially whether he retained any relation to the Presbytery of Fayetteville, or whether he had connected himself with some other denomination. With what propriety then could the Assembly be called upon of its
own motion, without any application from any quarter, to act in the business.
There is another consideration as it seems to us of great weight in this matter. The unavoidable consequence of acting on the plan proposed by Dr. Maclean must be a collision between the Assembly and the lower courts. Admitting that the Assembly has the right, of its own motion, to restore a man to the ministry, has it a right to force him on a reluctant presbytery? That the presbyteries may judge of the qualifications of their own members, is one of their most certain and important rights; and one which they can exercise without responsibility to any higher court. They have a right to refuse to receive any man as a member whom they judge for any reason to be unsuitable. Could the Assembly force an abolitionist on a southern presbytery? Where a case comes up judicially from a lower court and the Assembly decides that their reasons for suspending him were insufficient, the operation of that decision is indeed to restore him to his standing in the body, but this is very different from directing a presbytery to receive into their confidence and communion a man who has no connection with them, and whom they consider unworthy or unsuitable for membership. We doubt whether any presbytery would be willing, in this extra-judicial way, to receive any man against whom they had conscientious objections, on the simple direction of the General Assembly. If the Assembly chose to take the whole matter into their own hands, let them restore Mr. McQueen to his standing, and authorize any presbytery who saw fit, to receive him. This would be going great lengths, but it would be less objectionable than forcing him on a body whose consciences forbade their acknowledging him as a minister, in good standing. On the whole we greatly rejoice that a course so unprecedented and so liable to objection was met by a vote of such decided condemnation.
6. Boards and Committees
a. Voluntary Societies and Ecclesiastical Organizations
We are disposed to think there must be, on an average, at least one misrepresentation for every page in this work. As it requires more words to correct a misstatement than to make it, we should be obliged to write a book instead of a review, if we thought it necessary to correct all these errors. We believe they may be safely allowed to work their own cure. It is our object to leave personal matters, as far as possible, on one side, and to attend to those only which are of general and permanent interest. The first topic of this nature presented in the work before us is:—
The relative claims of Voluntary Associations and Ecclesiastical Organization.
In the discussion of this point, a great deal of confusion often arises from not accurately defining the terms employed. Thus, our author says, (p. 17) "It is the revealed will of God to evangelize the world by the instrumentality of his Church." Here are two expressions, the meaning of which must be definitely fixed, to secure anything like accuracy of deduction, or correctness of result. The above statement is one in which high Church-men and low Church-men, papists and independents, would agree. Before we can argue from it, we must know first what is meant by the Church, and, secondly, what is intended by the expression "to evangelize the world." Our author informs us that "the Church is composed of all the sanctified in Christ Jesus,—all converted men—associated by public profession and covenants, under whatever form, for the maintenance of the worship of God and for the advancement of his cause." According to this definition believers are not the Church in virtue of their spiritual
relation to each other and their divine head, nor in virtue of a profession of the true religion, but in virtue of their association for the maintenance of the worship of God and the advancement of his cause. The Church, then, is an associated, organized body, and it is to this organization the revealed will of God assigns the duty of evangelizing the world. This would be a good introduction to an argument in favour of the doctrine our author ascribes to the Pittsburg convention, but seems an extraordinary statement of preliminary principles in favour of voluntary societies. If the Church is a body of men organized for the purpose above specified, and if the revealed will of God has assigned to this organization the duty of evangelizing the world, then, beyond all controversy, the Church as such, as an organization, must do all that is necessary for the accomplishment of this object. If a number of men are organized as a school committee, or board of regents, to superintend the education of a whole community, then they are bound not merely as individuals but as an organization to attend to this object. It is their official duty, and any voluntary combination for the purpose of taking it out of their hands, would be a usurpation. Is then the Home Missionary Society a Church? Is it a body of believers associated by public profession and covenants? Or, has any such association ever appointed or constituted that society? If not, is it not, according to the doctrine of his book, interfering with the appropriate duty of a divine organization, and undertaking to do what God has assigned to other hands?
The truth is, the idea of association which the author has introduced into his definition of the Church, does not belong to it, in the sense in which he meant to use the term, as designating the catholic visible Church. And the introduction of this idea vitiates all his arguments, and leads him to conclusions directly opposite to those which he meant to establish. The Church, according to our Confession,
"consists of all those who profess the true religion together with their children." The wandering savage who has heard the truth, who believes and declares it, is a member of this Church, as truly as any minister or elder. We concede that it is to the Church in this wide sense, the work of evangelizing the world is assigned. But here again, to avoid confusion, it is absolutely necessary to explain the terms employed. The expression to "evangelize the world" is very vague and comprehensive. It includes every thing which is designed and adapted to secure the extension and influence of the gospel. Education in all its departments, from the Sunday-school to the Theological Seminary; the circulation of the Scriptures and tracts; the preaching of the gospel, the ordination and installation of pastors, the mission of evangelists, &c., all are included. The Church then, or the people of God, are bound to put into operation all these and other agencies for the attainment of this great object. For this end they are bound, by the command of God, to organize themselves as a society. In what form this organization shall be made has always been a matter of doubt; and whether any one form is prescribed in the Scriptures is also a subject of debate. But it is on all hands conceded that the people of God are bound to organize themselves, under some form, in order to accomplish the great purpose for which the Church was constituted. It is as an organized society she is to judge of the qualification of new members, and exercise discipline on unworthy ones; that she is to select, ordain, and install pastors, and send out evangelists. There are then some of the most important of all the means for evangelizing the world, which can be employed by the Church in her organized capacity only. There are others as to which the people of God are at liberty to act either as an organized ecclesiastical society, or in voluntary combinations for some specific object. There can be no doubt that for some purposes, such as the distribution of the Scriptures for example, the latter is the preferable
method. With regard to others there can, we think, be as little doubt that the ecclesiastical method is to be preferred.
To which of these classes should the work of missions be referred? Is that one of the methods for evangelizing the world which the people of God are bound to employ in their organized ecclesiastical capacity, or is it one with regard to which they are at liberty to adopt either plan, as they think best? And if the latter, which, all things considered, ought in our Church and under present circumstances, to be preferred?
To answer these questions intelligently, it must be borne in mind that the term missions is a very comprehensive one. It includes two very distinct functions, so to speak; the one strictly ecclesiastical and the other secular. When a man is sent out as a missionary, whether to the destitute or the heathen, it is his presbytery (we speak in reference to our own system) that sends him. They give him his mission and his authority as an evangelist, and it is to his presbytery he is responsible for the manner in which he discharges his duty; they alone have the right to determine where he shall go, and where he shall remain. There is then in the work of missions a part which the Church in her organized capacity alone has the right to perform, and which she is under the strongest obligation to execute diligently and faithfully. If these evangelists were all men of wealth, or if in all cases it was possible for them to be supported either by the labour of their own hands, or by the contributions of those to whom they were sent, there would be no need of any other agency in the business. The part which the ecclesiastical court is bound to do, would be all that is to be done. But as neither of the above suppositions is commonly realized, there arises the necessity for an organization to provide the means of sending these missionaries of the Church to their respective fields of labour and of sustaining them when there. Here comes in
the secular part of the work of missions. There must be men organized and employed in collecting and disbursing money, and in attending to the numerous and often contemplated concerns connected with this subject. The whole debateable ground is covered by the question, Is it desirable that this secular part of the missionary work should be entrusted to voluntary associations, or to Boards appointed for the purpose by ecclesiastical bodies? We concede that either plan is allowable, the question is, which, all things considered, ought to be preferred?
That Churches and individuals are at liberty to decide this question for themselves is almost universally admitted. This is the ground which we have always taken.* Dr. Miller in his Letters to Presbyterians takes the same ground. And it is known to our readers that the Board of Missions officially and by its leading friends and officers on the floor of the Assembly have assumed the same position. In an address to the churches signed by Dr. Green as president of the Board, and by its two secretaries, it is said, "We are not only willing but anxious that the churches should be left to their own unbiassed and deliberate choice of the particular channel through which their charities should flow forth to bless the perishing: nay more, that the God of all grace may give to the poor a heart to pray, and to the rich a disposition to contribute liberally to either of these missionary Boards according to the decided preference of every donor.* The same ground is taken in the report on the subject of foreign missions, presented by Dr. Phillips to the last General Assembly. † There are no doubt many persons who suppose that there is an obligation on Presbyterians to sustain the Boards of their own Church, arising out of the general duty of members of a communion to the body to which they belong, or from the supposed superiority of these Boards, as to the wisdom or fidelity with which they are conducted. This, however, is a very different
thing from resting this obligation on ecclesiastical authority. We are aware also that many who some years ago cheerfully voted to recommend the Home Missionary Society would not do so now, simply because they believe that that society has, under the management of its present secretary, become a great party engine, and is operating in a manner most unfriendly to the best interests of the Church. This, again, is a very different thing from opposition to that institution founded on the assumption that a voluntary society has no right to engage in the work of missions.
The people of God then, or the Church, in the wide sense of the term, are bound to do all they can to evangelize the world. One of the most important means to be employed for this purpose is, the sending abroad, among the destitute and heathen, preachers of the gospel. In conducting this work, there is a part which the Church, in her organized capacity, is alone authorized to perform, and there is a secular part which may be performed either by voluntary associations, or by Boards ecclesiastically appointed and controlled. Our decided preference is for the latter; it is a preference which every year's experience tends to confirm. But let us hear the objections which our author has to urge against such ecclesiastical organizations.
1. "For Church courts to assume the control and direction of missionary operations and disbursements," he tells us, "is an attempt to subject to ecclesiastical legislation that which the Great Head of the Church has left to the unbiassed decision of every man's conscience.… He has not authorized any ecclesiastical tribunal to assess the amount of each one's contribution, nor to prescribe the objects or modes of its administration," &c., &c. This objection is founded on a mere assertion, and on a most extraordinary one. The appointment of a Board of Missions by a Church court, involves an
act of legislation as to the amount of each one's contribution, and makes alms-giving a matter of law! Do, then, the Boards of Missions and Education assess the amount of every man's donations? Are the contributions to those Boards less spontaneous than those given to the Home Missionary Society? We cannot imagine on what class of readers the author expected this argument to operate.
2 "There is no enactment in the Bible enjoining it on the Church, as such, in her organized form, by her judicatories, to evangelize the world." The author here, as so often elsewhere, loses himself in vague generalities. Is it not the business of the Church, by her judicatories, to ordain and install pastors, and send out evangelists? And are not these, of all means, the most important for evangelizing the world? The broad proposition as stated by the writer, is at variance with his own opinions, and those of everybody else, as far as we know. A little discrimination would have saved him from this mistake. There are certain things in carrying on the great work of spreading the gospel, which the Church, in her organized form, and by her judicatories, is not bound to perform, and there are certain other things which she can do in no other way. The secular part of the work of missions, as stated above, belongs to the former class. The mere collection and disbursement of funds, and attention to the secular business connected with missionary operations, may be performed either by persons ecclesiastically appointed, or by single individuals, or by voluntary associations, as may, in any given case, appear most desirable. But that the Church, in her organized capacity, has nothing to do with the matter, is a most grievous error. How low a conception of the Church as an organized society does this objection betray! The organization which Christ and his apostles have ordained, is to be set aside, and all its most important duties, according to this doctrine, are to be assumed by societies of man's devising.
As to the question of expediency, we have the following arguments against ecclesiastical organizations. 1. "That our Church, as such, in her highest court is not well adapted, by the mode of her organization, to superintend and direct the work of missions, either faithfully or efficiently." The reasons assigned for this statement are, that the members come from a distance, are frequently changed, are not familiar with the business, are incumbered with other affairs, &c. The little plausibility which belongs to this argument is due to a fallacy, which we presume no reader can fail to detect. The author unfairly institutes an implied comparison between the General Assembly and the more permanent Boards, or executive committees of voluntary societies. But the comparison should be between the Assembly and the Home Missionary Society itself. The Assembly does not enter into the details of conducting missions, it is merely the appointing and controlling body. The question, therefore, is, which is worthy of most reliance as an appointing body, the representatives of all the churches, or a promiscuous assembly collected from all parts of the Union, for a few days in the city of New York, and whose members owe their seats and votes to the mere payment of a subscription? Had we, or any one else, attempted to undervalue the Home Missionary Society on the ground that it was impossible, that a number of men coming from a distance, remaining together but a few hours, practically ignorant of the business, changed more or less every year, could be competent to conduct the complicated and delicate work of domestic missions, what would the friends of the American Home Missionary Society think of such an argument? Would they not say that we know better, that we know very well that it is not the fluctuating subscribers collected for a few hours at the "business meeting of the Society," that really conduct the work of missions; but that this matter is committed to a corps of able and efficient men always at their post, and devoted in whole, or in part, to the business? Would they not tell us that the society was
the mere appointing and controlling body, authorized to redress grievances and correct abuses, should any such arise? With the same propriety we may ask this writer and his friends, if they do not know that their argument, as above stated, is no less unfair and deceptive? Whether they are not aware that the Board and its executive committee appointed by the Assembly, are as permanent as their own, and as much conversant with the work of missions? We think the General Assembly need not shrink from a comparison with the Home Missionary Society. The members of the former are ordained ministers of the gospel and ruling elders of the Churches, men whose moral and religious character has received the sanction of their Christian brethren in various forms. The members of the latter may be, and we have no doubt are, very good men, but who they are, it is hard to tell. Any one who will comply with the rules as to subscription, &c., no matter what his character, has as much right to vote as the best and wisest members of the body. Again, which is the most promiscuous, fluctuating, and uncertain body? Which has the best opportunity of knowing and inspecting the conduct of the men whom they appoint? Does not every one know that the meetings of the society are little more than matters of form, that every thing is arranged beforehand, and managed by the executive committee? This, from the nature of the case, must be the course of things.* The promiscuous assemblage collected for a few hours every year, cannot be expected to inspect very minutely the complicated doings of their agents for the preceding twelve months. We are not presenting these considerations as arguments against the Home Missionary Society, but as proof of the unsoundness of the objections urged by its friends against ecclesiastical Boards.
There is one point in which we are ready to admit that the advantage is with the Home Missionary Society. Its members are its friends; whereas, in the General Assembly, we have foes as well as friends.
Those who attend the meetings of the former are supposed to be in honour and honesty bound to co-operate in promoting its success. Whereas, members of the Assembly feel at liberty to do all they can to embarrass the operations of the Board of Missions. This we acknowledge is a great disadvantage, but it arises, we must be permitted to think and say, from the exceedingly improper conduct of the opponents of that Board. So long as a majority of the Church wishes there should be a Board of Missions appointed by the General Assembly, so long is it the duty of the minority to allow it unembarrassed operation. If the majority of the churches and of the Assembly are of opinion that, under all the circumstances of the case, the Board should cease to exist, let them so decree. But it is evidently most unworthy conduct for a minority, by combination and by the secrecy of a ballot, to endeavour to harass and embarrass a Board they have not the courage or power openly to destroy. Of all the proceedings of the Home Missionary party in the last Assembly, the attempt to place in the Board of Missions men known to be inimical to its very existence, is certainly one of the most dishonourable. And what renders the fact the more humiliating and the more alarming is, that they were able to muster nearly their whole strength to accomplish this object. The votes in favour of the candidates unfriendly to the Board amounted to 125, while the vote against Dr. Miller's resolution was but 122, and that against the formation of a Foreign Missionary Board only 111. Let us turn the tables. Let us suppose a number of men by the payment of three dollars, or whatever the subscription may be, to become members of the Home Missionary Society, and to watch their opportunity at some annual meeting, and vote out the present executive committee, and supply its place with men decidedly hostile to the existence of the Society, what would be the feelings of the religious community in view of such conduct? The indignation of every good man would be roused, and the impropriety would rebound on its authors. We cannot see in
what respect the conduct of the 125 members of the last Assembly, just referred to, is less deserving of disapprobation.
2. Our author proceeds thus: "We maintain that Boards thus constituted, and acting under so wonderful a sanction of what is so little understood, are the most irresponsible bodies that could be devised. They are responsible to the public only through the General Assembly, and that body gathered from all parts of the land, changing every year, &c., &c." This argument is an inference from the preceding, and must stand or fall with it. If we have shown the fallacy of objecting to the Assembly as an appointing and controlling body, for characteristics which it possesses in common, though in a less degree, with the appointing body of the executive committee of the Home Missionary Society, there is little reason to say much on this objection. In what way is that executive committee responsible to the public for the management of its funds and conduct of its agents? Only through the transient, fluctuating, promiscuous, inexperienced body of subscribers who may happen to assemble at an annual meeting. If the public are dissatisfied, they may indeed withdraw their support, and this is the only effectual check. But are not the Assembly's Boards responsible in precisely the same way? If they act improperly, will not the public withhold their contributions? And is not the General Assembly as likely to be vigilant in detecting abuses, and is it not as competent for this purpose as the transient annual meetings of the Home Missionary Society? In our opinion, the advantage in this comparison is decidedly in favour of the Assembly. Its members are known; they are the representatives of the churches. The members of the other are in general unknown. Any one may join them; they are commonly self-appointed and self-delegated. As all Boards are liable to abuses, the question is, whether such a body as the Assembly, or such an one as the Home Missionary Society, is best constructed to detect and correct them? Can any one doubt on this
point? The Assembly must assume the complexion, not of any one party or section in the Church, but must represent all parties and all sections. Is such a body likely to be less vigilant in watching the conduct of its servants, than one which is composed almost exclusively of men of one way of thinking and one party? Has the Secretary of the one Board as free a scope for party-management as the Secretary of the other? Can the one meet the General Assembly with the same hope of ready acquiescence in all his doings, as the other can meet his assembled subscribers at an annual meeting? Will the latter find any Mr. Jessup, or Dr. Peters, or Dr. Patton there, to recast up his figures, to sift with jealous eye his statements, to examine to what field he sends his missionaries, or from what sources he derives them? As far then as responsibility to the churches, and security for good management are concerned, we think there can be no comparison between the two institutions.
3. "By conducting all her concerns ecclesiastically, the judicatories of the Church would be loaded with an amount of property and of secular business, which would endanger her spiritually." "The concentration, therefore, in these courts, of so much ecclesiastical and pecuniary power, is both inexpedient and perilous." The author, still further to alarm his readers, makes the following monstrous supposition: "Suppose that in addition to this (its ecclesiastical authority) the Assembly possesses the property and pecuniary patronage of the whole Church, and how tremendous must be the power of this judicatory." He then asks, as well he may, "Who would not fear before this Assembly?" Does, then, the writer believe that it is proposed to invest the Assembly with the whole property of the Church? The whole force of this representation is founded upon the assumption that the funds contributed for education and missionary purposes, come into the treasury of the General Assembly, and are subject to its control. He knows, however, that the Boards of
Education and Missions have each a treasury distinct from that of the General Assembly; and that the funds contributed to these Boards are received and paid out without any intervention of the Assembly in the business. The writer speaks as though these vast permanent investments were to be held by the Assembly, which might tempt the "cupidity" of its members. Whereas almost all the funds in question are the annual contributions of the churches which hardly remain a day in the treasury of the Boards, and which are given only so long as the churches have confidence in their faithful distribution. The power of the Assembly is hardly appreciably increased by the mere right of appointing the members of this Board, and then adjourning and dispersing itself among the churches, to be renewed the next year by new members, fresh from the presbyteries, and possessing their confidence. The pecuniary power of the American Board of Commissioners, though a close corporation, with its income of from one to two hundred thousand dollars, is next to nothing, and that of the Assembly is, if possible, still less.
Whatever danger there is of a money power becoming connected with missionary enterprises, it is far greater in regard to the Home Missionary Society than to the General Assembly. The latter body is renewed every year; it must take the character of the whole Church, and cannot become corrupt until the Church is so. The former, is far less certain in its character, being composed of the subscribers for the time being, who may happen to meet in New York. As the secretary and officers of the Home Missionary Society can manage their annual meetings with greater ease and certainty than the secretary and officers of the Board of Missions can control the General Assembly, so the danger of abuse and malversation is greater in the one case than in the other. We think, however, such arguments are unbecoming and unwise. The wicked are sufficiently disposed, without being excited to it by Christians, to cry out about
the danger of ecclesiastical authority, and the pecuniary power of religious institutions. And we regret that in repelling such arguments we should be forced even to appear to recriminate.
4. His last argument is founded on a distrust "of the relative efficiency of formal ecclesiastical organizations." In conducting this, as in all the preceding arguments, we find our author presenting the numerous, cumbrous General Assembly in contrast with the compact and alert Boards of voluntary societies; instead of comparing the Board of the one with that of the other. We are at a loss to imagine why a Board appointed by the General Assembly might not be as active as if appointed by the same men assembled as a voluntary society. The Boards of the Assembly are not so much behind others in their efficiency as to give this objection either much plausibility or much weight.
We must be permitted to leave for a moment the work of selfdefence, and to assume, in our turn, the office of objectors. We have always readily admitted that there are purposes for which voluntary societies, embracing members of different religious denominations, are greatly to be preferred to separate ecclesiastical organizations. And in our number for July 1836, p. 429, we stated at least one principle by which such cases may be easily distinguished. Wherever the field of operation is common to different denominations, and the proper means for its cultivation are also the same for all, there is an obvious reason why all should unite. These conditions meet with regard to the Bible and Tract Societies, and in many important respects in regard to Sunday-school Unions. There are other cases in which voluntary societies of a denominational character may be either indispensable or highly desirable. On the other hand there are cases for which ecclesiastical organizations appear to us to be entitled to decided preference. To this class belong the work of
educating ministers of the gospel, and that of missions. We shall proceed to state very briefly some of the grounds of this opinion.
In the first place, the object of these societies is strictly ecclesiastical as well as denominational. Every Church has its peculiar system of opinions and form of government, which it is bound to preserve and extend. And in order to effect this object it is necessary that it should have under its own direction the means employed for its accomplishment. Of these means beyond all comparison the most important are the education of ministers, and the organization and support of Churches. The men who decide where and how the rising ministry are to be educated, and who determine where they are to go when their education is completed, have the destiny of the Church in their hands. This being the case, is it wonderful that each denomination should wish not only to have this matter under their own control, but confided to persons of its own selection? Is it wonderful that Presbyterians and Episcopalians should decline committing their candidates to the care of Congregationalists or Baptists? Or that they should be uneasy at seeing their churches supplied with ministers by a society in which some other denomination than their own, has an equal or controlling influence? On the contrary, would not indifference on these points argue a strange and criminal unconcern about what they profess to regard as the truth and order of God? We consider, therefore, the extension of the principle of united action by voluntary societies to cases affecting the vital interests of separate denominations as fraught with evil. Even if these sects ought to be indifferent to their respective peculiarities, they are not, and the attempt to deal with them as though they were, must excite ill-will and strife.
The answer to this objection, that the Education and Missionary Societies do nothing but provide and sustain men to be examined
and installed by the judicatories of the several denominations, is very far from being satisfactory. The mere right to examine before presbytery the candidates for ordination is not the only security which the Church needs for the fidelity of her ministers. She wishes that by their previous training, they should be made acquainted with her doctrines, and become attached to her order. Reason and experience alike demonstrate that the perfunctory examination before an ecclesiastical body is altogether an inadequate barrier to the admission of improper men into the ministry, and that by far the most important security lies in the education and selection of the ministers themselves. If these matters are committed to other hands, every thing is given up.
Again, the office assumed by these societies involves an encroachment on the rights and duties of ecclesiastical courts. This may be inferred from what has already been said. One of the most important duties of the Church in her organized capacity is the preservation of the truth. It is her business to see that faithful men are introduced into the ministry and set over her congregations. To discharge this duty properly, she must do more than merely examine men prepared and sent forth by other hands. She must herself see to their education and mission. These are in a great measure strictly ecclesiastical functions, which, to say the least, it is incongruous for societies composed for the most part of laymen, and without any ecclesiastical appointment or supervision to perform. Indeed it is one of the anomalies of the times, that laymen should be the great directors and controllers of theological education and domestic missions.
We have already remarked that there are in the work of missions two distinct functions, the one ecclesiastical, the other secular. The one must be performed by Church courts; the other may be performed by
others. To the former belong the ordination, mission, direction, and supervision of evangelists; to the latter the mere provision of the ways and means, and the administration of them. There is a great difference between theory and practice on this subject. According to theory the committee of the Home Missionary Society may be the mere almoners of the churches' bounty. They may profess simply to stand at the door of the treasury to receive applications from feeble congregation and presbyteries. This is all very well. But if in practice they go much further than this, and assume the direction of ecclesiastical persons, deciding where they are to labour, instructing them as to the discharge of their official duties, and requiring their missionaries to report to them on all these points, then do they assume the rights and privileges of an ecclesiastical court; they usurp an authority and power which do not belong to them, and which they have no right to exercise. People may cry out against all this as high churchism. It is Presbyterianism. And if they dislike it, let them renounce it and the name; but do not let them under the guise of Presbyterians undermine the whole fabric. There can be no doubt that, according to the system of our Church, the control of ecclesiastical persons rests with ecclesiastical courts. Every licentiate and minister is under the direction of his own presbytery, and is bound to go where they send him, and to stay where they place him. It is to them he is responsible for the right discharge of his official duties, and to them he is bound to report. For any set of men to assume this direction, supervision and control of such licentiates and ministers, is a direct interference with the rights of presbyteries. If then, the Home Missionary Society practically assumes the direction and supervision of its four or six hundred missionaries, if it regards them as its missionaries, sent by it, determined directly or indirectly as to the place or character of their labours by its authority or influence, and demanding accountability to that society or its
committee, whatever be the theory of the matter, it is a practical subversion of the whole system of our Church.
It may be replied to all this that the Board of Missions appointed by the General Assembly, are guilty of the same kind of interference with the rights and duties of ecclesiastical courts. To this we answer, even admitting such to be the fact, it does not mend the matter. Two wrongs can never make one right. But we deny that the cases are parallel. The Assembly's Board is an ecclesiastical body. It is the mere organ of the Assembly in conducting missions. All its members are appointed by that body, and its acts in the premises are virtually the acts of the Assembly. If the Assembly has "a constitutional and inherent right, as this author admits, to conduct missionary operations, it must have the authority to commit this business to a Board of its own appointment. In order to prove this point, it is not necessary to attribute to the Assembly the inordinate powers claimed for it, on several recent occasions by our New-school brethren. When they wished to create a presbytery without the concurrence of the synod, we were told glorious things of the power of the Assembly; it was represented as analogous to the parliament of Great Britain; it was called the great universal presbytery, vested with all presbyterial powers, and if we mistake not, the very source of all such powers. We do not believe all this, nor is faith in these extravagant positions necessary to lead us to the conclusion that, if the Assembly has a right to conduct missions, it has a right to conduct them by a Board. We might argue this right upon the acknowledged principle that where a specific power is granted, all subordinate powers necessary for its proper exercise are also granted. If the General Assembly, in virtue of its relation to the Church, and in virtue of the whole design of the constitution, as well as express provision, has the right to conduct missions, it is absolutely necessary that more or less of this business should be confided to agents, it matters little what they are
called. The right to conduct missions belongs to the presbyteries, to synods, and to the General Assembly. Either or all of these bodies may attend to this business while actually in session, or they may refer the matter to a committee to do it for them. Again all analogy is in favour of the possession of this right; analogies derived from the Church of Scotland, from the action of our own Assembly in similar cases, (as in the constitution of Boards for the government of theological seminaries, &c.) and from political bodies. It is a matter of every day's occurrence, that all these bodies commit certain duties to be performed in their name and by their authority to boards or agents of their own appointment. The objection that if the Assembly can confide the work of missions to a Board, they may commit the hearing of appeals, &c., is about as forcible as the objection that if parliament or congress can appoint a Board of public works or navy commissioners, they may appoint a committee to pass bills through all the stages of legislation. Besides, this is a point which has been settled by precedent and uncontested decisions of the Assembly, almost from the beginning. Almost from the first moment of its organization the Assembly has had a standing Committee of Missions, which did not cease to exist when the Assembly adjourned. In the year 1828 the Assembly resolved, That the Board of Missions have the power to establish missions—to select, appoint and commission missionaries,—and in general to manage the missionary operations of the General Assembly. Who contested the passage of this resolution? Who ever dreamed, before the meeting of the late Assembly, of declaring it a breach of the constitution? We cannot here pursue this subject. It is clear, however, as we think, that the Board of Missions, and committee of the Home Missionary Society, stand in very different relations to the business of missions; that what in the one is a decided infringement on the rights and duties of ecclesiastical courts, may have a very different character in the other.
It has already been intimated that one great objection to voluntary societies for the purpose of domestic missions and the education of candidates for the ministry, is the power which they possess. We are aware that the use of this argument is apt to excite suspicion against those who employ it. But the truth ought to be looked at dispassionately, and allowed its proper influence, as estimated by reason, and not by an excited imagination, or distempered feeling.* We say then that the power possessed by these societies is inordinate and dangerous. It is a power, in the first place, to control the theological opinions of candidates by the direction of their whole professional education; and in the second place, by means of these candidates thus prepared, extensively and materially to influence the character and action of the Church. It is in the power of the Home Missionary Society, or of its executive committee, to determine what character, as to doctrine and policy, a large portion of our presbyteries shall assume. This cannot always be done at once, but by a steady purpose and a gradual progress it may be more or less rapidly accomplished. And this progress will not be slow, if three, six, or ten ministers are ordained at one time, by one presbytery, and then sent to one neighbourhood. It would require little skill or talent for management, in this manner to decide the complexion of any presbytery where there are many new and feeble congregations.
But further, this power enters our judicatories, and is there brought to bear on questions of doctrine, of order and discipline. This results not merely indirectly from the ascendency obtained in congregations and presbyteries, but from the influence which the prominent friends and officers of these societies possess over those connected with them. In assuming the existence of such influence, we make no disparaging reflection on those who are the subjects of it, beyond the assumption that they are men of like passions and infirmities with others. It is no reflection to assume that a set of men who owe their
support to the kindness or agency of another set, and who have the natural feeling of obligation which arises from this fact, and who are open to the usual innocent and even amiable sentiments which arise from association and co-operation, should be led to act with their benefactors and to follow them as their natural leaders.
We say this is a dangerous power, because it is apt to be unobserved. It is not the acknowledged authority of a prelatical bishop ascertained and limited by law, of an officer who has been elected for the very purpose of being the depository of this power. But it is an incident, a perquisite, a matter not taken into the account, without being, for that reason, the less real, or the less extensive. It is dangerous, moreover, because it arises out of the Church, and yet is made to bear upon all its internal operations. It is not the influence which superiority of wisdom, experience, piety or talent bestows on one member of a judicatory above his fellows; but it is an influence which cannot be met and counteracted within the sphere of its operation. Again, it is dangerous, because pre-eminently irresponsible. This irresponsibility arises from various sources; from the fact that it is not an official influence conferred by law, that it is intangible and secret, that those who wield it are independent of those on whom it operates. It is lodged in the hands of those who are not appointed by the Church or responsible to it; of men who owe their station to votes of a society composed of persons of various denominations, who may be decidedly hostile to what the majority of our Church considers its best interests. All that we have already said to show that a society, composed as the Home Missionary Society is, is far less safe and efficient as an appointing and controlling body than the General Assembly, goes to prove the peculiar irresponsibility of the influence of which we are now speaking. Can it be doubted that if the secretary of that Society had formed the purpose of doing all he could to influence the theological character of
particular presbyteries, and to control their course of policy, he might prosecute this purpose long and effectually without exciting the notice or animadversion of the Society itself? This is not a purpose to be announced to his unsophisticated and pious layassociates. Their cooperation might be secured without their ever conceiving of any other bearing of their measures, than on the wants and wishes of the destitute.
Besides, this influence is irresponsible, because the society in which the control is vested, is uncertain, fluctuating, and unknown. Can any one tell who constituted the last annual meeting, or predict who will constitute the next? Can any one know whether the majority was Presbyterian or Congregational? Whether they were from New Haven or East Windsor? Our author has undertaken to present his objections to ecclesiastical Boards. We must be permitted to point out the weak places on the other side. We say, then, that it is a great objection to a society constituted for the purposes of domestic missions, that the Church possesses no adequate security for the character and opinions of its members. They may be good and they may be bad, but what the character of the majority at an annual meeting may be, who can tell? What security is there that they shall be even professors of religion, much less that they approve of the doctrine and discipline of the Presbyterian Church? Is it no advantage on the other side, that the members who appoint and control the Board, are men who have adopted our standards, and who are as ministers and elders known to the churches? This is no captious objection. Its importance is so great and so obvious that, to avoid this difficulty, the founders of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, preferred forming themselves into a close corporation, rather than be exposed to the uncertainty and instability of a voluntary society. It is time for the advocates of voluntary institutions to be ashamed of appealing to the American
Board, whose organization is a most pointed condemnation of their favourite principle.
Finally, another dangerous feature of this influence is its concentration in the hands of a few persons. We have already seen that the Society, from its organization, and from the short time which it remains in session, can have little oversight or control over the operations of its officers. These officers are, in fact, almost the sole depositories of the whole of the power which arises from the employment of numerous agents, the disbursement of thousands of dollars, and the support of hundreds of ministers. And just in proportion to their facilities for controlling the society to which they belong, are their independence and irresponsibilty.
It may be said that this influence must exist somewhere, if not in the hands of the officers of the Home Missionary Society, that it will fall to those of the Boards of the General Assembly. If it must exist, then it is of the first importance that it should be subjected to every possible check and to the strictest accountability. We believe, however, from the difference of their organization, especially as it relates to the Board of Education, the power in the one case is far less than it is in the other. And we have already said enough to show that it is more natural and safe, more closely watched and guarded, when exercised by men appointed by the Church in her organized capacity, than when wielded by the hands of irresponsible voluntary societies.
It will be seen that few of our arguments have any bearing on the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. We cheerfully admit that our objections to this institution are far less strong, and that they do not interfere with our entertaining for it the highest respect and confidence. It is only by a strange solecism that this society is called a voluntary association; it has, in fact, less of the
character than any similar institution in our land, though it seems on this account to forfeit none of the esteem of those who are forever insisting on the necessity and excellence of the voluntary principle. The power of this society is comparatively small, and there is little temptation to abuse what it does possess. So long as it continues the course which it has hitherto pursued, and keeps itself aloof from the internal contentions of the Church, abstaining from all attempts to influence the decision of its judicatories on the missionary, as well as other questions, we are sure it will have the prayers, the confidence, and support of the churches.
There is one other remark which we wish to make in the conclusion of this part of our article. We have never been opposed to the existence of voluntary societies. While we have had our decided preference for ecclesiastical organizations, we have felt perfectly willing that those who differed from us should take their own course in doing the work of the Lord. Believing that there was a large part of the Church who would not co-operate with the Boards of the General Assembly, we have rejoiced that they had institutions through which their energies might be exerted in doing good. It was only in repelling the arguments of their exclusive friends against the institutions of the Church that we were led, in our number for July last, to animadvert in any measure on the evils connected with the operations of these societies. And now, we are writing in opposition to a formal and laboured assault against the Boards of the Church, combined with an extended personal attack upon ourselves. We are, therefore, not to be considered as aggressors in this business. And while we have a deep conviction that the Home Missionary Society, under the management of its secretary, has become a great party engine, operating most unfavourably for the peace, union, and purity of the Church; we, at the same time, believe that his lay-associates are in a great measure innocent in this matter. With them, therefore,
we have no controversy, and for them we entertain undiminished confidence and affection.
b. Warrant for the Boards
[Form of Gov., chap. xviii.—Comp. Digest of 1873, p. 422. ff.]
The first subject of importance which occupied the attention of the Assembly, was the reorganization of the Boards of the Church. On this and its collateral subjects, the last General Assembly had appointed two committees, and directed them to report to the present Assembly. Of one of these committees, the Rev. Dr. B. M. Smith, of Virginia, was the chairman, and of the other, the Rev. Dr. Humphrey, of Kentucky. On the first day of the sessions, Dr. Smith offered the following resolution, which was adopted, viz.:
Resolved, That a committee of fifteen be appointed, to whom shall be referred the overture of the last Assembly on the subject of Reorganizing the Boards of the Church, and the Church Extension Committee.
To this committee was referred the report of the committee appointed last year, without reading it to the house, and other papers connected with the subject. Towards the close of the sessions this committee of fifteen reported the following resolutions:
Resolved, 1. That at each meeting of the Assembly the Boards shall present their Records with their Annual Report.
Resolved, 2. That the Boards and Church Extension Committee shall elect to office their Secretaries for not less than four years; and the Assembly shall have power always to remove a Secretary for neglect of duty, or other sufficient ground.
Resolved, 3. That the Boards and Church Extension Committee be hereafter composed of twenty members each, to be elected in four classes, as formerly; besides the Secretary or Secretaries to be members ex officio.
Resolved, 4. That these Boards shall henceforth conduct their business without the employment of Executive Committees.
Resolved, 5. That five members shall be a quorum, except for the election of officers, when fifteen shall be a quorum.
Resolved, 6. That this Assembly now proceed to elect members of the Boards.
Resolved, 7. That all acts inconsistent with this action be repealed.
On motion of Dr. Armstrong, these resolutions were laid on the table without debate, with the view of taking up another series presented by Dr. Krebs.
The committee of the last Assembly, of which Dr. Humphrey was chairman, was, in his absence, represented by Dr. Boardman, who read the report and offered a series of resolutions. The first of these was, that it is inexpedient to make any organic change in the constitution of the Board of Domestic Missions. The second resolution, which recommended that there should be no Executive Committee but the one in Philadelphia, was referred to the next Assembly. The third resolution, so far as it recommended the appointment of an Advisory Committee at San Francisco, was adopted. The fourth, which proposed that the Board should appoint one Corresponding and one Travelling Secretary, was said upon the table.
The first of these resolutions, as it brought up the whole subject, was discussed with great earnestness, and at great length. The debate was continued from day to day, until the close of the eighth day of the sessions, when the resolution was adopted. The yeas and nays were called, and the result was, yeas 234, nays 56. These numbers were slightly increased by absentees being permitted to record their votes, making the yeas 240, and the nays about 60. On the ninth day, Dr. Thornwell presented a protest against the above decision, which was referred to a committee, of which Dr. William Brown, of Virginia, was made chairman, to be answered. When, however, the resolutions above referred to, introduced by Dr. Krebs, were adopted, Dr. Thornwell withdrew his protest, with the leave of the house.
The resolutions presented by Dr. Krebs are as follows:
Resolved, 1. By this General Assembly, that the Secretaries of the Boards of the Church be instructed to notify the members thereof of their appointment, and of all the meetings of the Boards, whether stated or special; and when such meetings are for special purposes, the subject for discussion shall be mentioned in the notice.
Resolved, 2. That it shall be the duty of the above named Boards to send up to the Assembly, with their Annual Reports, their books of minutes of the respective Executive Committees, for examination; and it shall be the duty of said Committees to bring to the attention of the Assembly any matters which, in their judgment, call for the notice of the Assembly.
Resolved, 3. That it is not lawful for either of the above named Boards to issue certificates of life-membership to any person, or any testimonial, by virtue of which any person is permitted to sit, deliberate and vote with the Boards; but the Boards may devise and grant certificates or testimonials of special donations to the class of
persons hitherto known as honorary members—it being understood and provided that such persons can in no sense be allowed by purchase or gift, to exercise any sort of right or position to deliberate and vote with the members appointed by the General Assembly.
Thus was this exciting subject finally settled, as by common consent; and it is to be hoped that it will not again be agitated, but the Church be allowed to go on unimpeded and united in her great work of missionary labour.
It would be in vain to attempt to present any adequate report of this protracted debate. To reprint the speeches as furnished in the papers, would fill up our pages with matter already in the hands of our readers. We shall attempt nothing more than the merest synopsis of the arguments urged on either side. 1. It was argued by Dr. B. M. Smith, that there were two kinds of government in the Church—the one founded on principle, the other on expediency. Voluntary societies were the product of the latter. They had proved among Congregationalists very efficient. It was natural that men coming into our Church from New England, should bring with them some of the leaven of the system to which they had been accustomed. As a counterweight to these voluntary societies, our Boards were created. They were the fruit of expediency. They were intended to do for us what voluntary societies had done for New England—to enlist the influence of leading men in all parts of the Church, by making them members of these Boards, which were a fungus growth, mere excrescences on our system. 2. He urged that the Boards did nothing. The whole work was done by the Executive Committees. The Boards were, therefore, an unnecessary incumbrance. 3. The mode of their election was ridiculous, and showed that the whole thing was a farce. Nobody took any interest in the choice, because everybody saw that those elected were not expected to do anything. Sometimes the
wrong men had been elected. 4. He thought there was danger that these large Boards might pack the Assembly, and control its action. A small body could be more easily managed and kept in due subordination to the Assembly. He admitted the right of the Assembly to act by an organization outside of itself, but insisted that this organization should be a small body and immediately dependent on the Assembly, without the intervention of any unnecessary corporation.
Dr. Adger's argument was founded principally on the inefficiency of the present system. He said that $118,000 a year was a very poor contribution for a Church which could and should raise a million dollars annually for this great work. Your report says that the average salaries of your missionaries is $536, when $1,000 would not be too much. Only 1705 churches contribute to this fund, while 1783 churches are non-contributing. They do not contribute, he said, because they do not like the system. 2. He insisted that the system was wrong. God has given us a divine system of government— Sessions, Presbyteries, and Synods. The synod should not do the work of a presbytery, nor a presbytery of a session; much less should a Board be allowed to do the work of the presbyteries. Every presbytery should attend to the work of missions within its own bounds; the proper field for the Board was outside and beyond our ecclesiastical territories. It is its business to follow the emigrants to New Mexico, Utah, Dacotah, &c., with the missionary and the means of grace. Each presbytery having performed what was necessary within its own borders, should send its surplus funds to a Central Committee, by which they should be used for missionary operations beyond the borders of the Church, and to aid the feebler presbyteries who need help to do the work within their own limits. 3. The Board system is not only wrong in principle and inefficient in operation, but it fails to unite the Church and call forth its energies. We want, he