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 self-defence, 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 lay-associates. 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 said, to co-operate with you, but we must work apart if you insist on your present system. We want to operate through our presbyteries, synods, and General Assembly. Boards have no life in them. The presbyteries do not feel any interest in the work of missions. They say the great Board in Philadelphia will attend to it. 4. It was strenuously urged on this side of the question, that the Boards were an incumbrance; that they did nothing; that they stood in the way between the Assembly and the Executive Committees, shielding the latter from direct responsibility to the Church, and yet exercising no real inspection or control over them.

Dr. Thornwell took higher ground. He argued the question as one of principle, as involving radically different views, on the one side, and on the other, of the nature and powers of the Church. His speeches on this subject were very long and very ardent. They are of course imperfectly reported, and we can only give the heads of his argument as presented in the public papers. 1. He insisted that God had laid down in the Scripture a form of Church government, from which we are not at liberty to depart. We can neither add to it nor detract from it. We can no more create a new office, or a new organ for the Church, than we can create a new article of faith, or a new precept for the moral law. It is not enough that a thing is not forbidden in the word of God, it must be expressly enjoined or implied by necessary inference. We must be able to plead a “Thus saith the Lord” for every organization or agency which we employ in carrying on the work of the Church. We have no “discretionary power to create a new Church court, or judicatory, or anything to stand in the place of, or to perform the duty which belongs to the Church of God’s creation and ordination.” As Christ gave his Church with its officers, courts, and laws, with a specific mission to accomplish in this apostate world, we cannot appoint another co-ordinate body to do the work which he appointed us to do. The General Assembly is the Board of Missions, the body which must be appealed to to do the work; Christ never authorized us to put it into other hands. 2. The powers which Christ has given his Church cannot be transferred. She cannot impose her responsibilities on any other body. A Christian cannot pray or live a holy life by proxy. Congress cannot delegate its right of legislation to any organization of its own creation. It must itself make the laws. In like manner this General Assembly cannot transfer the power or the obligation to conduct the work of missions. It must be done by the Assembly itself. 3. It follows from these principles that the Boards are unscriptural. No one pretends that they are expressly enjoined in the Bible. It is not enough that they are not forbidden. Neither are they absolutely necessary to the exercise of the functions of the Church. And if neither expressly commanded nor necessarily implied in the powers explicitly granted, they are absolutely unlawful. 4. That the Boards are thus uncommanded and unauthorized creations was argued because they are distinct organizations. They are bodies complete in themselves, with members, heads, and hands. They have their presidents, executive committees and other officers. They are therefore as complete self-acting organizations as our presbyteries or synods. The General Assembly, indeed, can either review its action or dissolve them at its pleasure; but the same may be said of presbyteries and synods. 5. The existence of these Boards, therefore, is derogatory to the Church, as implying that her divine constitution is not sufficient. They are an indignity to the great Head of the Church, as implying that he has not furnished her with an organization adequate to the work which he has given her to perform. 6. This discretionary power of the Church, the principle that what was not forbidden is permitted, was the point of difference between the Puritans and the Church of England. Herber’s idea was that the only limitation of the power of the Church was the non-contradiction of the Bible; it does not forbid the liturgy, the sign of the cross, and kneeling at the Eucharist, therefore these things are right; while the Puritans contended they are not enjoined in the Bible, and an absence of a grant is a negation of the power. Our covenant fathers in Scotland fought for the same principle. 7. This is with us a res adjudicata. The General Assembly at Nashville refused to constitute a Board of Church Extension, but did constitute a Committee for that purpose, which had operated successfully. 8. Special objection was made to honorary or life members of these Boards. Although not allowed to vote, such members were entitled to meet with the Boards, and deliberate on all questions which come before them. Thus for money, any man can secure for himself or for another this position in the Church, or in its organisms, for the conduct of the work of missions. This was represented as a great enormity. These, as far as we can gather from the report, were the principal heads of Dr. Thornwell’s argument. The points made by the other speakers on the same side, were of course, with more or less prominence, made by him.

Dr. Spring and the Hon. Mr. Galloway made short and effective speeches, the one in reply to Dr. Smith, and the other in answer to Dr. Adger, and the debate was continued principally by Drs. Krebs, Boardman and Hodge. 1. It was shown that the assertion, that our Boards, had a New England origin and were founded on expediency as distinguished from principle, is contrary to historical facts. The men who originated our Boards were not men of New England origin, or imbued with New England ideas, but precisely the reverse. Our Church from the beginning had acted on the principle that the Church itself was bound to preach the gospel to every creature; that this commission involved the duty and the authority to train men for the ministry, to send them forth, to sustain them in the field, and to furnish them with all the appliances requisite for the successful prosecution of their great object. This work the Church cannot perform by its scattered members, nor by its regular judicatories meeting at long intervals and for short periods, and therefore there was a necessity for the appointment of distinct organizations for the accomplishment of the object. Hence the original Committee of Missions. But as the Church enlarged, there was a call for a division of labour, and for more efficient arrangements. This gave rise to the formation of the Boards of Domestic Missions, Foreign Missions, Education, Publication, and Committee of Church Extension. These were the legitimate outgrowths of our own principles, and not foreign organisms engrafted into our system.

2. As to the principle that everything must be prescribed in the word of God as to the government and modes of operation of the Church, or be unlawful, it was urged that no Church ever existed that was organized on that principle. Every Church that pleaded a jus divinum for its form of government, was content to claim divine authority for the essential elements of their system, while they claimed a discretionary power as to matters of detail and modes of operation; that it was absurd to do more than this with regard to our own system. The great principles of Presbyterianism are in the Bible; but it is preposterous to assert that our whole Book of Discipline is there. This would be to carry the theory of divine right beyond the limits even of the Old Testament economy, and make the gospel dispensation, designed for the whole world, more restricted and slavish than the Jewish, although it was designed for only one nation, and for a limited period. It was further urged, that this theory was utterly unscriptural, as the New Testament was far from exalting matters of government and external organization to the same level with matters of doctrine and morals. It was shown also to be an utterly impracticable and suicidal theory. If this doctrine were true, we could have no Church-schools, nor academies, colleges, nor theological seminaries. No one pretended to claim for these an explicit “Thus saith the Lord.” The work of missions on this theory would be impracticable, for it would be impossible to carry it out among heathen converts. The Church must have freedom to adapt herself to the varying circumstances in which she is called to act. The great objection, however, to this new and extreme doctrine is, that it is inconsistent with our Christian liberty, our liberty of conscience. It inevitably leads to the imposition of human ordinances as the commandments of God. The inferences which one draws from Scripture bind him, but they have no authority for others. It is not only revolting, but ridiculous, to say that the Bible forbids a Board and commands a Committee; that to organize the one is rebellion, while to constitute the other is obedience.

And finally, as to this point, it was shown that every objection urged on this high jus divinum theory against the Boards, bears with equal force against Committees. The one is no more enjoined than the other. The one can be just as well inferred as the other. We have a work to do, and it is admitted that we are to adopt the best means for doing it. If we think a Board better, we may take that; if we think a Committee better, we may take that. There is as much a transfer of authority in the one case as in the other. A Committee is just as much an organization, acting of itself after the appointing body ceases to exist, as a Board. The only difference between the Committee of Church Extension and the Board of Missions is, that the one consists of some eighty or ninety members, the other of thirty or forty. To make this difference a matter of vital principle, a question of divine right, the dividing line between rebellion and obedience is utterly unreasonable. But if it should be admitted that there is some minute difference in principle between such a Committee as that of Church Extension and a Board, what was to be said of the Boards of our Theological Seminaries? No objection is made to them, and yet they stand in the same relation to the Assembly as the Board of Missions. If the one is an organization outside the Church, so are the others. If the one has delegated powers, so have the others. If the one is forbidden, so must the others be. It is plain that this principle of divine prescription for every detail, cannot be, and is not carried out. 3. Dr. Boardman, with marked ability and effect, referred to our standards, and to the modest and moderate language therein employed, as utterly inconsistent with this extreme high-Church doctrine. Our fathers were content with claiming that our system is “agreeable with Scripture,” and never assume an explicit divine prescription for all its details.

4. If the matter is viewed in the light of expediency, the argument is not less decisive against any radical change. Such change, without any imperative necessity, would itself be a great evil. It would be an inconsistency. After having for years contended not only for the lawfulness, but the necessity of Boards, for us now to cast them aside would be a dishonour to those who have gone before us, and utterly inconsistent with proper respect for the dignity of the Church. The Boards have been signally owned and blessed by the great Head of the Church, and made the means of incalculable good. The objection that certain presbyteries do not co-operate with our present organizations, is met by the fact that those who dissent on the ground of principle, are a very small minority, such as must be expected to exist in any free Church, under any system of operation; and as to efficiency, it is enough that the presbyteries which co-operate most liberally with the Board of Missions are precisely those which do most to promote the work of missions within their own borders. To throw our weak presbyteries, covering immense districts of thinly populated parts of the country, on their own efforts, and to confine the central committee to the region beyond our ecclesiastical limits, would be virtually to give up the work altogether, and to abandon the growing parts of the country to irreligion or to the labours of other denominations.

The objection that the Boards are a mere incumbrance, a useless intervention between the executive committees and the General Assembly, is met by saying: 1. That these Boards, consisting of members widely scattered, serve to increase interest and responsibility in the work. 2. They can be called together on emergency for consultation and direction when the Assembly is not in session. They can meet and spend days in the examination of records, and sifting out evils or errors which an Assembly of three hundred members could not possibly do. Occasions have occurred, and must be expected to occur more or less frequently, when, in the absence of such Boards, the Assembly would be obliged to create them pro re nata. The large size of these bodies, instead of being an objection, is a decided and great advantage. It is not necessary that all the members should attend every meeting. It is enough that they can be called together on emergencies. It is very inexpedient that every thing should be in the hands of a few men in Philadelphia, New York, or Louisville. If unwise measures are adopted, if personal likes and dislikes, or sectional feeling, should be found to influence the action of the members living in or near the seat of operations, a general summons of the Board can correct the evil. This has happened already. It is illustrated in other cases. Had the Bible Society been in the hands of a few men in New York, the society would have been ruined. It was by appealing to a wider constituency that that great institution was saved. The same is true with regard to the Tract Society, and may prove true with regard to the Sunday-school Union. It is not safe to entrust such interests to a few hands; and although we have a safeguard in the supervision of the Assembly, yet, as that body meets only once a year, first in one place, and then in another; as it is cumbered with so much other business, and sits for so short a time, it is eminently wise not to have the supervision of all the five great benevolent operations of the Church centralized and monopolized by that body. We might as well abolish all the Boards of Directors of our Theological Seminaries and impose the work of supervision and direction on the Assembly. It is enough that the supreme power over these Boards is invested in our highest court; the power of appointment, supervision and control. The stockholders of no railroad or bank in the country undertake the direct supervision of the executive officers at their annual meeting. They all find it necessary to confide that supervision to a board of directors. And when such institution is a state or national concern, those directors are never chosen from any one place or neighbourhood. These are the common-sense and scriptural principles on which the Boards have been constituted, and which have secured for them the general confidence of the Church.

The overwhelming vote by which the Assembly declared any organic change in these institutions inexpedient, and the withdrawing of Dr. Thornwell’s protest against that vote, on the adoption of the slight modifications suggested by Dr. Krebs, give ground to hope that the policy of the Church in this matter will not be again called into question.

c. Relations of Boards to Presbyteries

We have given much space to the record of the debate respecting the Board of Missions, because we regard the principles involved of general and permanent interest. The two main points at issue were, the relation of the Board to the presbyteries, and the principle that the Board is a missionary and not a sustentation organization. As to the former of these questions, it seemed to be contended for, on the one side, that the Board was bound to obey the presbyteries as their agent in the appropriations of the funds under its control; and on the other, that while great respect is due to the wishes and resolutions of presbyteries, the board is the final judge, as to what churches shall be assisted, what shall be the amount of the aid furnished, and how long that aid shall be continued. Perhaps the truth, as commonly, lies in the middle.

The Board cannot be under a hundred masters, each having the right to say what is to be done with money derived from the whole Church. The Board is intrusted with a certain income, to be appropriated for the support and spread of the gospel. They must of necessity have a large discretion in the disposition of this income. They must distribute it, not agreeably to the wishes of a presbytery limiting its views to its own necessities, but agreeably to the relative necessities of the whole Church. This is plain, and, therefore, whenever a presbytery recommends a particular Church to the Board for aid, it is competent for the Board to decide whether, consistently with other demands, they are able to furnish the required assistance, and to what extent. As to the question of their ability to afford aid in any given case, the Board must be the judge. But as to the question whether a particular Church deserves aid, whether it ought to sustain itself, or if not able to do so, be abandoned to its fate, the case is very different. The ability to decide, and the right to decide these questions, as it seems to us, are with the presbyteries. It is evident that a central committee of a half dozen brethren in Philadelphia cannot know the circumstances of every missionary church in the country, and be able to sit in judgment on the question what each can do in the matter of self-support, and whether the post is worth maintaining or not. Besides it is the prerogative of the presbyteries to judge of all questions of this nature respecting the churches within their own bounds.

For the Board to say we cannot aid a Church, because we have not the money, is one thing. But to say, we will not aid it, because we think it ought to sustain itself, is a very different thing. In the one case, the Board keeps its place as the agent of the Church, in the other, it sets itself over the Church, by putting up its judgment against the judgment of the only competent tribunal for the decision of the matter. It is analogous to the case of the Board of Education. That Board is not bound to aid every young man recommended by the presbyteries. On the questions how many candidates it can assist, and to what extent it can aid them, the decision is with the Board. But it cannot sit in judgment on the decisions of the presbytery and reverse them, and say, we will not assist a candidate whom you pronounce worthy, because we think him unworthy. This would be to invest the Executive Committee of the Board of Education with presbyterial powers over the whole Church. If a presbytery pronounces a man worthy, the Board of Education cannot refuse to aid him on the ground of his unworthiness, though it may on the ground of the lack of funds. In like manner, the Board of Missions may decline aid to a congregation recommended by a presbytery, on the ground of the want of funds, but not on the ground that it does not need aid, or ought not to have it. This principle secures the Board its independence, and full discretionary power in the control of its funds, and at the same time it secures the presbyteries in the exercise of their undoubted right.

It is the actual or apprehended disregard of this principle on the part of the Board, which seems to have excited so much opposition in various parts of the Church. To have a committee in Philadelphia sitting in judgment on the question, whether a Church in Indiana ought to be assisted, or should sustain itself, and reversing the decision of its presbytery as to that point, and to claim and exercise the same power over every presbytery in our connection, may well excite opposition. How long would the Church tolerate the Committee of the Board of Education, rejudging the judgments of all the presbyteries as to the qualification of candidates for the ministry.

We do not know that the Board of Missions claim the power to which we object; but if they do, as the Assembly has repeatedly sustained their course, the remedy is to be found in friendly discussion, until the views of the Church are settled, and then they will not fail to express themselves through the Assembly.

We repeat the statement of what appears to us the true doctrine, that it may be distinctly apprehended by our readers. The Board of Missions has the right to the distribution of its funds at its own discretion, and may, therefore, decline to aid a Church recommended by a presbytery, on the ground of the want of funds. But it has no right to set its judgment over that of the presbyteries, as to whether a given Church ought to be aided. The question how much money can be granted to a particular field, rests with the Board; but the question, what Churches within its own bounds shall be aided, rests with the several presbyteries. And we think the practical recognition of this clear distinction, would go far towards producing harmony and cordial co-operation, instead of growing discontent, such as was manifested in the Synod of New Jersey last fall, in several of the Synods of the West, and on the floor of the General Assembly.

d. Conditioning Aid on Length of Study

[Form of Gov., chap. xiv., sec. vi.—Digest of 1873, p. 399.]

In connection with this subject [Report of the Board of Education,] should be mentioned a memorial from the Synod of Cincinnati, and another from the Synod of West Tennessee, on the subject of the rule of the Board, requiring every beneficiary to pursue a course of three year’s study; and a communication from the Board itself on the same subject. Upon these papers the committee of Bills and Overtures recommended the adoption of a resolution to the following effect: “That the Board be required to permit the presbytery under whose care the candidate may study, to be the judge of the length of time which shall be occupied in his theological studies.”*

This resolution was opposed by Dr. Maclean, Dr. Junkin, the moderator, Mr. Boardman, Dr. Elliot, and others. Mr. A. O. Patterson, Mr. Williamson, Dr. Plumer, and others, supported the recommendation of the committee. Dr. Cuyler proposed a substitute to the effect that the General Assembly, being deeply impressed with a sense of the importance of a thorough course of preparation for the ministry, urge upon the Presbyteries to endeavour to elevate the standard of theological attainments by the students under their care, and that the pledge exacted by the Board of its beneficiaries, does not conflict with the constitution of the Church.

This substitute was adopted. We are not aware that the rule of the Board requiring their beneficiaries to study theology three years, was objected to on the ground that a shorter course of study was sufficient or desirable. It seemed to be the general sense of the house, as it has been the uniform sentiment and practice of the Church that as thorough a theological education as is attainable should be imparted to all candidates for the ministry. In the earlier periods of our history there was greater temptation than at present to lower the standard of ministerial education; but all attempts to effect that object were defeated. And to the honour of the Synod of Kentucky, it should be remembered that they submitted to the secession of the body now called the Cumberland Presbyterians, rather than yield to such demands. It is to this steadiness in requiring that men who are to teach others, should themselves be adequately taught, that the prosperity and usefulness of our Church is in no small degree to be ascribed. There is, however, a constant tendency both on the part of young men and presbyteries to shorten the term of study. The calls for labour are so urgent; the difficulties of support are sometimes so numerous; and it must be confessed, in some cases, the conviction of the need of much study, is so weak, that it often happens that young men hurry or are hurried into the ministry but half prepared for their work. This is a great calamity to them and to the Church. It is purchasing a temporary good, at the expense of a permanent evil. No man who has any just appreciation of the work of the ministry, would dare to assume its responsibilities, after a hurried course of two years’ study. He would feel that the danger he ran of perverting the truth through ignorance, or of failing to defend it when attacked, was too serious an evil to be lightly incurred. All experience teaches us that ignorance, next to sin, is the most fruitful source of error, and that a few able, well furnished and faithful ministers, are far more efficient for good, than a multitude of uneducated though zealous men.

The objection to the rule adopted by the Board which seemed to influence the members who took part in the debate, was that it conflicted with the rights of presbyteries. The constitution permits a presbytery to ordain a candidate after two years of theological study. The Board require the beneficiaries to study three years. This, it was urged, they had no right to do. It was not contended that the Assembly itself, much less the Board, has authority to limit the discretion of the presbyteries in this matter. If a presbytery choose to license or ordain a candidate, when he has studied two years, they can do so without censure. The rule of the Board does not apply to the presbyteries, however, but to the young men. The Board do not say to the former you must allow your beneficiaries to study three years; but it says to its own beneficiaries you must agree to study at least that length of time. Any individual has a right to say to a young man: I will aid you during your theological course, provided you consent to study three years; and the Board, which represents a number of individuals, who act and speak through the General Assembly, have surely the right to say the same thing. It is only a condition which the donors attach to their contributions. If they are dissatisfied they can through the Assembly rescind the restriction, or if in the minority, withhold their contributions. There is neither assumption nor injustice in this. It can not be doubted that the great majority of the contributors to the Board of Education are in favour of requiring a three years’ course of study, and for a minority to say they shall not give at all unless they give in a way which they think injurious to the Church, is surely unreasonable. The presbyteries are left at perfect liberty; they may license whom they please and when they please, within the limits of the constitution, but the Board as the organ of the donors and under the direction of the Assembly, may make a contract with the young men not to apply for licensure until they have completed their course of studies. A very important object is thus gained, without trenching on the rights of others.

e. Parochial Schools

[Comp. Digest of 1873, p. 278.]

A committee, of which the Rev. Dr. James W. Alexander was chairman, appointed by the last Assembly, made an important report on the subject of Parochial Schools, which was read and ordered to be printed for the use of the members. The report closed with the following resolutions, viz:

“Resolved, 1st. That in the judgment of the General Assembly, any scheme of education is incomplete which does not include instruction in the Scriptures, and in those doctrines of grace which are employed by the Holy Spirit in the renewal and sanctification of the soul.

“Resolved, 2d. That in consideration of the blessings derived to us, through our forefathers, from the method of mingling the doctrines of our Church with the daily teachings of the school, the Assembly earnestly desire as near an approach to this method as may comport with the circumstances of this country.

“Resolved, 3d. That the Assembly regards with great approval, the attempt of such churches as have undertaken schools under their proper direction; as well as the zeal which has led individual friends of the truth to aid the same cause.

“Resolved, 4th. That the Assembly recommends the whole subject of Parochial Education to the serious attention of the Church— counseling all concerned to regard the maintenance of gospel faith and order, in the founding of new schools, the appointment of teachers, and the selection of places of education.”

On motion of Dr. Young the following additional resolution was adopted.

“Resolved, That the whole subject of the report be referred to the Board of Education; that they may, from time to time, report to the General Assembly any further action that may be needed for extending through our churches a system of Parochial Schools.”

The whole report was finally adopted, and ordered to be printed in the appendix to the Minutes.

The only point which gave rise to any debate, was that contained in the second resolution, which affirms that the “doctrines of our Church” ought to be mingled “with the daily teachings of the school,” necessarily implying that there ought to be schools under the control of the Church. This brought up the great question, whether Presbyterians ought to join with other denominations and sustain the common schools of the state, or whether they should, as far as possible, establish parochial schools under their own exclusive control. When the matter first came up, Dr. R. J. Breckenridge made a short and effective speech against the principle of parochial schools; and Dr. Tallmadge spoke, in reply, in favor of the report. The subject was then postponed, and made the order of the day for the afternoon of the following Thursday. When that time arrived, after a short debate, the discussion was again postponed, and finally the report was acted upon without having been debated to any extent according to its importance.

The principal objections urged against the report were, first, that the whole spirit of the age and of our country is in favour of popular education, that spirit we cannot effectually resist, it must have its course, and therefore it is the duty of every evangelical denomination to throw its influence into the movement, and give the common schools of the country as Christian a character as possible. Secondly, that since Presbyterians, in consequence of their general intelligence, have an influence disproportioned to their relative number, they are, of all denominations, the last which should withdraw from this general partnership; they are sure to derive more benefit from it, and to have more power in controlling it, than would be due to them on account of their numbers. Thirdly, that it must be disastrous for any body of Christians to separate themselves from the community, sitting apart as on an isolated tripod, out of communion with their fellow-citizens. If they would prosper, they must enter heart and hand in the common enterprises of the country, in which they have an interest, and not attempt to set up for themselves. Fourthly, that the diversity of sects to be found in all our towns and villages, renders it impossible that each Church should have its own schools. Fifthly, that the plan proposed would involve a vast expenditure of men and money; millions would be required to erect and sustain a school in connection with every Presbyterian congregation in our land.

These arguments have certainly great weight, but they do not seem exactly to meet the case, nor to counterbalance the considerations on the other side. Dr. Lindsley, Dr. Reed, Mr. Mebane and Dr. Young sustained the report, the latter speaking at some length and with great strength of argument in its support. It is a conceded point that children ought to be religiously educated; that not merely natural religion, but Christianity, and not merely Christianity in general, but in the definite form in which we believe it has been revealed by God for the salvation of men, ought to be inculcated on the infant mind, so that the rising generation shall be imbued with the knowledge of divine truth. Secondly, it may be assumed as conceded that it is the duty of the Church to impart this religious education. This is one of the most important parts of her vocation. She received her commission to teach; she is by the will and authority of her author an institute of education, established to communicate and preserve the knowledge of God, of Christ, of the way of salvation and of the rule of duty. Thirdly, this is a duty which the Church cannot devolve on others; she cannot throw the responsibility on the state, for it is the very work God has given her to do, and she might as well look to the state to preach the gospel, as to make disciples of the nations by teaching them. Fourthly, the only question then is how the Church is to acquit herself of this obligation; how is she to fulfil her vocation as teacher as far as the young are concerned? Can she safely rely upon family instruction, on Sunday-schools, on the religious teaching of pastors, separately or combined? It is acknowledged that all these modes of religious education are legitimate and important, and ought to be assiduously used, but they are all inadequate. With regard to family instruction, it is obvious that many parents have no disposition to teach their children the doctrines of the gospel; others who may have the disposition, have not adequate knowledge or skill; so that if the Church were to rely on this method, a very large part of the young for whom she is responsible, would grow up in ignorance. As to Sunday-schools, they are inadequate for two reasons, first, because in most cases they embrace children of various religious denominations, the instruction given is consequently often too general; and secondly, because only an hour a week is devoted to the subject, a portion of time altogether insufficient to attain so great an end as teaching Christianity to the rising generation. As to pastoral instruction, this is or ought to be the main reliance of the Church, and is an agency of divine appointment which no other should be allowed to supersede and weaken. Much in many parts of the Church is effected by this means, and more ought doubtless to be accomplished. The pastor by catechetical instruction, by teaching the Bible, and by other means, has it in his power to do a great deal towards attaining the great end in view. The pastor is the teacher, the of his whole people. But at best this brings under instruction only the children of the Church-going part of the population, leaving a large portion of the whole number unprovided for. Then again it is rare that the pastor can, or at least does, bring even all the children of his own people under this course of training. Either their number, or the wide extent of country over which they are scattered, or the pressure of other duties, or the remissness of parents, or other reasons, prevent this agency from fully accomplishing the desired end. It is an obvious fact that if the children of the country had no other religious instruction than that derived from the pastor, they would to a vast extent grow up unenlightened by the knowledge of the Bible. Our condition is greatly modified by the peculiarity of our political institutions. In Prussia and other countries of the old world, the law intervenes and requires the attendance of the children on the instruction of the pastor and makes it obligatory on the pastor at stated times to give that instruction. Every pastor has always under instruction all the children of his district, between the ages of thirteen and fourteen for boys, and eleven and twelve for girls. He is required by law to meet them once a week and take them through a prescribed course, and they are required to attend his instructions, and at the end of the year they are publicly examined. A certificate of having satisfactorily sustained that examination, is demanded of every young person before he can marry or in any way settle in life. Any thing of this kind among us, is of course out of the question. Unless therefore the Church can employ some other agency than those already mentioned, she will not accomplish her vocation as the teacher of the people. That other agency is the common school. In all ages of the Church and in every part of Christendom it has been considered a first principle that religious teaching should be incorporated with the common school system. This is not peculiar to Protestantism. In Popish countries it ever has been, and still is the great aim of the priesthood to get the children imbued, while pursuing their secular education, with the doctrines of the Church. In this they are right. Their error lies not in thus incorporating religion with early education, but in teaching a false system of religion.

Until the difficulty arising from diversity of sects began to be felt, it was the universal rule that the Church system, the doctrines of the gospel as held by the Church, should be sedulously taught in the schools. To meet the difficulty just suggested, the first plan proposed was to fix upon some common standard of doctrine in which the several sects could concur, and confine the religious teaching within those limits, leaving denominational peculiarities to be otherwise provided for. On this plan in Great Britain the attempt has been made to unite not only evangelical Protestants, but even Protestants and Romanists in the same schools. This plan has satisfied no party, and though still persisted in, has proved in a great measure a failure. It is peculiarly inappropriate for this country. Because as we are obliged to act on the principle of excluding no class of the people from the common school, this common standard of doctrine, is of necessity that with which the very lowest and loosest of the sects of the country will be satisfied. It is not only the Episcopalian, Romanist, Presbyterian, Methodist or Baptist, that must be satisfied, but Socinians, Universalists, and even Infidels. An immediate outcry is made about religious liberty, and the union of Church and State, if in a public school any religious instruction is given to which any of these parties object.

This has led to the plan of confining the instruction of the schools to secular branches exclusively, and leaving the parent or pastor to look after the religious education of the children. This is becoming the popular theory in this country. It is already difficult, in many places, to retain even the reading of the Scriptures in the public schools. The whole system is in the hands of men of the world, in many of our states, and is avowedly secular. Now with regard to this scheme it may be remarked that it is a novel and fearful experiment. The idea of giving an education to the children of a country from which religion is to be excluded, we believe to be peculiar to the nineteenth century. Again, it is obvious that education without religion, is irreligious. It cannot be neutral, and in fact is not neutral. The effort to keep out religion from all the books and all the instructions, gives them of necessity an irreligious and infidel character. Again, the common school is the only place of education for a large class of our people. They have neither parental nor pastoral instruction to supply its deficiency or correct its influence. Again, this plan is so repugnant to the convictions of the better part of the community that its introduction into our colleges has been strenuously resisted. Where is the Christian parent who would send his son to a college from which religion was banished, in which there were no prayers, no preaching of the gospel, no biblical instruction? But if we shrink from such an ungodly mode of education for the few who enjoy the advantages of a classical education, why should we consent to the great mass of the children of the country, being subjected to this system in the common schools? Under the plea and guise of liberty and equality, this system is in fact in the highest degree tyrannical. What right has the state, a majority of the people, or a mere clique, which in fact commonly control such matters, to say what shall be taught in schools which the people sustain? What more right have they to say that no religion shall be taught, than they have to say that popery shall be taught? Or what right have the people in one part, to control the wishes and convictions of those of another part of a state as to the education of their own children? If the people of a particular district choose to have a school in which the Westminster or the Heidelberg catechism is taught, we cannot see on what principle of religious liberty, the state has a right to interfere and say it shall not be done; if you teach your religion you shall not draw your own money from the public fund. This appears to us a strange doctrine in a free country; and yet it is, if we mistake not, the practical working of the popular systems in every part of the Union. We are not disposed to submit to any such dictation. We cannot see with any patience the whole school system of a state, with all its mighty influence, wielded by a secretary of state, or school commissioner, or by a clique of Unitarian or infidel statesmen, as the case may be. We regard this whole theory of a mere secular education in the common schools, enforced by the penalty of exclusion from the public funds and state patronage, as unjust and tyrannical as well as infidel in its whole tendency. The people of each district have the right to make their schools as religious as they please; and if they cannot agree, they have the right severally of drawing their proper proportion of the public stock.

The conviction, we are persuaded, is fast taking possession of the minds of good people that the common school system is rapidly assuming not a mere negative, but a positively anti-christian character; and that in self-defence, and in the discharge of their highest duty to God and their country, they must set themselves against it, and adopt the system of parochial schools; schools in which each Church shall teach fully, fairly and earnestly what it believes to be the truth of God. This is the only method in which a religious education has hitherto ever been given to the mass of the people of any country, and the novel experiment of this age and country, is really an experiment to see what will be the result of bringing up the body of the people in ignorance of God and his word. For if religion is banished from the common school it will be excluded from the whole educational training of a large part of the population. It is an attempt to apply to the whole country, what Girard has prescribed for his college. Under these circumstances the Church of every denomination is called upon to do its duty, which is nothing more or less than to teach the people Christianity, and if this cannot otherwise be done thoroughly and effectually, as we are persuaded it cannot, than by having a school in connection with every congregation, then it is the duty of the Church to enter upon that plan and to prosecute it with all her energy. It is often said that we cannot argue from the case of European countries to our own. But the Free Church of Scotland has taught us that it is not only in established churches that the system of parochial schools is feasible. The devoted men who are laying the foundation of the new system in Scotland, never imagined that their duty would be done if they planted a pastor and a church in every parish. They at once, and with equal strength of conviction and purpose, set about establishing a school in connection with every church. It is as much a part of their system as having ministers or elders. And it should be ours also. A school of this kind, established and controlled by the session of the Church, becomes a nursery for the Church, the ministry and the whole land. Its blessings are not confined to any one denomination. The people are so anxious to get a good education for their children, that they will not hesitate to send them to a Presbyterian school, if that is the cheapest and best. Do we not see Romish schools crowded with Protestant children, attracted by the reputation of the teacher or the facility of acquiring some trifling accomplishment? If we do not adopt this course, others will. If Presbyterians do not have schools of their own, other denominations will soon have the education of Presbyterian children. Romanists are every where setting up for themselves; and as the principle on which they act commends itself to the judgment and conscience of good people, other denominations will soon follow their example.

The objection on the score of expense does not seem very formidable. The portion of money for each school which comes from the public treasury is, in most of our states, very small. And if the several denominations adopt the plan of parochial schools, the state will soon be forced to the obviously just method of a proportionate distribution of the public funds, whether derived from taxation or lands or a capital stock. A beginning has been made on this plan in New York in favour of the Romanists, and what has been granted to them cannot long be withheld from others. But even if we are to be permanently cut off from all support from the state, still the expense can be borne. Any good parochial school would soon sustain itself, and be able to afford gratuitous instruction to those who need it. Nor can we see that we should thus isolate ourselves. We have too many points of contact with the community of which we form a part, to admit of any such isolation. Action and reaction to any degree that is healthful to us or useful to others cannot fail to be kept up. Our having separate churches, pastors and church courts, do not make us a separate people in the country, and we see not why having separate schools should produce that effect. The greatest practical objection to the plan proposed would seem to be the minute division of the population into sects. In reference to this difficulty we would only remark, that a population that can sustain a church is large enough to have a school; and secondly, if the school be good, its support will not be confined to Presbyterians. Methodists and Baptists will not refuse to educate their children at all rather than send to a school under the charge of Presbyterians. All experience shows this to be true. We sincerely hope, therefore, that the plan proposed by the report and sanctioned by the Assembly, may be adopted and strenuously prosecuted by the churches. Let the session of the church look out for a competent teacher; let them prescribe the course of instruction, making the Bible and the Catechism a regular part of every day’s studies, and we doubt not the plan will meet the concurrence of the people and the blessing of God.

---

← Chapter XV. The General Assembly, § 5. Superintendence · Contents · Chapter XV. The General Assembly, § 7. Correspondence with other Churches →