THE AMERICAN HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY AND THE NEW SCHOOL GENERAL ASSEMBLY. BY REV. J. 8. CLARK, D.D. Low murmurs of discontent with the proceedings of the American Home Missionary Society had been issuing from Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly for several years, when, at their last meeting in Wilmington, Del., discontent broke out in open censure, and led to decisive action. A "Commission" was raised, embracing ten of their most influential ministers and laymen, to investigate the matter and make report. The reason for this extraordinary step, as set forth in the vague preambulary, "Whereas complaints have been made to the General Assembly from year to year," &c., does not account for the intense earnestness with which the subject was taken up and carried through a two days' discussion to the above named issue. But an attentive observer might have perceived that every speaker had his eye on a particular case of recent and extraordinary injustice (so deemed) wherein the feeble churches of a whole Presbytery were refused aid by the American Home Missionary Society, and on grounds which were likely to involve others in a similar fate, unless something could be speedily done to prevent it. The Alton Presbytery-this was the case-preferring to expend their own home missionary funds in forwarding the interests of their own denomination, had ceased to cooperate with the National Society on the common field; and for that reason were denied a share in the common Treasury. What made the injustice of such denial seem the more glaring, was the fact (so asserted by several intelligent speakers) that the American Home Missionary Society "is the creation of" the New School Presbyterian " Church ;” or, as one expressed it, "the creature of the Assembly," designed to be "our employee," and "fulfill our behests;" but instead of being and doing just this and nothing more nor less, they-the Society, through their Executive Committeehave gone to framing rules and regulations of their own, grievously oppressive to the interests of Presbyterianism, of which the following were produced as specimens: "1st. That the missionaries laboring within the bounds of an auxiliary or ecclesiastical body, be commissioned by this Society, and be governed in their labors by its principles. "2d. That the funds raised on the field be applied to cancel the pledges contained in the commissions, and be acknowledged by the Society as contributed to its Treasury. "3d. That the churches on the field cooperate cordially with the Society in the raising of funds, and contribute yearly to its Treasury, according to the full measure of their ability."1 The application of these rules and principles, it was conclusively shown, bore hard on the Alton Presbytery, which, though needy, was nevertheless allowed to take nothing from a Treasury into which it would put nothing; and equally hard must it be in many other portions of the West, where there is so much yet to be done in discharging that paramount duty of providing for their own denomi 1 In a correspondence opened between the Executive Committee and the Alton Presbytery, a copy of these rules had been sent to that body, prefaced by the statement that "the following principles govern the Society, in co-operating with all auxiliary and ecclesiastical bodies," and that the Executive Committee "will be happy to co-operate with the Presbytery of Alton on the same terms." See Home Mis sionary for July. national wants, by occupying the ground "in advance of all others." These things duly considered and discussed, judgment was rendered in the words following, viz: "The General Assembly can never approve of these resolutions, if they are to be interpreted as, "1. Denying the right of our Presbyteries, in our present relations to the American Home Missionary Society, to appoint, solely on their own authority, one or more exploring missionaries within their bounds; or as, "2. Asserting it as a sufficient reason why the Society should withhold aid from the feeble churches of a Presbytery, that other churches of such Presbytery contribute the whole, or a portion of their Home Missionary funds elsewhere than to the Treasury of that Society." spite of all existing bias on either side, will at length get a permanent record on the pages of history? Some of them have become history already. In order to understand the nature and spirit of that cooperative alliance into which Presbyterians and Congregationalists entered in organizing the American Home Missionary Society, we must forget all our present bickerings, and summon around us the reminiscences of a past age, when the two denominations were essentially one, not only in Christian doctrine, but in ecclesiastical and ministerial fellowship. The Congregationalists, it is well known, were the first to get footing on these shores. And whatever expulsive airs they assumed towards other sects, they never molested the Presbyterians. There is no historic record, no remembered instance, of opposition on their part to the gathering of a Presbyterian Church whenever and wherever members of that communion were found desirous of doing so; but records without number are at hand, showing a cheerful consent. As early as 1640 a band of Presbyterians wrote from Scotland "to know whether they might be freely suffered to exercise their Presbyterial government amongst us, and it was answered aflirmatively, they might." (Winslow in Young, 405.) From that time onward, "Heads of Agreement," "Plans of Union," and cooperative alliances mark the way-side along which the two have travelled together, mutually "endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." True, our fathers were tenaciously attached to their own church polity, more so than the bulk of their descendants are at the present time, and defended it from encroachments with more warmth of zeal. Ever those Scotch brethren, to whom such a ready welcome was extended, were told "not to expect that we should provide them ministers; but getting such themselves, they might exercise their PresbyBut what are the FACTS, which, in terial government at their liberty, walk The foregoing is believed to be-it certainly is intended to be—a truthful re'sume of what was said and done on this important subject in those two memorable -days of May 27 and 28, 1859, by the “General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America." And the apparent sincerity of grief, as of an injured party, which actuated the speakers, and the evident heartiness with which each step was taken by the united Assembly toward determined redress, would strike a stranger" as amounting almost to a demonstration of wrong-doing on the one side, and of injured innocence on the other. The mere report of those 'sayings and doings scattered over the face of the earth, as they have been by hundreds of presses, in millions of sheets, has 'left, on innumerable minds, the impression that in some way or other-to what extent may not be very clear-this once noble, right-principled and pure-hearted Institution, either of its own accord, or stirred up by its Congregational constituency, has swerved from its original principles, and stands chargeable with dereliction in practice. ing peaceably towards us, as we trusted a closer inspection of the circumstances we should towards them." And when, as and details, the antecedents, accompaniWinthrop informs us (Vol. II., 137,) a ments and consequents of this creative discussion arose in a Convention of minis- act, yield the least additional evidence of ters and magistrates in 1643, about "the a Presbyterial creation. The only referPresbyterial way," which was "concluded ence made to denominations throughout against" in that body, it was simply a the whole proceeding is found in the pubconclusion not to change their own way, lished call for a Convention to organize at the request of the "Newbury minis- the Society, wherein " the Congregational, ters." And among the many sharp say- Presbyterian, and Dutch Reformed deings of John Wise, in his "Churches' nominations" are announced as “prepared Quarrel Espoused," nothing is said against to unite in one concentrated and intense Presbyterians holding their own polity; effort to build up the wastes of our combut only against Congregationalists giving mon country." This language, while it up theirs. Even this last point was virtu- eontradicts the idea of a Society formed ally surrendered by both denominations under the auspices of any one denominawhen the "Plan of Union between Pres- tion, directly and emphatically asserts the byterians and Congregationalists in the cooperative agency of at least three such new. settlements," was adopted in 1801. bodies in forming it. According to that plan a Congregational church settling a Presbyterian minister, or a Presbyterian church settling a Congregational minister, might still " conduct their discipline" according to their own ecclesiastical principles; and in case the church were of a mixed character-partly Presbyterian and partly Congregational-they might "choose a standing committee from the communicants of said church," to issue all cases of discipline without consulting any body else, but allowing the condemned member to appeal, if he was a Presbyterian, to the presbytery, if a Congregationalist, to the Church." Such were the relations subsisting between the two, when, on the 12th of May, 1826, a purely voluntary association was formed by individuals from both these denominations, with some others, who, in their organized capacity, called themselves THE AMERICAN HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY. From the wording of the Constitution which they adopted as the basis of their union, no one could certainly infer that such a thing had ever been invented, as a Presbyterian or Congregational Church-much less that this newformed Society was any part of the ecclesiastical mechanism of either. Nor does What, then, becomes of the claim, set up by the General Assembly, to control the American Home Missionary Society? -a claim founded in the right of creation! There is none. There never was any. It was indeed obliquely hinted at Wilmington, in the Report of the Standing Committee on Church Extension, that some time after the Presbyterians had put forth the creative act, and given the Society a being-we are not told precisely how long after-" others were received as partners." Their words are these, and very remarkable words they are ;—" That Society is the creation of our Church, originally organized in the bounds and by the members of our Church; and its origin and the capital of various kinds it has accumulated make it impossible, as a matter of feeling, and of interest, and of justice, that we should abandon it to those whom we have received as partners in it." Just here and now, it is enough to know that a partnership was actually formed, no matter when or where, or how it was brought about. Presbyterians do concede, then, that Congregationalists became "partners" with them in the work of Home Missions. But do they believe that such a thing would have been possible, on terms which the Alton Presbytery now ask, and which the General Assembly have endorsed? Let us imagine a scene at the forming of this partnership. Something like it must have occurred, if things proceeded after the fashion here set forth. The Presbyterian "Church," or "Assembly," or "members," whichever it was that created the Home Missionary Society are at length ready to receive the Congregationalists into cooperation with them in the work of Home Missions; and they propose these terms, among others, viz: 1st, "The Executive Committee shall appoint missionaries and instruct them as to the field and manner of their labors," (see Constitution of the A. H. M. S., article 4,) except such as "our Presbyteries" may choose "to appoint, solely on their own authority," as "exploring missionaries within their own bounds." (See Minutes of last Gen. Assembly.) 2d," The Executive Committee shall have the disposal of the funds," provided that, when the able churches of a Presbytery, desirous of planting Presbyterian churches "in advance of all others," shall "contribute the whole, or a portion, of their Home Missionary funds elsewhere than to the Treasury of this Society," the Committee shall not refuse the feeble churches of such Presbytery, already planted, an equal share with those of other Presbyteries or denominations who have contributed the whole of theirs into the common Treasury; and anything contrary to these principles of coöperation, "we can never approve." (See Constitution and Minutes as above.) 1 1 It ought, in justice, to be stated that the delegates from the General Assembly to several of the New Now, is it to be believed by any sane person, that a co-partnership on such terms was a possible thing? If, to relieve the absurdity of this proposal, it had been said to the Congregationalists then, as is sometimes said now, You may have the same liberty;' the answer would have been, as it still is, We want no such liberty.' Why multiply occasions of strife between us? Such an entangling alliance, instead of promoting friendly cooperation, will prevent it, and make enemies of friends. And even were it otherwise, why form a Society, or appoint an Executive Committee to administer affairs which the youngest clerk in a counting-room could administer as well? Should it be understood that each denomination was at liberty to contribute to its own extension, some small contributions might chance to stray into the common Treasury at first, which would need to be disbursed by the rule of "Simple Division," -a light labor and ever growing less. These are some of the aspects which the subject assumes, even when we accept the Presbyterian theory of cooperative Home Missions, and attempt to follow it out in practice. Only admit the existence of any such partnership in the American Home Missionary Society as common sense can believe possible, even supposing Congregationalists to have had nothing to do in bringing it about but just to stand at the door and be "received as partners;" and how it sounds to hear Presbyterians talk of such a Society as formed to “ fulfill their behests!" And it sounds still worse if, in place of this fanciful theory, we put the real facts, as "known and read of all men," outside of the last General Assem England General Associations, disavowed, in the bly. When heard by a Congregationalist, name of their Church, any intention to use their own funds for denominational purposes, and then draw an equal share with others from the common Treasury; protesting that no such thing had been attempted, and repelling the imputation with scorn. But while we admit the sincerity of this protest, and feel bound to believe that the demands of the Alton Presbytery seem to them perfectly fair and even-handed, as a part of the co-operative system, we are compelled to add, that, as we view the subject, a more remarkable instance of hallucination has not occurred since the days of Don Quixote. it can hardly fail to provoke resentment or ridicule, according to the serious or comic turn of his mind. The simple facts about the origin of the American Home Missionary Society, in a few words, are these. Domestic Missionary Societies had sprung up all over New England, and in the State of New York, and were each sending forth laborers, as their means would allow, when, on the 30th of September, 1825, the idea of a National Society occurred to some one in a meeting of several gentlemen "from various parts of the United States" at Dr. Wisner's study, in Boston, the day after they had been ordaining a number of Andover students to the Home Missionary work, in the service of the United Domestic Missionary Society of New York. That Society, being neither ecclesiastical nor denominational, but a voluntary organization of individuals from several communions were disposed to have some of their missionaries ordained Congregationally, and sent two of their Executive Committee, Messrs. Bruen and Cox, to assist in that service, at Boston. It was apparently a matter of indifference, which way they were ordained; nor is it likely that one in a hundred of our Boston folks knew or cared whether they were going to labor in connection with Congregational, Presbyterian, or Dutch Reformed churches. It was in just this catholic spirit, after uniting in such a Christian act, that "the desirableness and expediency of forming a National Domestic Missionary Society" was first conceived, and a Committee appointed, consisting of Rev. Messrs. Porter and Edwards, of Andover, and Taylor, of New Haven, Ct., "to make inquiries in relation to the subject, and if they should deem it advisable, invite a meeting of gentlemen friendly to the object, in Boston, sometime in the month of January ensuing." That second meeting was accordingly held at the house of Henry Homes, Esq., and the resolution unanimously passed, that it was, in their view, expedient to attempt the formation of such a Society, among many other weighty reasons, because of "the tendency it will have to produce among the friends of evangelical religion in the United States greater union of feeling and exertion." Having settled a few general principles, as the basis of such an organization, and agreed upon a This Constitution to be proposed-almost precisely the same principles and constitution with those which were subsequently adopted, and are still retained-the question arose as to the best way of proceeding to organize the Society. And here the reader will be interested to know upon whom Providence devolved the settlement of these weighty questions-into whose hands it was given to shape this forth-coming organization, which the late General Assembly were told was originally their " employee," but "has become the employee of another denomination." We happen to have their names. second meeting, in which these grave matters were proceeding to their momentous issue, as above mentioned, consisted of Pres. W. Allen, of Maine; Rev. N. Lord, of New Hampshire; Rev. S. Whittlesey, of Connecticut; Rev. Messrs. B. Emerson, E. Cornelius, L. Woods, E. Porter, J. Edwards, W. Fay, S. E. Dwight, B. Wisner, J. Codman, and S. Osgood, of Massachusetts-thirteen in all, and all Congregationalists ! Letters from several absent gentlemen were read, strongly commending the general object; and on the next morning, after all the business had been disposed of, Rev. Messrs. Peters, Bruen and Falconer, of New York, a deputation from the Executive Committee of the United Domestic Missionary Society, arrived, having been delayed by the state of the roads, and gave their "unqualified approbation" to all that had been done. And what had been done? Instead of calling a National Convention through a Committee of their own, to form a Society independent of all existing institutions, and invite the others to become auxiliary; or instead of selecting the Connecticut, or the Massachusetts Missionary Society for a nucleus around which the others should crystallize, these thirteen Congregationalists had decided to ask the Executive Committee of the United Domestic Missionary Society of New York-full twenty years younger than either of the others, but more favorably located for the work |