Pill 
 
 .C745 
 
 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 DDDD174DEDbD 
 
 
 I 
 

 0' 
 
 
 "^-^..'^ 
 
 0^ ,t.o, O v^ *»•' 
 
 *--*\^^'\. % 
 V" .••^'* cy 
 
 .40^ 
 
 . . o - < O 
 
 » V ^^ O. 
 

 <5> • # 1 
 
 c^\^^'.%. '\r . 
 
 '"% -.UK-' /%. °'^Wi!-* **''^'^- 
 
 •'■•• <^ 
 
 
 ^^. *•- 
 
 ^/ ^^" 
 
 
 >..^" •' 
 
 * O 
 
 
 
 
 .To« aO 
 
 ,^ .,. 
 
 
 
 1^ ^? 
 
 o^ *o • * * A 
 
 •- ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 >•♦ AT "^ • 
 
 b .*^ 
 
 o ^* , 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■9' A 
 
 ;♦ «.K «i. ♦; 
 
 • ** 
 
 .f 
 
 .• jp-nj., v 
 
 ..•i:.', *cv 
 
 o.- ♦..« 
 
 .O'" .'-••» '^^ 
 
 V *'^-'*.y 
 
 <^o-. 
 
 °* 
 
 V* ..Lii.% ^ 
 
HOME MISSIONS 
 
 AND 
 
 SLAVERY: 
 
 A 
 
 / 
 
 REPRINT OF SEVERAL ARTICLES 
 
 RECENTLT PUBLISHED IN THE 
 
 RELIGIOUS JOURNALS; 
 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 JOHN A. GRAY, PRINTER, 16 AND 18 JACOB STREET, 
 
 FIRE -PROOF BUILDINGS. 
 1857. 
 
 

 CON'TEJS'TS 
 
 Introduction, 3 
 
 Articles of Dr. A. D. Smith. 
 
 Letter I. To the Evangelist, 7 
 
 Letter n. " " 19 
 
 Letter III. To Rev. Henry A. Nelson, 28 
 
 Articles of Dr. G. W. Heacock. 
 
 Letter I. To the Genesee Evangelist, 35 
 
 Letter II. " " " 37 
 
 Article of the Central Christian Herald. 
 
 Home Missions and Slavery, ^ 41 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 Letter of Rev. R. Adair, 43 
 
 Reply of Dr. A. D. Smith, 43 
 
 Reply of Dr. Hatfield, 46 
 
 Nature and Relations of the Home Missionary Society, 
 
 by Rev. R. W. Patterson, 47 
 
 West. Kes. Hiat. Soo. 
 1915 
 
 pypPE^T' OF 
 
'^^/(^^soc^ 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It has been thought desirable that a number of the ai'ticles in the 
 rehgious papers, explaining and defending the recent action of the 
 American Home Missionary Society in relation to Slavery, should be 
 reprinted. In a convenient form they are here brought together. 
 To several pieces from the New- York Evangelist, are added the able 
 communications of Dr. Heacock to the Genesee Evangelist, together 
 with a clear and forcible editorial of the Central Christian Herald. 
 This last-named paper has been termed by the American Presbyte- 
 rian the "melancholy exception." If so playful a use of terms may 
 be allowed, it were really to be wished, that all exceptions were as 
 unexceptionable. A noble service has been done by this well-con- 
 ducted organ of several of our largest and most influential Synods. 
 In the Appendix, several things will be found, of important bearing on 
 the matter in hand, a matter destined, clearly, to the most thorough 
 " ventilation." 
 
 This reprint has been thought the more desirable from the many 
 misapprehensions and consequent mis-statements of the action of the 
 Society. To refresh the reader's recollection, it may be well to quote 
 here the resolution of the Executive Committee, as passed without a 
 dissenting vote, Dec. 22, 1856. 
 
 " Resolved, That in the disbursement of the funds committed to 
 their trust, the Committee will not grant aid to churches containing 
 slaveholding members, unless evidence be furnished that the relation 
 is such as, in the judgment of the Committee, is justifiable, for the 
 time being, in the peculiar circumstances in which it exists." 
 
 By what manifestations of sentiment on the part of our constituents 
 this was called forth, is variously shown in the following articles. 
 The Committee found themselves under the necessity of clearly de- 
 fining their position. What it should be, was the subject of earnest 
 and protracted deliberation. The result was, a determination to take 
 no extreme course. They could not think, on the one hand, of 
 refusing aid to all churches containing slaveholders. Nor, on the 
 other, of making appropriations with no respect whatever to the cha- ' 
 racter of the churches built up. They adopted the middle course, 
 of deciding upon each case as it should arise. Their design is not, as 
 
4 
 
 some have fancied, to call individuals to account. The Committee 
 have to do not with individuals, but with the Church. It is to the 
 Church aid is granted. It is the character of the Church that is to be 
 settled. It is from the Church that information is to come — just such 
 information as those concerned please to give. On that the Commit- 
 tee act, in the use of the discretionary power conferred on them by 
 the constitution, and which, from the beginning, they have exercised 
 in relation to a great variety of matters. So uniformly have they 
 exercised it, in methods so entirely analogous to that now complained 
 of^ and with such general approval of their constituents, that the pre- 
 sent outcry has seemed to them not only a novelty but a wonder. 
 
 Were not the subject so grave a one, it would be amusing to ob- 
 serve the Protean character of the objection on the ground of disci- 
 pline. At first, the course proposed by the Committee was discipline 
 proper. They had constituted themselves a "judicial" body. As the 
 discussion went on, it was discovered that it was not "discipline in 
 the proper sense," but it was virtual discipline. The latest version 
 of the matter is, that, though not exactly discipline itself] it yet " sub- 
 jects the discipline" of the churches to some sort of "review." This 
 objection, too tenuous at first, to bear the force of the most slenderly 
 constructed syllogism, has evidently reached the vanishing poiat. 
 Additional light as to its futiUty, and in regard also to the baseless- 
 ness of the " compact" theory, wiU be found in the Appendix, in the 
 extract from the able discourse of the Rev. Mr. Patterson. The 
 reader wUl see how fully that extract accords with the view of the 
 nature and relations of the Home Missionary Society, taken in the 
 first letter to the Evangelist. 
 
 It is, perhaps, hardly worth whUe to say much of the intimations 
 thrown out in certain quarters, that Dr, Hatfield and the other Pres- 
 byterian members of the Committee have been made the dupes and 
 tools of the Congregationalists. It is charitably conceded that they 
 meant well. But they were outwitted, blindfolded, and misled — in 
 brief, made fools of ! This view, it is presumed, is the result of tem- 
 porary excitement, and will not be persisted in. Various portions of 
 the following compilation have a bearing on it — especially the corre- 
 spondence in the Appendix, Nothing can be clearer than the de- 
 sirableness of the Committee's action in relation to the best interests 
 of the Presbyterian Church. Says the Stated Clerk of one of the 
 Presbyteries in Illinois : " Few at the East, in our Church, are aware 
 of hov/ much we have lost in this State, by our connection with, and 
 support of slavery. Many already have gone, and others are anxious 
 to be out of the connection. Their bond of attachment is greatly 
 weakened for the Church, some of whose members openly practise 
 and boldly justify the system, while others acknowledge its errors, 
 
but deny the power or propriety of touching it, and are unwilling 
 that any other body should. The Lord grant you wisdom, grace, and 
 strength to abide by and defend the stand taken." This is but a 
 specimen of the testimony which has been constantly coming to us 
 from various parts of our Cnurch. As Presbyterians, we could not 
 hesitate. The idea of separatmg the action of the Committee from 
 the general subject of slavery is purely visionary. Some sensitive- 
 ness has been manifested at the expression -of the opinion that oppo- 
 sition to that action will be, in effect, pro-slavery. It has strangely 
 enough been thought uncourteous. As if, while we concede the best of 
 motives to an opponent, we may not show him that his position has 
 an evil tendency — a tendency contrary, it may be, to his own wishes 
 and designs, but not on that account a whit the less evil. No- 
 thing is more common in the history of the calmest and best tempered 
 theological controversy. Witness the voluminous discussions about 
 the comparative moral tendency of Calvinism and Arminianism. 
 The best of men do sometimes unwittingly favor, what from their 
 hearts they abhor. There can be no question, however, on which 
 side the great majority of reasonable yet earnest anti-slavery men 
 will range themselves. The voices already uttered make this quite 
 clear. Some good anti-slavery men will doubtless take a different 
 position. Yet though they mean it not, they will render "aid and 
 comfort," as we are constrained to believe, to the pro-slavery interest. 
 Already the South are counting on the strong ecclesiastical tendencies 
 of some of them, as binding them to their cause " Ultra abolition- 
 ism," says a writer in the Philadelphia Christian Observer, "obtains 
 almost no sympathy from the purely Presbyterian element in our 
 Church." And he goes on to argue for a union of the " conserva- 
 tives," as he calls them — that is, being interpreted, of the men of 
 strong ecclesiastical leanings — with the pro-slavery men. A majority, 
 he thinks, would thus be secured, and it would be no evil if "the 
 abolitionists" should be driven off. " An excellent plot," this, and 
 " full of expectation." It will lack nothhig, probably, but achieve- 
 ment. A true denominational spirit, such as men of the wisest and 
 most catholic views are ever ready to promote, is gaining ground 
 among us quite rapidly enough. For a normal growth, it could 
 hardly be more rapid. Those who most discreetly favor it, will not, 
 we are persuaded, be so lacking in sagacity, as to desire to link it, 
 and by consequence our Church, with the cause of slavery. 
 
 The emphatic approval of the Committee's course in so many quar- 
 ters, has led to a change of tone in some who oppose it. Instead of 
 the confident prediction, that our Church wUl be " a unit," fear is 
 now expressed, that there will be unhappy division. ■ And the Com- 
 mittee are accused of being troublers of Israel. It would be un- 
 
gracious to reply, though they might in truth, in language not unlike 
 that of the old Tishbite. The fact is, the Committee regarded most 
 carefully the prevalent sentiment of our Church. They sought to 
 walk by the hghts which it had furnished. They went no further 
 than the General Assembly had repeatedly gone. The course they 
 took was, in the judgment of the Presbyterian members, eminently 
 avorable to the interests of their Church. There was every reason 
 to believe that it would receive among us a general approval. But 
 or the unhappy course of the American Presbyterian and the Evan- 
 gelist^ there would have been no considerable opposition to it. And 
 even now, with all the clamor that has been raised, the indications 
 of public sentiment confirm the Committee in the view they first 
 took. If trouble of any sort shall occur, let the responsibihty rest 
 where it belongs. 
 
 In all these remarks, however, let no charge of sinister motives be 
 understood. We would be emphatic on this point. "We accord to 
 our brethren the same honesty of purpose that we claim for our- 
 selves. We believe that they greatly err, and so we feel bound to 
 say. Yet we would say it in love. We would say it, too, with no 
 distressing apprehension about the future. The " ventilation" of 
 this subject has been, in some quarters, indeed, a little Borean, Yet 
 gentle summer airs, we doubt not, will succeed — airs redolent, to the 
 utmost, of heavenly charity. And the Great Master, who, we be- 
 lieve, has a glorious mission for our beloved Church to accomplish, 
 wiU overrule, we trust, to her good, even the mistakes of her friends. 
 
 New- York, May, IBS'?. A. D. S. 
 
 P. S. — Since the above was written, the Protest of the Philadel- 
 phia Home Missionary Society has made its appearance. It is cer- 
 tainly a remarkable document. Its first and fiandamental position, 
 the proton pseudos of the whole is, that the Executive Committee 
 have adopted a new principle in relation to the ecclesiastical standing 
 of ministers and churches — that whereas good ecclesiastical standing 
 was once conclusive, it is no longer so regarded. The facts of the 
 matter are directly the reverse of this — facts so often and so various- 
 ly stated, so patent to all who have any considerable acquaintance 
 with the affairs of the Society, that their being overlooked in such 
 a document is quite a marvel. The only way, however, to dispose of 
 such facts, is persistently to ignore them. The truth is, it is our 
 Philadelphia brethren who would introduce an entirely new princi- 
 ple, that of making clean papers final as to all moral matters, with 
 reference both to ministers and churches. It is they, not the Com- 
 mittee, who are for " a radical change." The section of the Protest 
 which relates to slavery agitation, is very significant. One needs to 
 pause over it to assure himself that it is not one of the editorials of 
 the Journal of Commerce. It will be thoughtfully pondered by all 
 who would understand " the signs of the times." 
 
ARTICLES OF Dli. A. D. SMITH. 
 
 Prom The Evangelist of March 19, 1857. 
 
 THE HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY AND 
 SLAVERY. 
 
 To THE Editors of the Evangelist : A recent number of 
 the Ainerican Presbyterian has been kindly sent me — I presume 
 by the esteemed Editors — containing somewhat extended and 
 severe strictures upon the late action of the Executive Committee 
 of the American Home Missionary Society. It was sent me, 
 doubtless, as one of the members of that Committee. They say 
 of a pi-evious article that they had forwarded it to all the mem- 
 bers, and they seem to have expected a response of some sort. 
 What may be said officially on the subject, I cannot foretell. 
 That will be determined in due time, and in a legitimate way. I 
 am at liberty, however, as an individual, to utter my own views ; 
 and " it is borne in upon my mind," as the old Covenanters used 
 to say, that I ought to do so. I crave a little space in your 
 columns for that purpose. What I have to say, shall be over my 
 own signature. My humble name is of little moment ; but I 
 may as well write thus — for in these times, as has been well saici, 
 " nothing is anonymous." I would, besides, commit no one but 
 myself ; and I am quite willing that with the statements and argu- 
 ments I have to offer, my name should be permanently linked. I 
 write with pain at the thought of differing from some brethren 
 whom I highly regard ; yet with the mitigating hope that when 
 the matter is fully understood, we shall see eye to eye. The action 
 of the Committee is abundantly defensible. The assaults upon it 
 are based upon the gravest misapprehension as to both facts and 
 principles — misapprehension so signal and so singular, in some 
 respects, that I can only account for it on the ground of that haste 
 with which newspaper articles are apt to be prepared. Let the 
 subject, then, be ventilated. Let the winds of discussion have 
 free course. The air shall be cleared thus of blinding vapors, and 
 be filled with glad sun-light. 
 
 To just practical views on any subject, it is essential that the 
 underlying theory be right. So, eminently, as to the matter in 
 hand. I ask, then, at the outset — for plain though the point is, 
 it seems necessary to call attention to it — What is the American 
 Home Missionary Society ? What is the fundamental idea of it 
 as a benevolent organization ? It is a voluntary Society, con- 
 fessedly. And how, in the nature of things, must a voluntary 
 Society be controlled ? Plainly by the wUl of its constituents, 
 or, what is the same thing, by its own will. Its very designation 
 implies that. It is self-determining. It does as it pleases. Ad- 
 
vised it may be — subject to all sorts of suasory influences ; but 
 controlled by no other earthly power. Its will, clearly ascertained, 
 must be obeyed by all its functionaries ; and be regarded by all 
 who have to do with it as, in relation to its own acts, the ulti- 
 mate arbiter. 
 
 But who, we may next ask, are the constituents of the Society ? 
 The individual contributors to it, and those only, beyond a doubt. 
 In other words, the members ; for according to the sixth article 
 of the Constitution, the membership is composed of the regular 
 contributors. The Society is no confederation of organic bodies 
 — no league of District Associations and Presbyteries, or General 
 Associations and General Assemblies. Admirably was this point 
 elucidated in the New-York Evangelist of July 19, 1855. I am 
 the more disposed to call attention to that exposition, as it was 
 not only the voice of the able and worthy Editors, but had the 
 sanction also of the circle of ministerial brethren who at that 
 time were aiding the paper by their counsels and contributions. 
 The ground taken, I well remember, was deemed very important 
 to the interests of Presbyterianism. It was as follows : 
 
 " The A. H. M. Society is not, and never was, a representative of 
 ecclesiastical bodies, or the organ of any one or more of the evangel- 
 ical churches in the land. It is a voluntary association of individuals, 
 organized at ' a Convention of the friends of missions from all parts 
 of the United States,' held for the purpose in the city of New- York, 
 May 12, 1826. Tliese 'friends of missions ' met together, not as 
 Congregationalists, or Presbyterians, or Dutchmen, or Scotchmen, but 
 as Christians. There was no nice adjustment, as the Herald affirms, 
 [the Congregational Herald^'] of denominational rights and claims. 
 They acted as individuals, or as representatives of voluntary Societies 
 already in existence. They bound none but themselves, and those 
 who should afterwards choose to cooperate with them on the broad 
 ground of a national institution. All others were left free to pursue 
 their own course, and choose their own channel of contribution and 
 disbursement." 
 
 That is the true doctrine, as it was in the beginning, as it is 
 now, and as it must continue to be, so long as the Home Mission- 
 ary Society retains its voluntary character. I have a fresh feeling 
 of thankfulness to the Evangelist for this felicitous presentation 
 of it. On this ground the Society has always stood. It has acted 
 as representing not organisms, but individuals. Whatever indi- 
 viduals, whether Congregational, Constitutional Presbyterian, or, 
 as often happens, of the other great branch of the Presbyterian 
 family, regularly contribute to it, become members. When they 
 choose to discontinue their donations, their membership ceases. 
 If any ecclesiastical bodies are pleased to recommend it, they re- 
 commend it, of course, as it is— as a voluntary and independent 
 Society, as having peri'ect telf-control. So has our General As- 
 sembly approved of it — not dreaming surely of gaining thus 
 authority over it. This is clear from the very quotation made by 
 the American Presbyterian from the. action of the Assembly of 
 1855. They " distinctly declare that it is not their intention 
 * * * to interfere with the proper functions of the A. H. M. S." 
 
9 
 
 If because of such action, which has obviously only a moral force, 
 and because of the fact that a large number, a majoiity, if you 
 please, of our individual communicants, have seen fit to contribute 
 to the funds of the Society, and thus become members, it has 
 sometimes been called the organ of the Assembly, it must have 
 been only in some general and popular view, not surely in the 
 sense of its being subject to that body. For, in that view, as 
 other ecclesiastical bodies stand in like relation, it would not only 
 lose its own proper independence, its very selfhood — it would 
 have " many masters." No one has taken a more decided stand 
 against the theory of " a compact," than our Philadelphia breth- 
 ren. They have spoken boldly and earnestly for a true freedom 
 in this regard. They will not be offended if we say to them : " Be 
 not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." " Having begun 
 in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh ?" 
 
 To complete my theoretic statement, it only remains to ask, 
 How is the will of the Societi/s constituents to he ascertained ? 
 What is the Executive Committee to regard as setting it forth ? 
 By what, thus considered, are they to be bound ? Not, surely, 
 as some have strangely seemed to suppose, by whatever may hap- 
 pen to be issued from the office of the Society. The Presbyterian 
 is singularly at fault on this point, and, I regret to say, even the 
 Evangelist. Not by the speeches that may happen to be bound 
 up with the Report. Not by the letters from missionaries, or 
 the geographical and statistical statements that are often found 
 in like juxtaposition. Not, T will add, by the sermons, or ad- 
 dresses, or published disquisitions of the Secretaries. Nay, I will 
 speak more broadly, not even, as a finality, by their own utter- 
 ances, or their own acts. For that would make them a light and 
 a law unto themselves. That would be, as to the point in hand, 
 like a man's lifting himself from the earth by his own waistband. 
 
 Let there be no misconception of the point I here make. I 
 mean not to deny that consistency is desirable in all the outgiv- 
 ings from the Missionary Rooms. Nor do I intend to hint that 
 there has been any failure in that regard. In the proper place 
 I shall have something to say on that head. I design not to 
 question that rules once adopted should be acted upon so long as 
 they remain rules. What I affirm is, that past expressions of 
 opinion, even by the Committee, are not to be regarded by them 
 as embodying, for all time, the will of their constituents. They 
 may be found to have been erroneous, and so of course must be 
 corrected. Or a change may occur in the views of the great 
 body of those whose almoners they are, and to that change, min- 
 isterial as their office is — employed as they are to distribute trust 
 funds — they are sacredly bound to conform. Their rule'^ of 
 course may on that ground be altered. AVhatever ecclesiastical 
 bodies do not like such change, are at liberty to disapprove of it, 
 and any individuals who please, to withdraw from the Society. 
 Forgetting, if we can, the " human chattels," this is a free land. 
 
 The position I have thus taken has been, from the beginning, 
 just that of all the voluntary Societies in the land. By no 
 "petrified wisdom" have they been guided. No stereotyped 
 
10 
 
 policy has been theirs. Progress rather has been their watch- 
 word. It would have been a shame to them — it would have been 
 out of harmony with tlie age, and out of fealty to their Divine 
 Patron — had it been otherwise. Changes have been constantly 
 occurring, progressive changes I mean, in the views they have ex- 
 pressed, in their financial arrangements, in their official apparatus, 
 and in their p'ans of operation. Let the history of the American 
 Tract Society, in its growth from the little mustard-seed — of the 
 American Bible Society in its magnificent career — of the A. B. 
 C. F. M., in its glorious ministry to the nations — and of other 
 noble Societies too numerous to mention, bear witness on this 
 point. In all these changes, the will of the constituency, duly 
 ascertained, has been the supreme authority. Nothing has been 
 done inconsistent with that. And whatever the past, when that 
 has called for a change of policy, sooner or later, that change has 
 been made. Eip Van Winkle has, in these last days, few de- 
 scendants. 
 
 Having spoken thus negatively as to the way of ascertaining 
 the will of our constituents, let me speak now pos^itively. And 
 first of all, it is to be gathered from the Constitution. That, so 
 to speak, i>^ the immanent volition, the generic purpose of the 
 Society. In other words, it is its organic law. Nor, be it 
 observed, has any thing else that character. The Presbyterian 
 says, very erroneously, of a certain *' document " in the Appendix 
 to the last Rei-o't, that it "is to be regarded as organic." I 
 merely note this in passing, a^ a specimen of that paper's misap- 
 prehension of fundamental principles. Of the proper import c)f 
 said document, T shall speak in another connection. The ConF>ti- 
 tution only is organic. By tliat, as the supreme law, the Execu- 
 tive Committee, and all "their fellow-functionaries, are bound. 
 Since it is but the expressed will of the constituency, tliey of 
 course can change it ; but as it stands, it may not be infringed. 
 
 As to subordinate points, I observe, in the second place, points 
 not specifically settled in the Constitution ; points which may 
 vary with circumstances, about which the will of the constituency 
 may change, and in all probability — as according to Galileo, the 
 world still " moves " — must change, that will is to be ascertained 
 in other ways. In various ways, such as common-sense will sug- 
 gest. A part of our constituency is in New-England. We must 
 keep our eyes and ears open then, to the indications of popular 
 feeling in that quarter — of the best popular feeling, I mean — that 
 which susrains us, that which puts into our hands trust funds. 
 I do not say it would be wrong to read the newspapers and see 
 how the elections go. I even ventured to look the other day — 
 though not exactly in my capacity as a Committee man — at the 
 account of the last New-Hampshire election. It would certainly 
 be proper to examine the religious prints— such as the Congrega- 
 tionalist and the Puritan Recorder, and the Vermont Chronicle, 
 and the Congregational Joiirnnl, and theChnstian Mirror, and the 
 Maine Evangelist. No " uncertain sound " do the?e papers give. 
 I would turn over the records of the Ecclesiastical Bodies, and 
 read particularly their resolutions. There can be little doubt, I 
 
11 
 
 think, so far as the matter in hand is concerned, as to the views 
 of our New-England contributors. Passing to the Presbyterian 
 region, I would first ••'read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest " 
 that noble document of 1818, the unanimous utterance of both 
 branches of the Pret^byterian Cliurch. Blessed be the memory 
 of good old Dr. Ashbel Greene. Why does not Philadelphia 
 build him a staiue ? I would read the iterations and reiterations 
 of that document by successive General Assemblies, down to the 
 very last, including the emphatic action at Detroit — the declara- 
 tion that Slavery in general is a disciplinable oifense, and should 
 be tolerated only in exceptional cases. I would con, too, the 
 numerous utterances of inferior bodies, including the recent ones 
 of the Western Synods. With all these, and a multitude of other 
 accessible clues to public opinion, there can be no doubt, I think, 
 as to the will of the great majority of our Presbyterian consti- 
 tuents. So at least we judge, at the Home Missionary Rooms. 
 
 In referring to the action at Detroit, let me add here, to correct 
 a misapprehension which seems to possess some minds, I do not 
 speak of it as law, or even as of a judicial character. True it is, 
 that the principles of discipline which it announces, are accepted 
 and adopted in a large part of our communion. I lately heard of 
 an instance in one of our strongest churches, in one of our large 
 cities, in which a slaveholding professor asking for admission was 
 told officially : " We shall honor your letter, but the moment you 
 come under our jurisdiction, we shall make inquiry into yonr 
 case." In hundreds of other churches a like position would be 
 taken. I quote the Detroit action, however, simply as an index 
 to the sentiments of our Presbyterian contributors. Grant that 
 it is not law — still, is it not light ? It is not judicially binding — 
 we understand that, we have nothing to do with it in that rela- 
 tion. But is it not illumining ? From it, and a thousand other 
 tokens, it is my firm conviction that if the whole Church could 
 be polled, three out of four of those who contribute to our funds 
 would give a hearty verdict for the Committee's action. Already 
 the testimonies in its favor are clear and decided. Says one of 
 our most highly esteemed ministers at the West, in a recent let- 
 ter : " I heartily rejoice in the stand you have taken on the subject 
 of Slavery." Say's another in the same quarter : " I rejoice at 
 your new position on Slavery, and I do most cordially hope that 
 our Church will not quarrel with you for it. It is good, all good.'' 
 Says another farther North : " I rejoice in the stand taken on the 
 subject of Slavery." And another still, says, it is "evidently 
 sound, Christian, and conservative," and "it must meet with 
 cordial acceptance from our JSTorthern churches." The Preslij- 
 terian has heard the voice of tlie Central Christian Herald, the 
 organ of .the Synods of Ohio, Cincinnati, Indiana, and Wabash, 
 speaking as it ought from the Queen City of the West. 
 
 I beg pardon for dwelling thus long on fundamental principles, 
 though their practical aspect has, I think, been very apparent. 
 It will be still more apparent, as I pass now in the light of them, 
 to consider more directly the action of the Committee. 
 
 1. T begin with the position, that as to the great principles 
 
12 
 
 involved, there is in this action, nothing new. It may indeed be 
 considered as in some sense an advance. But it is only an appli- 
 cation, in a different relation, of the very principles we have long 
 been acting upon. For mnny years past we have declined to sus- 
 tain any slaveholding minister. We have done this as intrusted 
 with sacred funds, of which the Constitution expressly provides 
 (Art. 4) that we " shall have the disposal." We have done it as 
 responsible only to our constituents, and in accordance, as we 
 have believed, with the will of a vast majority of them. We have 
 not felt ourselves bound by the mere fact of good church standing. 
 We have gone further. However good that standing, we have 
 often, on moral grounds, refused to put men on our roll, or being 
 upon our roll, we have stricken them from it. Our rule is, indeed, 
 less stringent as to churches, than it has been as to ministers. If 
 it be discipline in the former case, much more in the latter. 
 Would the Presbyterian have us employ slaveholding preachers ? 
 Would our constituents allow it ? If we deal thus with the min- 
 ister, why not with the church ? If he, an intelligent, educated 
 man — and rectus in ecdesia too — may not be left unquestioned to 
 his own discretion, shall no questions be asked in regard to the 
 people ? In distributing our funds, are we to make fish of the 
 clergy and flesh of the laity ? Magnanimous laymen, I am sure, 
 will ask no such thing. It may be said, the minister preaches, 
 and you must look well to his character because of his office. 
 But if we are to inquire what sort of Christianity is uttered, may 
 we not ask, too, what sort of Christianity is huilt up ? 
 
 2. The Committee, I remark further, had full power to taJce 
 this action. Here we come to the chief argument of the Presby- 
 terian, but partially adopted, I am happy to see, by the 
 Evangelist. 
 
 First, it is said, we have broken our own Constitution. This is 
 indeed a serious charge. If true, we are guilty of a gross breach 
 of trust, and should be called to account, without delay. But 
 how have we broken it ? Why, says the Presbijterian, " the Con- 
 stitution is nationaV The word "national," it happens, is not in 
 that instrument. But what if it were ? Is the " National In- 
 surance Company," in our good city of Gotham, bound to insure 
 every body in the nation ? Or does it merely give policies to any 
 who make application in accordance with its rules. It has certain 
 limitations, I believe, as to extra hazardous edifices. The Presby- 
 terian, however, though it employs this cant word, so current in 
 certain relations and for certain uses, does not base its argument 
 upon it. It rests upon the fact, that both Presbyterians and 
 Congregationalists from various parts of the country have united 
 in the support of the Society. But what of that ? It is, indeed, 
 by formal designation, " The American Home Missionary So- 
 ciety, and its object is declared in its Constitution to be, to as,-?ist 
 congregations that are unable to support the Gospel Ministry, and 
 to send the Gospel to the destitute within the United States.'* 
 But is it bound, therefore, to assist all feeble congregations, who 
 may please to apply, even of the Congregational or Presbj^terian 
 connection ? May it make no discrimination in the appropriation 
 
18 
 
 of its funds ? I need not supply the ansvsrer which common-sense 
 will suggest to every one, and with which its whole history ac- 
 cords. 
 
 The Presbyterian cites in this connection two extracts from 
 the publications of the Society. The first is from the appendix 
 to the last Annual Report, p. 101. It is spoken of as "organic," 
 though as we have already shown it has no such character. It is 
 perfectly impotent on the Presbyterian's behalf, and that for two 
 reasons. First, if it meant what that paper ascribes to it, it 
 would have, as we have proved, no restraining force as to the 
 adoption of a new rule. But, in the second place, our brethren 
 greatly misapprehend it. It does indeed, declare, that the A. H. 
 M. S. regards "the ecclesiastical bodies as the app7'opriate judges 
 of the standing of their oion ministers^ So, of course, they are. 
 Our first inquiry always is, when a minister asks to be employed, 
 is he in good standing in his Association or Presbytery, and that, 
 manifestly, the ecclesiastical body must decide. Unless good ec- 
 clesiastical standing be ascertained, we appropriate no money. 
 But the settlement of this point does by no means conclude the 
 matter. There are other questions to be asked, as to the adapted- 
 ness of the man to our object. Not as to his relation to his Pres- 
 bytery or Association, for we have nothing to do with that, ex- 
 cept to learn from the proper authority — " the highest authority," 
 as the Presbyterian's quotation rightly terms it — what it is ; but 
 as to his relation to the trust funds ive have to disj^ose of. These 
 questions have respect often to moral or religious character, and 
 must of course be decided — for their own purposes, and according 
 to the best information accessible to them — ^by the Executive 
 Committee. That I am right in this interpretation, is evident 
 from the further statement in this same quotation of the Presby- 
 terian, that the advice of an Ecclesiastical Committee " has the 
 same influence with the Society as that of a Board of Agency ap- 
 pointed by itself." Yes, the same influence. Advisory only as 
 to the final decision — such is our uniform practice — that resting 
 with the Executive Committee. Resting with them, even when 
 it may turn on some point of moral fitness. As to encouraging 
 "sectional feelings," to refer to another part of the quotation — 
 we have no desire to do it. We believe slavery to be properly 
 local, and freedom national. We have churches now in the Slave 
 States, and we hope still to have. Notwithstanding the sad de- 
 clension of proper anti-slavery feeling at the South, there is still 
 righteousness and truth there. Noble spirits there are, who in 
 their struggle with the great iniquity, invoke our aid. But be all 
 this as it may, we must do our duty, in humble reliance on the 
 God of righteousness. 
 
 I have but a word to say of the other quotation of the Presby- 
 terian. It is from the Home Missionary of Dec, 1855, p. 284. 
 I need not burden your columns with it. I may say of it as of 
 the other, it has no authority. It is not even an utterance of the 
 Executive Committee. The articles in the Home Missionary are 
 no more submitted to them, or specifically authorized by them, 
 than the sermons which their Secretaries preach. But, more 
 
14 
 
 than this, the extract has no revelancy to the point in hand. It 
 relates simply to the free exercise of" denominational preferences," 
 as to the sort of church to be formed in a mixed community. It 
 has no more to do with the appropriation of money to slavehold- 
 iog churches, than with the theory of light, or the nebular hypo- 
 thesis. Any body can see this, who will take the trouble to turn 
 to the article. The Presbyterian will see it, if it will but give irs 
 spectacles a fresh rub. 
 
 A word will be in place here, as to the quotation by the Evan- 
 gelist, said to be from " the report" of the year 1853. That quo- 
 tation would amount to little, were it even, as it is not, the voice 
 of the Executive Committee. We do not now, be it remembered, 
 " make the exclusion of slaveholders from communion a condition 
 of missionary aid." Not at all. The " province" of the Execu- 
 tive Committee, besides, may be variously modified, as has been 
 shown, by new manifestations of the will of its constituency. But 
 waiving all considerations of that sort, interpreting the extract as 
 you please, it is not an authoritative utterance. It is not, in any 
 exact and proper sense, " in the report." It is in the appendix 
 to the Report, with a variety of other matters, quite unoflScial, 
 and put there by no act of the Executive Committee. It is an 
 extract, besides, from the Home Missionary ; and it was through 
 mere inadvertence, certainly, that the Executive Committee are 
 represented as responsible for it. I say inadvertence, for the 
 Evangelist understands the matter. In an editorial under date 
 of June 26, 1856, referring to certain articles in the Home Mis- 
 sionary, which it regards as not according with the views of the 
 Committee, it says : " We knew that they had not been submitted 
 to that Committee for discussion or approval. They were pub- 
 lished u'ithout the authority of that Committee; they are re- 
 published in the Annual Report without that authority." * * * 
 " Of course the Executive Committee can not see all that is pub- 
 lished in the Home Missionary.'' And again : " IsTor is the So- 
 ciety itself, by any authentic act, to be held responsible for their 
 avowal or publication." So clear was the Evangelist as to this 
 point, that it even complained of this state of facts. Though the 
 Executive Committee are not, as we have shown — as, indeed, 
 hardly need have been shown — forbidden to change, on due occa- 
 sion, their own rules and methods, yet the Evangelist, to use its 
 own language, " did see, we think, in the year" 1856, that such 
 extracts as it now adduces, are not the action of that Committee, 
 and so can not be regarded as an authoritative announcement of 
 its views and principles. I speak now, understand me, only of an 
 oversight. I hint not the slightest suspicion of intenrional mis- 
 representation. I know the Editors of the Evangelist too well 
 for that. 
 
 The second position of the Presbyterian — its Malakoff in the 
 argument — is, that we are " in direct conflict with the constitu- 
 tion of the Presbyterian Church." But how, pray ? What have 
 we, as a voluntary Society, empowered only to disburse, as seems 
 best to us, our own funds, to do with the Const' tution of the 
 Presbyterian Church? What can we have to c:y with it, any 
 
15 
 
 more than with the CoEstitution of the American Colonization 
 Society, or even of the United States ? There it stands, fair and 
 glorious as ever, living by its own vitality, carried out by its own 
 functionaries, obeyed by its own subjects. "We, as a voluntary 
 Society, are not bound by it, nor have we control over it. We 
 have nothing to do with it, as a Society, except as in its luminous- 
 ness it may aid our discretion. We have no power to enforce it ; 
 we have no power to break it. As to us, as a theologue would 
 say, it is not an object of power. The fallacy of the charge lies 
 upoD its surface. 
 
 Bat in forming opinions, and acting upon them, as to the cha- 
 racter of the ministers and churches we aid, it is said, we are 
 undertaking disci'pline — ecclesiastical discipline. Do I understand 
 the Presbyterian ? Is it possible it means to affirm that we 
 are to make no inquiry about character, or none beyond the mere 
 fact of good ecclesiastical standing ? That a place on the Presby- 
 terial rull, or the presentation of clean papers, concludes the 
 whole matter ? Does it imagine we have ever acted thus, or ever 
 shall act thus ? I would like to know how it would have had us 
 deal with a score or two of cases which I could cite from our his 
 tory. With a Presbyterian minister, for example, found to have. 
 Mormon-like, three living wives, and stricken from our list on that 
 ground, though in good ecclesiastical standing for years after- 
 ward ? Should the clean papers have bound us to the unclean 
 man ? How as to a bigamist of the Congrej^rational connection, 
 in the same category? How as to a minister, of good enough 
 church standing, but whose physical standing, as he went to the 
 pulpit, was, through strong drink, of the most precarious sort ? 
 How as to a case which much perplexed us, of a minister living 
 apart from his wife ? Oases like these may, indeed, be rare ones ; 
 but they are cases, and there are enough of them both to s-ettle the 
 principle and show its importance. Is it said, why not give in- 
 formation to the proper ecclesiastical authority ? The Executive 
 Committee, I reply, has not the function of Grand Jury, or Prs >- 
 secuting Attorney to all the Congregational and Presbyterian ec- 
 clesiastical bodies. It has nothing to do with tabling charges. 
 Were it to undertake that work, a storm would be raised, com- 
 pared with which the present outbreak is but a gentle^ zephyr. 
 We do inquire, and we must inquire, if we would be faithful to 
 our trust, about character, and act on the result of such inquiry. 
 We inquire even about churches, and a variety of results may 
 compel us to withhold aid. We have refused it, for example, be- 
 cause of a state of dissension, which seemed inconsistent with the 
 best use of our funds. We withdraw it, by a general and stand- 
 ing rule — and so does the Philadelphia Home Missionary Society, 
 as the Presbyterian will learn by reference to the " General Prin- 
 ciples" prefixed to the Report of that Society for 1856— when 
 churches deal unrighteously with their clerical servants, by m-t 
 fulfilling " their previous pledges" to them. We do this,_and so 
 does the Philadelphia Society, whatever be the ecclesiastical 
 standing of the Church. We grant no aid to churches, stand as 
 they may, who do not receive members on the principle of rege- 
 
16 
 
 Deration. All this, and more of the same sort we do, in virtue of 
 our discretionarj power, as the functionaries of a voluntary So- 
 ciety. And the like, in principle, is done by all the voluntary 
 Societies in the land. Does the Presbyterian fancy that " clean 
 papers" would settle the question of employing agents, preachers, 
 colporteurs, etc., or otherwise appropriating funds — the question, 
 I mean, so far as moral and religious character is concerned — 
 with the American Bible Society, the American and Foreigii 
 Christian Union, the A. B. C. F. M., the American Tract So- 
 ciety ? If so, it has only to step up to the offices of those So- 
 cieties, and discover its mistake. 
 
 The truth is, there is in this charge about discipline, the most 
 chaotic confusion of thought. Oar brethren — I say it with re- 
 spect and affection — have not got through even the first demiur- 
 gic day. They confound things which are entirely different. 
 Why, discipline, our Constitution says, is " the exercise of that 
 authority * * which the Lord Jesus Christ hath appointed 
 in His Church." Not in a voluntary Society. No voluntary 
 Society has it, or in the nature of things can exercise it. No act 
 or judgment of our Society lays claim to it. We can not touch 
 the ecclesiastical standing either of ministers or churches, nor do 
 we profess to. What we do is disbursement, not discipline. It 
 is the management of our own funds, not the changing, or annull- 
 ing, or any way affecting the ecclesiastical standing of any one. 
 The fact shows this, versus all theory. There they stand — scores, 
 perhaps, of those whom we have refused to aid, on one ground or 
 another of a moral sort — still recti in ecclesia. In that regard we 
 had no authority to aff'ect them— we did not profess to affecr. 
 them — we have not affected them. Can any thing be clearer ? 
 What would you do with a hypochondriac, who, as some have 
 done, fancied himself mag-ically disciplined out of his manhood 
 into a thing of glass ? You would endeavor to show him that, 
 in point of fact he was not glass — that he was still a man among 
 men. You would pinch him, perhaps, or in extremities stick a 
 pin into him, to show him that he was still flesh and blood. And 
 if you could only get the fact into his head, the fancy would col- 
 lapse by an inevitable law. 
 
 But, says the last Presbyterian,, referring to a quotation from 
 a letter of one of the Secretaries : " The language is, consciously 
 or unconsciously, judicial ; the Committee are to pass judgment." 
 Indeed ! Is all judgment under the sun ecclesiastical ? Can no 
 " Daniel come to judgment" without becoming an ecclesiastical 
 body ? It is written : •' Judge not that ye be not judged." But 
 the new gloss is, judge not, lest ye become a Session or a Presby- 
 tery. Let our Congregational friends beware of a metamorpho- 
 sis as certain as one of Ovid's. Has an individual, or what is the 
 same thing in principle, a voluntary association of individuals, no 
 right to give or withhold funds on the ground of character, as it 
 shall stand in their own estimate ? Do you undertake to restrain 
 or coerce them by the mere exhibition of clean papers, forbidding 
 them to exeri'ise their own independent and final judgment, be 
 cause forsooth that would be discipline? Undertake it with 
 
17 
 
 some of our high-minded laymeD, undertake it with any voluntary 
 association, and the views we have presented would have prompt 
 practical confirmation. 
 
 The Evangelist, with its wonted sagacity, sees the untenableness 
 of the Presbyterian's position. It virtually concedes the whole 
 ground. " Of course," it says, " the Committee has a perfect 
 right to inquire into the general character and standing of any 
 Church asking its patronage. Of course, if any Church is noto- 
 riously guilty of immoral practices or heretical doctrines, they 
 have the right to decline aiding it." This, for substance, is all we 
 ask for. But the Evangelist interposes a special plea — I use the 
 term in no disrespectful sense. It may " inquire " about a 
 Church ; but if I comprehend the Evangelist's position, it must 
 not inqnire particularli/. It must be a sort of realistic inquiry. 
 To use its own language, it must be a " cursory inquiry." It 
 must rest in generals and in notorieties, and not be very searching 
 at that. If a statement is made to the Committee, that a church 
 applying for aid, or under its care, is guilty of heresy or immorality, 
 it may be received and have weight, provided only no particulars are 
 given. If only a general dishonesty be charged, or a general adulter- 
 ousness, or a general intemperance. So, I suppose, as to a minister. 
 If only Madame Rumor be, as she loves to be, loud-tongued and 
 vague, she is conclusive authority. No specific statements are to be 
 sought for, or permitted. If aid is refused on such process, it is 
 quite allowable, it is not discipline. But if the subject is care- 
 fully and particularly looked into, with the best lights at com- 
 mand, so that no wrong be done, that is an abomination, that is 
 discipline. This, surely, is mitigating the matter with a ven- 
 geance. As to the Evangelist's remarks about our method of 
 getting information, I will simply say that, while it is not at all 
 judicial, either in a legal or ecclesiastical sense, it is various, such 
 as any one's good judgment would naturally suggest, and such as 
 is constantly adopted by all the voluntary Societies. 
 
 Enough, perhaps, has been said on this point of discipline; 
 but, I beg, Messrs. Editors, before I leave it, gently and frater- 
 nally to turn the tables. It is the theory of the Presbyterian that 
 ivoidd make our Society ecclesiastical. To regard good eccle- 
 siastical standing as the end of all inquiry, would make us the 
 mere sub-treasury of the ecclesiastical bodies. The old nursery- 
 rhyme which Daniel Webster applied to the function of the United 
 States Sub-Treasnrer, would pretty aptly set forth ours : 
 
 " There sat the king a counting out his money." 
 
 We should have little of importance to do but " counting out our 
 money" at the virtual bidding of the Associations and Presby- 
 teries. We should lose our proper character as a voluntary So- 
 ciety. We should become the mere appendage of a various ec 
 clesiasticism. As to the most important part of our work, we 
 should be absorbed into it. How long do you suppose such lay- 
 men as are now on our Executive Committee — to say nothing of 
 the ministers — would consent to stand in such a subordinate and 
 
18 
 
 almost mechanical relation ? A dozen wooden men, constructed as 
 ingeniously as a modern corn-planter, would drop out the money 
 about as well. 
 
 3. My third and last point is, that our action is expedient. 
 The interests of the Society demand it. A pressure has come 
 upon us from our constituency, the supreme power in the matter, 
 which we can not resist. For lack of such action, our supporters 
 have been leaving us — and without it they would in future leave 
 us in still greater numbers. With this tendency of things, the 
 great principles of righteousness, the movements of God's Provi- 
 dence, and the general progress of public sentiment accord. Our 
 action has not been hastily taken, but with all deliberateness — 
 with such deliberateness, and such full conviction, that you may 
 rest assured, it will not he reversed. 
 
 It is expedient, T add, for the Presbyterian Church. While I 
 would be rigidly impartial in the Committee, I do not forget 
 that I am a Presbyterian. I love the Church to which I belong. 
 On my youthful brow her hand was laid in the solemnities of or- 
 dination, and for more than twenty years, I have ministered at 
 her altars. If God please, 
 
 •• For her my tears shall fall, 
 For her my prayers ascend, 
 To her my cares and toils be given, 
 Till toils and cares shall end." 
 
 It is because I love her, that I rejoice in this action. Our breth- 
 ren may be assured that it was no Congregational plot. It will 
 be more a gain to us than to the Congregational connection. 
 Most decided and earnest was the approval of it on the part of 
 the Presbyterian members of the Committee. Noble laymen 
 were for it — conservative men, far removed from fanaticism — 
 who have grown gray in the service of the Presbyterian 
 Church. No one was more heartily in its favor than the excel- 
 lent Stated Clerk of our General Assembly, who is not apt to be 
 at fault on an ecclesiastical point, and whose devotion to the 
 honor and welfare of the Church is known and read of all men. 
 That it came out first through a Congregational channel, was 
 undesigned and unexpected on the part of the Committee. It 
 would in due time have been given to the public, through all ap- 
 propriate channels, not as a sectarian thing, but as a wise measure 
 for the Society, and though impartial in its nature, of the hap- 
 piest bearing on the true interests of our Church. 
 
 The question may be raised, on general grouyids, whether it 
 may not lie best for our Church to adopt ecclesiastical Boards. 
 Whenever it is raised, I shall give to it, as an individual, the 
 closest and most candid attention. But it will be a woeful day 
 for the Presbyterian Church, when it cuts loose from the Ameri- 
 can Home Missionary Society, leaving it to the Congrega- 
 tionalists, because the flag of freedom floats above it — because 
 it declines to aid, not all churches in which there are slave- 
 holders, (for that is not our action,) but churches in which such 
 
19 
 
 slaveholding is harbored as has been visited by our General As- 
 sembly with a seven-fold condemnation — such slaveholding as all 
 sound moralists condemn, and as is becoming more and more an 
 ill savor in the nostrils of all the world. This is no time for us — 
 this time of Dred Scott decisions, when slavery is on its winding 
 way to Bunker Hill — this time of Ross letters, and of a general 
 Southern apostasy — to be manufacturing emollient cataplasms 
 for the wounds of the peculiar Institution, or fragrant anodynes 
 for its pains. I do not believe our coming Assembly at Cleve- 
 land will give itself to such work. 
 
 A word more and I have done. The fear is felt in some quar- 
 ters, that if our Assembly does not disapprove the action of the 
 Home Missionary Society, some of the Southern churches will 
 leave us. This might be borne, but for the superadded appre- 
 hension, that some of the Northern churches will follow suit — 
 will go over perhaps, to the Old School connection. The Phila- 
 delphia Christian Observe?- has in time past, I think, hinted 
 some such peril. And it may possibly apprehend it now. But 
 has it looked at the signs of the times in that quarter ? Did it 
 hear the speech of Mr. Woods, of Mississippi, in the last General 
 Assembly ? Has it read Dr. Hodge, but recently out, on the 
 6th chapter of the Ephesians? Does it fancy that our Old 
 School brethren are always to have, in this regard, " the smooth 
 surface of a summer's sea ?" Does it not see, even now, the 
 waxing ground swell? Has it thought of the old adage about 
 the leap from the frying-pan ? Where will secession take 
 place ? I should like to have the quarter pointed out. It is a 
 pure phantasm, depend upon it, this fear about the Northern 
 churches, with not enough in it to frighten a child in the nursery, 
 
 I thank you, Messrs. Editors, brethren esteemed and beloved, for 
 the space you have accorded me — or have accorded rather to 
 the important subject on which I write. I shall not probably 
 trouble you again. I commit the suggestions herein offered to 
 you and to our Church, in the calm confidence that the truth 
 will not only prevail, but will come a great gainer out of the or- 
 deal through which it is passing. Asa D. Smith. 
 
 II. 
 
 F)-oni The Evangelist of April 16, 1857. 
 
 HOME MISSIONS AND SLAVERY. 
 
 To The Editors of the Evangelist : It is ordinarily a deli- 
 cate and unpleasant task, to call in question the views of a paper 
 in its own columns. Of a paper, especially, so justly and highly 
 esteemed as that for which I now write. The regret I felt, how- 
 ever, at connecting with my strictures on the American Presby- 
 
20 
 
 tenan^ a dissent from some of your own positions, has had divers 
 alleviations. Not the least of these has been the courtesy I have 
 met at your hands. Making no account of a few expressions, to 
 which I give a charitable interpretation, the Evangelist has 
 borne itself, in this slight passage at arms, with such a true 
 knightliness of manner, that I have almost fancied the age of chi- 
 valry present again. 
 
 Another mitigation has been the large and fundamental con- 
 cession early made, and, I am happy to see, still unretracted. 
 '• Of course," said the Evangelist of March 12, " the Committee 
 has a perfect right to inquire into the general character and 
 standing of any church asking its patronage." " A right,'' be it 
 observed. Not, it " may take a liberty," according to the softer 
 phraseology to which the Evangelist of March 26 resorts. 
 " Taking a liberty'" and having " a riglit,''^ are two very distin- 
 guishable things. Especially, if the "right," as is very properly 
 said, be a '^perfecf one. Nor is it a right for an "extreme 
 case" only, but as I have quoted above, for the case of " any 
 church asking patronage." But why make "inquiry?" Not 
 surely from a mere historical curiosity. The Committee is not a 
 Historical Society. Obviously, to ascertain whether the cha- 
 racter of the church is such that funds can be properly appro- 
 priated — inquiry with reference to an alternative. The right to 
 inquire — unless it be a perfectly idle one — implies the right to 
 act on the result, to vote funds or not vote them, according to 
 the facts ascertained. So, indeed, the Evangelist distinctly ad- 
 mits. " Of course," it adds, " if any church is notoriously guilty 
 of immoral practices or heretical doctrines, they have the right 
 to decline aiding it." The Committee may, then, withhold an 
 appropriation, and that to a church in good ecclesiastical stand- 
 ing, even on the ground of heresy. There is no escape from the 
 suicidal force of such concessions. The term " general" does not 
 help" the matter. Unless the Evangelist resorts, after all, to 
 the realistic view, my reference to which was by no means a 
 mere "joke," there must be ^OTii%t\imgo^ individualism in the in- 
 quiry. Unless it be of the most generic and vague sort, relating, 
 as I said, only to " a general dishonesty, or a general adulterousness, 
 or a general intemperance," and taking note only of Madame 
 Rumor's most shadowy phantoms, it must have more or less to 
 do with particular facts. The Evangelist does not deny this, 
 though it is a little vague on this matter of vagueness. It at- 
 tempts to escape, however, under cover of the term " visitorial," 
 used more than once in its later articles. Literally, of course, 
 the word has no application. The Committee make no visits. 
 They are not an itinerant body. They are quite sedentary, as I 
 can testify from some wearisome experience. They do inquire, 
 indeed — as the Evangelist says they have " a perfect right" to 
 do, even as to the matter of heresy — "into the character" of 
 churches asking their patronage. But they claim no control over 
 those churches. They control simply the funds intrusted to 
 them. If information is furnished, it is furnished voluntarily. 
 They can not compel it. They dream not of doing so. In respect 
 
21 
 
 to slavery, as in rea^ard to other matters, pertaining to " charac- 
 ter," they take such information as, in the way of letters, state- 
 ments, or otherwise, may be laid before them. They decide, in 
 view of it, not what the church shall do, or the Presbytery, or 
 Association, but simply what it is wise for them to do with the 
 funds, of which, accordinj^ to the Constitution of the Society, 
 they " have the disposal." As faithful men, can they do less 
 than this? They are clearly sustained in it by the large and 
 just concession aforenamed — a concession which so long as it 
 stands unrevoked, must be greatly damaging to the Evangelist's 
 cause. It is like a huge leak in a ship's bottom, past the power 
 of oakum, however skillfully inserted. 
 
 I am further consoled in my reluctant dissent from the Evan- 
 gelist, by the fact that the " discipline" theory, of which so 
 much was made at first, is now explicitly abandoned. In the 
 article of March 12, the ground was distinctly taken, that the 
 inquiry proposed by the Committee was a disciplinary process. 
 The question in hand, it was said, could not be determined "ex- 
 cept in the way of a judicial process." The Executive Com- 
 mittee, it was further observed, " now propose to erect themseUes 
 into a tribunal to investigate and decide it." *' The presumed 
 delinquent is to be placed at their tar:' He is to be called on 
 " to 2^lecidJ' " The church must plead its cause before the Com- 
 mittee." "The party to be tried" is further spoken of. The 
 *' rules of evidence and forms of process'^ which " the Committee 
 may have prescribed to themselves," are asked for. The Com- 
 mittee is referred to again as " a body entirely new in its judicial 
 character,^' and as undertaking " to put in execution the Assem- 
 bly's rules of discipline." All this seemed very strange to me, as 
 it did to many others. This confounding of a simple affair of 
 discretional' y disbursement, with the very different matter of eccle- 
 siastical discipline. I was at a little pains to refute it, feeling, 
 the while, much as if I were trying to prove that there was an 
 essential difference between a circle and a square. It gives me 
 great pleasure now to see this tlieory given up. Says the Evan- 
 gelist in its last article : "We do not say that they [the Commit- 
 tee] have themselves exercised discipline in the proper sense.'' 
 Wisely and magnanimously admitted! I felt sure that the 
 clear eye of my old favorite would by and by see things as they 
 are. Let it be understood that the guns of the discipline battery, 
 properly so called, are now spiked. Let notice be taken of it by 
 the Philadelphia papers, who with less sagacity than their New- 
 York collaborator, are still trusting in them. 
 
 The Evangelist says, however, that though the Committee do 
 not themselves discipline, they yet dictate discipline to the 
 churches. They dictate to them "whom they shall receive or 
 retain as their members," and they claim the right to determine 
 as to individual members, ^' whether the church ought or ought 
 not to reject them from their communion." The Committee, I 
 reply, dictate nothing to ths churches. They decide simply as 
 to their own funds. They leave the churches to do as they 
 please with their individual members. Whether to retain or re- 
 
22 
 
 ject them, it is the province of the churches to determine. 
 Whether it be fitting and wise to appropriate funds, it is the 
 province of the Committee to decide. When, accordiog to the 
 Evangelisfs admirable admission, they "decline aiding" a 
 church, because it is " guilty of immoral practices or heretical 
 doctrines," they assert no authority over that church, nor any 
 over its Presbytery. They simply exercise authority over the 
 moneys intrusted to them. So cautious are they about inter- 
 ference with the functions of others, that when they refuse to 
 commission a minister on the ground of moral character, as not 
 unfrequently happens, they say nothing about the case to the 
 ecclesiastical body with which he is connected. They assume no 
 prosecuting function. They do not even inform. A like course 
 they pursue, as to the relations of a church which they decline to 
 aid, to the Association or Presbytery. Their aim and care is to 
 keep on their own premises, to judge and act simply with reference 
 to their own objects, and in their own sphere. 
 
 It is with some regret I have observed in the Evangelist 
 divers misstatements of my positions and arguments. They are 
 not designed, I am sure. I shall earnestly beg the privilege of 
 regarding them as inadvertences. Let me crowd into brief space 
 a notice of some of them : 
 
 1. I am spoken of as " ungraciously" intimating that you have 
 " an issue with our Congregational brethren." I intimated no 
 such tiling. How could I? Did T not know, Messrs. Editors, 
 that one of you came to your present post from a useful and hon- 
 ored pastorate in the Congregational Church, and that the other 
 was of a truly liberal and catholic spirit ? Speaking to you, I 
 said " our brethren," alluding of course to those brethren at Phi- 
 ladelphia, who, with a zeal which I know how to make allowance 
 for, are writing about " Congregationalism," having " Presbyte- 
 rianism ' on the hip' at last." I desired kindly and honestly to 
 allay their fears. 
 
 2. In referring to the Evangelisfs quotation about the " pro- 
 vince" of the Society, I said it amounted to " little " I used the 
 expression carefully. I knoiv that the author of that quotation, 
 now in a better world, did not intend by it ivhat the Evangelist 
 interpreted it to mean. Nor in the Committee at large has such 
 an interpretation ever been dreamed of. Taken in connection 
 with other parts of the document, and with other papers on the 
 same subject, the real meaning could easily be reached. In a 
 single sentence I hinted at it. Yet there was something of am- 
 biguity in the language. It was liable, taken by itself, to be 
 misunderstood. So I gave the widest latitude. I waived all 
 question about the meaning. I allowed the Evangelist to ex- 
 pound as it pleased, resting my argument on a broader basis. 
 Mean what it might, it was not authoritative — as your own paper 
 has clearly shown. Nay, had it been even a rule of the Com- 
 mittee, it would not have been a finality. We have no law of the 
 Medes and Persians. This vvas the pivot of my argument. Yet 
 the Evangelist has put the matter as if it turned on a point of 
 
t>3 
 
 3. I argued that it was absurd to talk of the Committee's ex- 
 ercising discipline, because, in the nature of things, they had " no 
 poicer" to do it. " Power" was the word used over and over 
 again. Your statement of my argument is : " It is impossible for 
 the Committee to do what they have no right to do ; because 
 they have no right to do it." How happened it, that the word 
 power slipped out, and the word jnght slipped in ? The Evan- 
 gelist knows the difference between might and right. It was no 
 
 . intentional misrepresentation, I hold myself to believe. Yet it 
 made nonsense of an argument which, properly stated, could not 
 be answered, and under the force of which the Evangelist has 
 retired from its foremost position. 
 
 4. In setting forth the nature of the Home Missionary Society, 
 I said it was a voluntary association. I am represented as mak- 
 ing it " an arhitrary Society." The expression, "perfectly arbi- 
 trary," is used. As if in claiming for it self-control, or that it 
 was " controlled by no other earthly power," I claimed that it 
 was under no moral obligation ! That it might disregard all 
 rights, and set aside all law ! As if to say, that a being has a 
 will, and determines his own conduct, is to say that he has no 
 conscience ! Could the Evangelist imagine me so " asinine and 
 anserine," to borrow one of Sydney Smith's phrases, as to affirm 
 any thing like this ? Yet so it has represented me. I not only 
 said no such silly thing, but, in various forms, directly the con- 
 trary. I spoke of the Committee's being bound by the constitu- 
 tion, and by the will of their constituents. Nay, by their own 
 rules, " so long as they remain rules." I virtually admitted, that 
 the Society would be held by any '* compact" into which it had 
 really entered. This, indeed, is acknowledged, in singular coLtra- 
 diction to the general misrepresentation. I spoke of its " fealtj," 
 in common with other Societies, to its " Divine Patron." The 
 " wretched fallacy" of which the Evangelist speaks, is no offspring 
 of my brain. It is an ill-favored changeling, of quite a different 
 paternity. 
 
 5. I am represented in the Evangelist of April 2d, as inti- 
 mating that " the churches have no right to be heard." There is 
 an unhappy, I will not say designed, equivoque here. If 
 " churches" in their organic capacity are meant, whether parti- 
 cular or general, then, of course, according to the Evangelisfs 
 doctrine, as before quoted, no less than mine, they have no control 
 over the Society. I^have not said, however, that they should not 
 he"'hearcV' I have pointed to their utterances, as indicating 
 the will of our constituents. If by " churches," those individual 
 members are meant, who contribute to our funds, and thus enter 
 into our constituency, I need not say how earnestly I have insist- 
 ed that with all diligence we should inquire after their views. 
 
 6. I am represented, again, as holding that " Popular Feeling, 
 as expressed in all sorts of vague popular ways," is to indicate 
 the will of our constituents. I did say, that will was to be as- 
 certained by us in all available methods. And as they are part 
 t)f the people, and in many quarters, a very important and con- 
 trolling part, I would not close my ear to any utterance of the 
 
vox populi. My language was, however, " the best popular feeling, 
 that which sustains vs and puts into our hands trust funds' 
 Please look again at my article, and see if you dealt fairly with 
 it. And as to the indications I referred to, are they indeed all 
 " vague ?" Are otir excellent religious papers *' vague ?" Is there 
 vagueness and uncertainty in the solemn acts of ecclesiastical 
 bodies ? Are the declarations of our General Assembly, as Dr. 
 Ross terms them, " Delphic words ?" How otherwise can we 
 ascertain the will of our constituents ? The Society, you say, 
 " is never, in point of fact, brought together." At the annual 
 meeting, but few assemble. By your own showing, then, I have 
 pointed to the best accessible indices of the will of our constitu- 
 ents. Nor have I the least apprehension that a gathering of the 
 whole of them would convict me of mistake in regard to it. 
 
 Of your argument, or suggestion rather, as to the " rights of 
 minorities," I need say but a word. We have no vested funds. 
 Past donations have gone to past uses. Our resources are our 
 current contributions ; and the present contributors, with the 
 comparatively small number of life-members, are our constituents . 
 Suppose, now, a tenth part of them are conscientiously opposed 
 to the course of the Society. What are their '* rights ?" Why, 
 they may cease to contribute, and thus, as to most of them, cease 
 to be members. To them, of course, the Committee will cease 
 to be responsible. Have they any other " rights ?" True, if the 
 Committee have been guilty of a breach of trust, they can call 
 them to account. But can they say to the nine tenths who ap- 
 prove of the course taken, your consciences must bow to ours, or 
 you must' leave the Society ? That would be the despotism of the 
 minority. 
 
 A brief allusion may be allowed to the various suggestions of 
 both the Evangelist and the American Presbyterian^ as to the 
 extremes to which the Committee may go. If they may take 
 slaveholding into consideration, it is said, who knows but they 
 may look after dancing also, and the use of strong drink, and 
 Sabbath-day travelling, and the holding of stock in SablDath- 
 breaking corporations ? " Suppose," says the Presbyterian, " the 
 Committee adopted a rule that every minister employed by them 
 must be educated at Oberlin, ordained at New-Haven, or be ex- 
 amined in theology by that Committee ?" This is truly fright- 
 ful, and a great many other frightful things might be added. 
 They might require their missionaries, in proof of their sound- 
 ness, to answer the editorials of the Presbyterian, or to enter the 
 lists with the Christian Observer. Or, taking a hint from the 
 Evangelist, they might set their faces incontinently against the 
 beard movement and the Kossuth hats. We have in all this the 
 old sophism, the argument against a good and necessary iise from 
 possible abuses. Its best refutation is simply to identify it. 
 
 The Presbyterian of March 26th, in replying to my Letter, be- 
 gins by intimating that there is no argument in it. As a con- 
 scientious paper, doubtless, it felt bound to state that at the out- 
 set. It can only style it argument, it gives us to understand, on 
 the ground of that '" courtesy " which so adorns its own columns. 
 
«5 
 
 The wonder is, now, that it should have been so excited by my 
 poor iuanities. That such a St. Vitus' dance should have re- 
 sulted fr.>m my harmless pellets. Several friends to whom 1 have 
 shown the paper, esteem it a psychological phenomenon. It 
 really did not become ihe Aiiicrican Presbyterian. It should 
 have taken pattern from its more dignified neighbor, the Christian 
 Obseiver; I'ur whose gentlemanly bearing in this matter, what- 
 ever difference of opiuinn there may be between us, I am truly 
 thankful. It was very kind in the Observer to spejik so favorably 
 of the manner of my letter. I can say most unfeignedly, I take 
 no creoit to mvself. But for restraining grace and a good 
 cause, I might have fallen into the error of the Presbi/terian. 
 That paper should seek for itself some moral nervine. Excite- 
 ments are wearing. It should spare its strength. It has a great 
 work to do to bring our beloved Church into the pro-slavery 
 traces. It aims to be a great power in the land, and great powers 
 are always calm. Witness the forces of nature. 
 
 As my arguments were no arguments, it is not strange that the 
 Presbyterian has either not stated them at all, or has given them 
 in so many instances, mutilated or ujisshaped, caricatured or 
 transformed. Had they been argument^, it would certainly have 
 been well to state them truly. As it was, however, a true state- 
 ment might have misled the readers. Ju the exercise of that 
 " private judgment," which, according to a certain faith, is not to 
 be trusted, they might have perversely thought them arguments. 
 In view of the peculiar character of the Presbyterian's reply — 
 especially as my main points, being no arguments, are quite un- 
 touched by it — it does not strike me as calling for further notice. 
 I shall be quite satisfied if those who read it, will read also my 
 Letter. If they even fail of that, I shall not be greatly trou- 
 bled. The piece carries with it, to great extent, its own refut- 
 ation. 
 
 With a rapid resume, 1 shall relieve your patience. 
 
 1. I would recall the point, that, *' as to ihe great principles 
 involved," there is, in the action of the Committee, '^nothing 
 newy So the Christian Observer judges. So, if I understand 
 it, the Presbyterian. It has long been a rule with us to employ 
 no slaveholding minister. On other moral grounds we have 
 often, from the beginning, declined to aid both ministers and 
 churches. If, in applying old and recognized principles to the 
 subject of slavery, progress has been made, it has been clearly and 
 imperatively called for by the great apostasy at the South, so 
 manifest in the Ross Letters, and otherwise, and by a consequent 
 progress of feeling and sentiment on the part of our constit- 
 uents. 
 
 2. Our course, as above stated, being well known, the Society 
 has, again and again, received the approbation of the General As- 
 sembly. Is the Presbyterian, which so plainly intimates that all 
 the real Presbyterian blood is to be found in its veins, and the 
 veins of those who think with it, about to be disloyal ? Has it 
 no respect for the Supreme Judicatory of our Church ? Does it 
 mean to be a " New Light," aiitj by dint of argument and re- 
 
26 
 
 buke, brino^ off the Assembly from "the old paths?' *' My son, 
 fear thou the Lord and the king, and meddle not with them that 
 are given to change." 
 
 3. The action of the Committee is in j^^rfect harmony with the 
 oft-repeated action of the General Assembly. We had even thoughts, 
 at first, of using the very language of the Detroit resolutions. 
 We mean nothing more than those resolutions mean, fairly inter- 
 preted. The Christian Observer intimates, indeed, that there is 
 no " light" in them. It sometimes happens — that respected print 
 will pardon mie for saying — that " the light shineth in darkness, 
 and the darkness comprehendeth it not." We mean nothing 
 more than the many previous utterances of the Assembly mean. 
 Will the Assembly find fault with us for walking by the lamp 
 which itself has provided? 
 
 4. Our action, be it observed, as to its bearing on Slavery, is 
 not extreme. There is nothing of fanaticism in it. It is mild, 
 conservative, and every way reasonable. No one, it seems to me, 
 who truly dislikes the " peculiar institution," can object to its 
 spirit. There is nothing to prevent the Society's still aiding 
 churches at the South, unless it be a sort of slaveholding con- 
 demned by all sound morality. Or we can send ministers to the 
 destitute regions there, as we 'often do to the West, to gather 
 churches. If the South want a pure, untrammelled Gospel, and 
 will abide the preaching of it, the action of our Committee will 
 not withhold it. 
 
 5. To be consistent in opposing the Committee's action, you 
 must oppose all limitation in relation to Slavery. All slavehold- 
 ing churches must be aided, be their views and practices what 
 they may. The members may be in the habit of separating fami- 
 lies — of selling infants from the breast — of virtually sundering, 
 among their slave?;, the marriage tie — of not permitting them to 
 learn to read God's Word. There may be no discipline in this 
 regard, and the pastor may not be allowed to utter the voice of 
 rebuke. These are not fancies, Messrs. Editors. From the 
 letters of our missionaries I could quote things which would make 
 your ears tingle. There is no need, as the Evangelist argues, 
 of any nice inquisition into motives. The things moved, the overt 
 acts, are quite sufficient. As in one case of which I have been 
 credibly informed, churcli-members may be sold to pay thejMstor''s 
 salary. Yet if the church stands on the roll of the Presbytery, 
 you must not refuse aid. You may ask "no questions about the 
 sort of Christianity you are helping to build up. You may not 
 refuse to commission a slaveholding minister with clean papers, 
 though his roll of human chattels be ever so large ; though his 
 spirit be such, that he can say with an eminent clergyman of the 
 South, he would as soon buy a slave as a leg of mutton. Is the 
 Evangelist prepared for this ? Is our Church prepared for it ? 
 
 6. You must go further. You must have no limitation on 
 moral grounds. You must ask no questions in that relation, if 
 only clean papers are furnished. The objectors to the Commit- 
 tee's action can find no logical standing-place short of that, no 
 ground that will not be found a very slippery one. This the 
 Presbyterian sees, and so. in its last number, goes the whole. It 
 
'^7 
 
 says, with emphatic Italics: " They cannot refuse aid to any min- 
 ister or church on the ground of wimorality. when the minister or 
 memhers of the church are in good standing in their oion body.'" 
 This is the Ultima Thule, which all who side with the Presbyte- 
 rian must sooner or later reach. The minister with three living 
 wives, the clerical bigamist, the preacher intoxicated in the pul- 
 pit — all real cases, before alluded to, and all 7'ecti in ecclesia — 
 must bear our OommissioD, and have the money of our constitu- 
 ents, and go forth as stewards of the mysteries of God, and as en- 
 samples to the flock ! 
 
 7. The matter in hand cannot be separated from the subject of 
 slavery. The two things are bound together by a more than 
 Gordian knot. Not even the keenest of the Philadelphia blades 
 will suffice to cut it. Opposition to the Committee's action will 
 he esteemed -pro-slavery. And while I touch not on motives, 
 while I doubt not that some honest and excellent anti-slavery 
 men may be misled, just as I think the Evangelist is, I must 
 still say, in force and effect, it ivill be pro-slavery. The working 
 of moral instincts shows this. It gives gladness and encourage- 
 ment to the apologists for human bondage. It sends sudness to 
 the heart of the friends of freedom. And were it to prevail, were 
 our General Assembly to fall in with it, we should be reminded 
 again, and more emphatically than ever, of old Delphi. We 
 should be understood as eatinij our own words. The pro-slavery 
 stigma would be almost ineflfaceably upon us. The danger of 
 secession in the tield of our main strength would be greatly in- 
 creased. So feeling, in common with others of my Presbyterian 
 associates in the Committee, and desiring the welfare of our 
 Church, I have been pained at the position of sonae of my estf eraed 
 brethren. In due time, and on other jirounds, let them propose, 
 if they see fit, — what, indeed, the extreme views of the Presbyte- 
 rian would naturally lead to, — that we surrender the Home Mis- 
 sionary Society to the Congregationalists, and form for oursflves 
 an Ecclesiastical Board. Such a proposal would doubtless 
 receive all proper consideration. But a movement of that sort 
 in the present connection, would be of most disastrous bearing. 
 
 8. Opposition, however, will 2)rove fruitless. Such is the im- 
 pression made on me by many indications of opinion. True, 
 several prints on the Atlantic, favor the wrong side. But the 
 only paper in our connection which is formally and properly an 
 ecclesiastical organ, the Central Christian Herald, published for 
 the large Synods of Ohio, Cincinnati, Indiana, and Wabash, 
 under the care of a Committee appointed by them, stands firmly 
 and ably for the truth. And I have private letters, spontane- 
 ously written, from ministers and laymen, at various points from 
 the Mississippi to the Hudson — the list including two, af least, 
 of the past Moderators of the General Assembly, with others of 
 the most distinguished and influential men of our Church, all utter- 
 ing the same sentiment. Says a pastor in Wisconsin, of my 
 Letter : " It is the truth, and the churches in all this North- west 
 are prepared for it.". Says one of the most prominent ministers 
 in Ohio: "You will be sustained.'' Says an eminent pastor in 
 Western New-York : " The action was manifestly right, and mani- 
 
28 
 
 festly unavoidable." " The wonder is, that any defense should 
 have bet-a called for, or neeesssary." Says one of the most iuflu- 
 ential Elders in the Synod of Albany : " I hasten to express my 
 hearty aj)probation of the statements, principles, and conclusions 
 contained in your article on the powers and action of the A. H. 
 M. Socifty." Says an eminent Elder and Jurist in New-Jersey : 
 *' I write out of the fullness of my heart, to find there are some, 
 and especially that you and your associates in the Executive 
 Committee, have courage enough to take your stand on the side 
 of truth and righteousness." Says the Pastor of one of our 
 largest and most influential churches, not a league from our City 
 Hall : " You are right, and will be sustained." Says one of the 
 clearest and most potent thinkers in our Church, and I might 
 add, in the land : *' I can not well refrain from writing you one 
 word, to say, that I rejoice in the present position of the Home 
 Missionary Society, and believe their action, so far as I can ap- 
 prehend it, timely, judicious, and righteous." He condenses the 
 whole argument into a single sentence, thus : "As if I, a good 
 Presbyterian, could not inquire, quite particularly, about a 
 church member's, or a church's character, in order to give away 
 ten dollars judiciously ! !" 
 
 I will not trouble you, Messrs. Editors, with further extracts. 
 I am greatly obliged to these and other brethren for their good 
 and encouraging words, and to you for allowing me thus to make 
 mention of them. Asa D. Smith. 
 
 P.S. — The foregoing article was prepared for your last paper, 
 and before I had seen the editorial in that number on the same 
 subject. Having attentively read that editorial, I perceive 
 nothing in it which calls for further remark, except a mistake 
 about the position of the Central Christian Herald. — That paper, 
 in its issue of March 19, which you doubtless overlooked, takes 
 the very same ground in regard to discipline that I have main- 
 tained. " The Evangelist and the Philadelphia papers," it says, 
 " call their action [the Committee's] disciplinary. This is absurd. 
 Disbursement of funds by a voluntary Society, is no more dis- 
 ciplinary than the distribution of a man's own money to benevo- 
 lent objects is disciplinary." 
 
 III. 
 
 From The Evangelist of April 30, 1857. 
 
 TO KEV. HENBY A. NELSON. 
 
 My Deae Brother : I have had occasion of late so to tres- 
 pass on the public ear, that I doubt if any thing but your letter 
 would have opened my lips again. So far, indeed, as the line of 
 discussion into which I had been drawn, was concerned, I saw 
 no necessity for further remark. But your voice comes to me 
 
29 
 
 over the prairies and the mountains, like the tones of some dear 
 old melody. It puts you by my side again. It brings back old 
 communings. Touching my mind as your utterances always must, 
 it touches my heart no less, and words drop unbidden from my 
 pen. 
 
 I rejoice to see, just as I expected, that with whatever change 
 of place or of circumstances, you are yourself still. To you be- 
 longs not the old saying : " Temporamutantur, nos illismutamury 
 You abhor still, as in other days, the system of American slavery. 
 It is still, in yuur view, " an unrighteous and oppressive system, 
 and is opposed to the prescriptions of the law of God, to the 
 spirit and precepts of the Gospel, and to the best interests of hu- 
 manity." You are determined by the grace of God to bear 
 solemn testimony agaiuf^t it. I am thankful that God has given 
 you such vantage-ground for this purpose. St. Louis gleams to 
 my eye, in the light of her recent demonstration, as one of the 
 brightest gems on the brow of the South. God bless her in her 
 new movement. God bless you in helping it on. 
 
 It gives me great pleasure to find, that as touching the main 
 principle involved in the recent discussion, you and I are at one. 
 If I needed confirmation, such concurrence would give it. You 
 accept the statement I have made of the nature of a voluntary 
 Society. You admit the right of the Committee, on conviction 
 of duty, to do as they have done. By no ecclesiastical ditficuhies 
 — no gossamer fancies about discipline — is your clear and logical 
 mind disturbed. 
 
 Nor are you moved by the objection, started by some, that the 
 proposed rule should have been adopted not by the Committee, 
 but by the Society. You undei stand not only the Constituti(m, 
 but the history and usages of the Society, too well for that. You 
 know that by the organic law, it is not the body for the trans- 
 action of the main business. It is too multitudinous for such a 
 function. It is, in that respect, quite unlike the American Board 
 of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. At the annual meeting, 
 according to the Constitution, it appoints the officers and Direc- 
 tors. These, with the Life- Directors and the Directors ea: officio, 
 appoint the Executive Committee. To that Committee tbe So- 
 ciety's business is intrusted. They are to " appoint missionaries,- 
 and instruct them as to the field and manner of their labors.''' 
 They are to '• have the disposal of the funds.'' True, it is a jiri- 
 mary and inherent right of the Society — or of as many of its hun- 
 dred thousand members as can be got together at the annual 
 meeting — to raise, discuss, and settle, any question pertaining to 
 its interests. In point of fact, however, it has never done this It 
 has given no instruction to the Executive Committee. It has 
 prescribed to them no rules. Whatever changes have been made, 
 under the Constitution, the Executive Committee have made. In 
 the adoption of tbe recent rule, they have trenched upon no right 
 of the Society. They have gone counter to no usage. They 
 have but followed an unbroken line of precedents. They have 
 exercised no other or greater authority in the case of churches, 
 than they have long exercised in that of ministers. Nay, on other 
 
30 
 
 subjects, in reference even to churches. Here and there a mind 
 may be perplexed on this point, but to you it is clear. 
 
 Nor are you moved by the sophism, that not to render aid to 
 every church that asks it, le its character what it may, is to with- 
 iiold the Gospel from the South. The general commission is, 
 doubtless, to preach the Gospel to every creature. But are we 
 to conclude thence, that in the case of an individual, or a particu- 
 lar Society, no selection or limitation is to be allowed ? That 
 the A. H. M. Society is bound to send ministers to all sorts of 
 churches at the South ? The fact that men are sinners, it is said, 
 only shows their need of the Gospel. But what if they will not 
 receive the Gospel — pure, uncorrupted, untrammelled — the whole 
 Gospel — the Gospel of Him " in whose life the law appears" — and 
 to whom men are truly led, only by the law as a " schoolmaster ?" 
 When that " schoolmaster" attempts to go " abroad" at the South, 
 what if he be interfered with, and bidden to omit some of his 
 most important lessons? What if this be done by a congrega- 
 tion ? You say, rightly and forcibly, you would have us take 
 *' care that the physician shall be free from the disease, and shall 
 have no smell of it in his garments." You indorse heartily our 
 rule in that regard. But what if the patient insists on having 
 his own way ? What if he objects to the physician's mode of 
 practice, setting at naught this particular medicine, and forbid- 
 ding the application of that? Your answer is virtually at band. 
 You propose to send him only to those " who will receive him 
 and give him opportunity to apply the Gospel remedy to their 
 souls." Herein you speak scripturally. For we read of the 
 apostles shaking off the dust of their feet, and fleeing from one 
 city to another Christianity is, indeed, to be built up. But 
 what kind of Christianity ? Are no questions to be asked on 
 that head ? Is no care to be taken that it be given to men, 
 undiluted, uncurtailed — that it come to them through right chan- 
 nels, that it be cast in no misshapen mould ? Asio the minister, 
 you would have us be cautious ; for by him the truth is to be 
 proclaimed. But you remember, also, that the ChurcU is " the 
 pillar and ground of the truth." And I am happy to see that 
 to the general propriety of discrimination in regard even to 
 churches, your letter contains no objection. Y''ou virtually admit, 
 indeed, that there may be cases in which aid should be withheld 
 There are some cases, you think, however, on which the particu 
 lar rule we have framed will bear hardly. And so thinking, you 
 have difficulty, also, with the manner in which it was adopted. 
 On both these points, you will allow a few remarks, beginning 
 with the last. 
 
 As to the rights of minorities, my views were briefly expressed 
 in my last letter to the Evangelist. I quite agree with you., 
 that there should be " due respect" to their consciences. And 
 you will quite agree with me, that there should be " due respect," 
 also, to the consciences of the majority. It is not for us to weigh 
 consciences — that belongs to God. We can only number them. 
 If stven men are equal owners of a certain railroad, and six of 
 them believe it would be sin against Gud to run the cars on the 
 
31 
 
 Sabbath, it will hardly answer for the seventh to say : " You may 
 understand that it is my part of the property that trenches on 
 holy time." Or : " Your six consciences must, at all events, suc- 
 cumb to mine." 
 
 You express a doubt, however, whether adequate pains have 
 been taken to ascertain the views of our constituents. I can as- 
 sure you, my dear brother, that to few subjects within our sphere 
 has more careful attention been given. Nor have we lacked 
 means of information. We are not omiscient, indeed. We can 
 not pretend to know the views of every body. Yet, as to the 
 general subject of our relations as a Society to slavery, views and 
 opinions have been reaching us from a thousand quarters. You 
 surely are not ignorant of the diligence with which the American 
 Missionary Association has kept the matter before the public. 
 You have not forgotten what discussion of the general principles 
 involved, in public and in private, in imposing quarterlies and 
 lighter hebdomadals, the action of the American Board occa- 
 sioned. Could you read our correspondence, you would have 
 still ii rther light. You speak, however, vi' publishing the parti- 
 cular resolution we proposed to adopt, of putting it into the 
 papers, and calling for " a free discussion." This would, indeed, 
 have been a novel movement. We should have had the credit of 
 initiating a truly unique method of settling the delicate and diffi- 
 cult questions so frequently arising in our benevolent Boards. 
 Information may, as I have said, be gathered from the newspa- 
 pers, in regard to public sentiment. Yet I can not but express 
 a doubt about this particular use of them. It suggests to me, you 
 will pardon me for saying, Macaulay's shrewd remark about " an 
 arniy commanded by a debating club." I can not question that 
 your clear judgment will, on further reflection, come to a similar 
 view. As to consultation with the Missouri Home Missionary 
 Society, I have only to say, that Missouri is but one of the twen- 
 ty-five States in which we have missionaries. It would have been 
 very difficult formally to consult all our auxiliaries. We have 
 never done this in a specific case. It has never been thought ne- 
 cessary. It has never been expected. Had we done it, however, 
 in this particular instance, there can be no question about the 
 result. We had much light, as to the general subject, even from 
 Missouri, as you will see in the sequel. Nor do I think that 
 further inquiry would have made any material addition to it. Of 
 this, at least, you may be assured, that if yourself, or any brother 
 like-minded, was not particularly consulted, it was from no lack 
 of the most afiectionate and respectful consideration. 
 
 I will only add, as to the adoption of the rule, that we were 
 forced to it, not by a sudden impulse, but by a steady, long-con- 
 tinued, and ever-increasing pressure. A pressure, too, which we 
 had no right to disregard, coming, as it did, not from " out-siders," 
 but from our constituents. The attitude and aspect of slavery at 
 the South, is, by no means, what it was. The fact of a great 
 and general apostasy — not without exceptions, I am happy to 
 believe — is patent to all men. Once the position of Dr. Green's 
 resolutions was almost universally held. Slavery, it was admitted, 
 
32 
 
 is abnormal, a sad excrescence, a gangrene upon the body social 
 and politic, " utterly inconsistent with the law of God," and 
 *' with the spirit and principles of the gospel of Christ." The 
 only question raised vvas about the way of getting rid of it. Even 
 in 184i, a distinguished clergymao, iu a Slave State, wrote to us 
 in approbation of our rule respecting miuisters. '• I told him," 
 he said to us, in reference to a particular applicant, " you had 
 done right. You would not have funds to help any of our 
 churches, if you h^d aided slaveholding ministers. * * You 
 had better not dirty your Society by touching the filthy thing." 
 But how changed now is Southern sentiment, with its abrogation 
 of compromises, its Kan-as outrages, its general Slavery propa- 
 gandism, its Dred Scott decisions, its suggestion, even, of the re- 
 vival of the slave-trade. We have, indeed, to borrow your allu- 
 sion, borne with it, and dug about it. But alas ! instead of good 
 fruit, it has brought forth Minority Reports, Pro-Slavery 
 Speeches in the General Assembly, Ross Letters, and other like 
 defenses of the " peculiar Institution." With Calhounism in the 
 State, has come Calhounism in the Church. Dr. Ross's views 
 are not, I am sorry to say, " peculiar" to himself. Slavery is ac- 
 cepted, " as it is,''' as an Institution of God, standing on the same 
 foundation as the domestic economy, and of happy influence, both 
 temporal and spiritual. To this altered state of things must not 
 our action be adapted ? Are our constituents unreasonable in 
 asking, as the great majority of them do, that in disbursing, at 
 the South, the funds put into our hands, we make inquiry as to 
 the sort of Christianity vs^e are propagating ? And if any rule is 
 to be adopted, whar milder, more moderate one, could possibly 
 be thought of? What happier mean between extremes could 
 human wisdom devise ? 
 
 You think, however, there are some cases — exceptional ones — 
 in which the working of the rule will be infelicitous. Without en- 
 tering minutely into the specifications you make, it will suffice to 
 otfer three general suggestions. 
 
 1. You must trust the discretion of the Committee. You know 
 who they are. Leaving myself out of view, I am quite willing to 
 commit to y.>ur judgment the question whether the wisdom, can- 
 dor, and fidelity of such men may not be relied on. Or, if they 
 can not be trusted, let others be put in their place. I have no 
 authority to indicate, beforehand, just how the rule will be ap- 
 plied. Yet I can adopt, confidently, what is said in the Home 
 Missionary for May : "If the relation of these ministers and 
 churches [those applying for aid] to slavery is such as, in the 
 opinion of candid, impartial Christian men, entitles them to sym- 
 pathy and assistance, we believe that the facts which indicate 
 this will be communicated, as they will be received with pleasure, 
 and the aid they need will be liberally bestowed." I add, with 
 the paper from which this extract is made : " If the facts furnished 
 do not indicate this, may not the friends of this Society decide for 
 themselves, whether they will dispense their charities to these, or 
 other objects?" 
 
 2. Tliere is no general low, that may not, in some po.v^ible cases, 
 
38 
 
 hade an tmplemant beartng. The laws of electricity are all good, 
 but a stroke of lightning, however normal, maj be a serious in- 
 convenience. The law of gravitation is an admirable thing. 
 But if I lose my footing on a flight of stairs, I may wish it were 
 suspended in that particular case. Even if under the wisest 
 working of our rule, there should be some instances of hardship, 
 you are too good a logician to infer thence a condemnation of it. 
 
 3. There will bi' fewer cases, I apprehend, that even you would 
 deem justly exceptional, than your remarks would lead us to 
 suppose. Not burdening the columns of the Evangelist, with 
 extracts from the letters of missionaries in other States, let me 
 quote from some in Missouri. One of them who had made an 
 effort to procure " white help," and in consequence was accused 
 of being an abolitionist, says : " The church has voted that they 
 are convinced I am no abolitionist, that I came among them to 
 preach the Gospel and not to promote abolitionism, that they 
 have contidence in my Christian character, and in my zeal, t)Ut 
 that owing to the state of popular feeling, I can no longer be 
 useful among them." Another, who has labored in the State 
 faithfully for eight years, says : " It seems to me that the Pro- 
 Slavery sentiment has so much increased in my church, I had 
 better go where I can have more sympathy, and where no mean 
 espionage is practised. I am satisfied that Eastern men, who 
 will not swallow Slavery, head and horns, had better not go into 
 the Slave States to preach. They can do more good elsewhere." 
 Another says : " I never heard of a case of discipline where a 
 slave was concerned. Nor do I think it would be an easy matter 
 to induce a Session to take up such a case, unless it was one of 
 the most flagrant character. There is a good deal of difficulty 
 in the way of bringing the principles of the Gospel to bear with 
 specific reference to the question of Slavery. I do not think it 
 could be done from the pulpit, in any place in Missouri, save St 
 Louis." He adds : " I have never alluded to Slavery by name in 
 the pulpit." Another writes : "■ Outside of the church, recently, 
 there has sprung up, causelessly, an excitement on the sabject of 
 Slavery. An irreligious man, falsely threw out the suggestion, 
 that I had been prevented from holding meetings in his neighbor- 
 hood, because of my abolitionist principles. This, you well know, 
 whether true or false, would spread like wildfire, especially in 
 this community. Other trivial things were magnified, and dis- 
 torted, until some of our trustees and leading members seemed 
 entirely to forget the rules of Christian or even of common cour- 
 tesy ; and the result is, that it would be useless for me to stay 
 longer here, or perhaps in the State." Another was obliged to 
 leave his field of labor from regard to " personal security." " I 
 therefore withdrew," he says, ■' without unseemly haste, with deli- 
 beration and dignity, still certain that if I had remained ten days 
 longer, there would have been insult, threats, and perhaps physi- 
 cal violence to myself." 
 
 With facts like these coming to us, with the general change in 
 public feeling at the South, and with a corresponding change in 
 the feelings of our constituent-, how was it possible for us to do 
 
34 
 
 les>^ th»n we did ? I have said that our action " will not be re- 
 versed." In tbis, as yon remark, with jour usual felicity of lan- 
 guage, "1 speak advisedly." Yes, not boastfully, or arro^>aiitly, 
 but ndviseflly. A very respectable print in this city, the New York 
 Observer, has prediettd that " the res(»huion will be reconsidered 
 and re>cinded, or explained away btfure the meeting of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly in Cleveland." A new proof this, that the Hge of 
 prophecy is past. Let the friends of the Society everywhere be 
 assured, that there will he no treading back. The voice of our 
 constituents, I am confident, will bid us stand firm. I spoke in 
 my last letter to the Evangelist, of private communications. 
 We are beginning to hear from the great West, the re- 
 verberation of Presbyterial thunder. The Central Christian 
 Herald of April 16, says : "All the Western Presbyteries, as far 
 as heard from, indorse the Herald and the A. H. M. Society by 
 very decided votes." Among them I note the Presbyteries of 
 Indianapolis, Madison, Ottawa, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Frank- 
 lin, embracing many of our most excellent and influential min- 
 isters. And I have just learned that the Presbyteries of Penn- 
 sylvania and Utica have taken unanimously a similar stand. 
 These are among the many indications confirmatory of our judg- 
 ment respecting the public sentiment. 
 
 A word on your reference to certain remarks in " the latter 
 part" of my first latter to the Evangelist. These had reference 
 to the effect on our Church of a separation from the Home Mis- 
 sionary Society on account of its recent action. On thoughtful 
 review, I would rather repeat than retract them. Even the oppo- 
 sition to that action, though it comes, in some instances, as I have 
 freely admitted, from anti-slavery men, is, to great extent, from a 
 different quarter, and, come whence it may, lias a Pro- Slavery bear- 
 ing. Of the religious papers circulating among us which take 
 that side, excepting only our esteemed Evangelist — which, the 
 more we esteem, the more do many of us regret its course in this 
 particular case — not one, I believe, is, at present, thoroughly and 
 decidedly on Anti-Slavery ground. The New-York Observer re- 
 joices, with exceeding joy, at the opposition to our resolution. 
 *• It is," says that paper, " one of the most gratifying and encourag- 
 ing signs of the times. It says, in tones not to be mistaken, that, 
 while a decided Anti- Slavery feeling prevails and increases, yet 
 the churches will not bow the knee to the Baal of Abolitionism." 
 That is to say, in opposing our' action. Constitutional Presbyte- 
 rians are coming over to the Observer's views on the subject of 
 Slavery. While, in common with yourself, I have on some points 
 differed widely from the Observer^ I have always thought it a 
 shrewd print. And I see here a fresh proof of its shrewdness. 
 Depend upon it, my dear brother, whatever be the motives of 
 those concerned, the force and effect of things will be as the Ob- 
 server intimates. There will be an effort, I learn, in the coming 
 Assembly, to secure a condemnation of the Society's action. 
 There will be a willingness on the part of some to pass almost 
 any "stultified abstractions" about Slavery, if such practicalities 
 as the Society's resolution may be rebuked. For the sake of a 
 
S5 
 
 clear practical gain, sagacious men are often willing to forego 
 mere abstractions. It is my hope and trust, however, that our 
 Assembly will take no such step. It would, I am confident, work 
 great injury to our beloved Church. We have, as you say, a noble 
 record. Let not its lustre be dimmed by any shadow of degen- 
 eracy. Our fair fame was put to a sore trial at the last Assem- 
 bly. I hope, in some respects, never to see such another. I have 
 large expectation of the next — that it will utter no doubtful 
 voice, that it will walk by the great lights of other days, lights 
 that shine with a more welcome brightness for the very mists that 
 have been gathering around us. 
 
 I must stay my pen, however, taken up not to enter upon a 
 controversy, but merely to utter a brotherly response to your 
 kind and courteous letter. May the blessing of heaven be ever 
 upon you — as it was in your Eastern field, so and more abund- 
 antly in your new Western home. Asa D. Smith. 
 
 ARTICLES OF DR. HEACOCK. 
 I. 
 
 From the Genesee Evangelist of April 16. 
 THE HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY. 
 
 To THE Editor of the Genesee Evangelist: I am not will- 
 ing that the late articles in your paper should g-o out as expres- 
 sions of the sentiment of Western Xew-York, on the action of the 
 Committee of the American Home Missionary Society. 
 
 They do not express the sentiment of some, and, I believe, a 
 majority of the most influential pastors among us, nor do I believe 
 they can obtain the indorsement of our Presbyteries and Synods. 
 I wish especially to disclaim the whole statement and animus of 
 the following: 
 
 " We expect to see the General Assembly nearly united on this 
 issue; and we again repeat, that the Committee will retrace its 
 steps, and retreat from its present position, or we shall be forced 
 to withdraw our cooperation. It is not our Church that is to 
 be divided or distracted by this measure, but the Society itself 
 will be visited with that dividing force and curtailment of its use- 
 fulness, which the friends and sustainers of the action evidently 
 expected would fall upon the Presbyterian Church. We say 
 again, that we desire no such results ; and if the issue is pressed, 
 we shall be constrained to believe that this is the time that Pro- 
 vidence has marked for our Church to inaugurate a more tho- 
 rough system of united and consistent denominational action." 
 
 The position of your paper is such, that I fear this language 
 may be taken as expressing public sentiment here. Against surh 
 
36 
 
 a supposition, I wish to enter, and I believe many will join me, 
 my most emphatic and unreserved protest. 
 
 (1.) You say, " The Committee will retrace its steps and retreat 
 from its present position, or we shall be forced to withdraw our 
 cooperation," and so the issue is taken, and the gauntlet thrown 
 down, and the alternatives stated. But, my dear sir, are you 
 sure the Church is prepared for either of these alternatives which 
 you have put ? We venture humbly to thiok and say, she is by 
 no means prepared. She is not thus about to justify the evil pro- 
 phecies of her enemies. There are those on either side of us who 
 are waiting with hungry expectancy to see us enact this folly, 
 and wrong, and ruin upon ourselves. Bat may God disappoint 
 them. And what is the cause of all this tumult ? Why, the 
 Committee of the Home Missionary Society has been laying 
 down a rule to govern the disbursement of Missionary funds, 
 which some body is anxious to construe into a violation of our 
 Constitution, and an attempt at discipline. And a prejudice is 
 being zealously excited by this cry of invasion upon the prero- 
 gatives of the Church. Now, *' constructive discipline " is a 
 crime as unknown to our laws as " constructive treason." And 
 yet, perhaps, it may serve as a wedge to rend us apart from the 
 Home Missionary Society, and that on an issue abhorrent to the 
 moral sense of nine tenths of our communion. What is this 
 issue ? It is not the sanctity of our Constitution — that is the 
 ostensible one — but it is not the real one. The American Pres- 
 hijterian, a paper established with the intent of ignoring Slavery, 
 and inflaming the denominational spirit, wishes our Church also 
 to follow its lead ; and that is the real issue. They might as 
 well have attempted to ignore the yellow fever at Norfolk. It is 
 the determination to ignore the whole subject of slavery, practi- 
 cally — to pay our money to sustain and extend the growth of 
 churches who hold slaves, contrary to the Detroit Resolutions, 
 who refuse to answer the questions of the Assembly, to build up 
 and sustain such churches without inquiry, question, or considera- 
 tion. And how would the formation of a Church Board remedy 
 this matter ? Would that Board say to us, you have only to pay 
 youi' money ; to inquire where it goes, will be an unconstitutional 
 exercise of discipline, flat treason. Is the General Assembly 
 prepared to stultify itself by such action ? We think not. Al- 
 ready the old refrain is lifted up that slaveholding communities 
 need the Gospel, and that it is wrong to refuse to preach the 
 Gospel to sinners. Is it to refuse to preach the Gospel to poly- 
 gamists that we refuse to sustain churches and ministers who admit 
 that sin into their communion 1 No. It is to refuse earnestly, 
 solemnly, to preach another Gospel, that we be not accursed. 
 We do not, therefore, refuse to sustain churches, who fellowship 
 unjustifiable slaveholding, refuse to preach the Gospel among them, 
 but oflfer to preach it in its purity and love. This Anti-Slavery 
 item is the hinge of the whole matter. " Uinc illce Jachripnce.'^ 
 Hence these tremendous prote.-ts about the constitution and dis- 
 cipline — an alleged attempt at the one and invasion of the other. 
 
 Tho!?e who desire, on denominational grounds, separation from 
 
37 
 
 the Home Missionary Society, aud those who desire that separa- 
 tion on pro-slavery grounds, doubtless think, as you say, that this 
 perhaps is the fitting occasion and opportunity on which to rally 
 for such a purpose. Bat who is to be gratified by either issue 
 you propose ? The pro-slavery adherents. If you could drive 
 back the Home Missionary Society from their position, it is but 
 another concession to the rdni[)ant spirit of Slavery ; if you could 
 rend us from them on account of this action, it would be an equal 
 concession to the same spirit. Is our Cliurch ready for this ? 
 Can she afford such a concession at this day ? It would make 
 her weaker than a rope of sand. And all this for an act of " con- 
 structive discipline," attempted upon her members by the Com- 
 mittee of an honored- and voluntary Society, among whom are 
 our best and staunchest men ! What folly ! The General As- 
 sembly will not make that Society an offender on a technicality, 
 for a word — and such a word — a word which bur, reechoes her 
 own often-repeated testimony against the sin and wrong of 
 Slavery. In our next, if you permit us this, and will another, we 
 will consider the question of discipline and the constitution. 
 Buffalo. G. W. H. 
 
 II. 
 
 From the Genesee Evangelist of April 23. 
 THE HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY 
 
 To THE Editor of the Genesee Evangelist : 
 
 Deak Sik : No more odious charge could have been made 
 against the Committee of the Home Missionary Society than 
 that of the assumption of the powers of Church discipline, and 
 an attempted invasion of the Constitution and prerogatives of 
 our Church. 'The men who made it knew well that such a 
 charge was the most infl.imraatory appeal which they could 
 make to the just pride and self respect of the Church ; it was 
 well suited to rouse even the most cahn and moderate men of 
 the Church. There was good reason to expect an explosion 
 might follow. But what now, if this charge be found to be a 
 forced and exaggerated one ; then the clamor which has been 
 raised is libellous and shameful, and will one day recoil upon 
 themselves. 
 
 1. Now is this charge that the Home Missionary Society, by 
 its Committee, has invaded the Constitution and prerogatives of 
 our Church — is this simply true ? or is ic true only by construc- 
 tion ? Is it trae only by a forced and perverted construction of 
 the purpose and aim of certain of their acts : acts, mark you, 
 which they were bound to do in the honest and wise exercise of 
 their functions as the disbursing agency of a great Missionary 
 Society. As such a disbursing agency, they had certain respon- 
 
58 
 
 sibilities which, as honest and careful men, they were bound to 
 meet. VVas it for them just to lavish out, without care or in- 
 quiry, the contents of that Treasury ? No ; they owed a solemn 
 reli<iious duty in that matter, not to aid or abet any corrupt re- 
 ligious communion, whether corrupt iu doctrine or in practice ; 
 thfit duty they endeavored to discbarge simply as a responsible, 
 intelligent, not blind, disbursing agency, disclaiming with all their 
 hearts any thing other or farther. But " no matter," cry a score 
 of voices, shouting furiously, "they have gone farther." "They 
 have," '' they have," '' they have virtually enacted discipline." 
 Now we bring and hold you to the question of the fact of this 
 statement. How have they enacted discipline ? Have they 
 separated any body from our communion-? Have they suspended 
 any body from Church relations? Have they excluded any body 
 from our Church judicatories? Nay, have they shut any body 
 away from our peculiar Church funds ? Where then and to what 
 profit the Church Extension Committee? No, you can not al- 
 lege any of these things ? They have done nothing of the kind. 
 They have not touched, nor wished to touch any of these points. 
 Every Church, every member is as fully in the fellowship of the 
 Church and her communion, and in the enjoyment of all her 
 franchises as ever ; unless the enjoyment of missionary funds be 
 one of these franchises. And who would allege that? This 
 charge, then, of discipline is a forced and erroneous one, and 
 should be branded as such. If these men will stand so strictly 
 for every jot and tittle of the Constitution, so shall they stand as 
 strictly for the truth, and nothing but the truth. If they will 
 construe largely and loosely for effect, we insist upon it, they 
 shall construe strictly and legitimately as to the fact. The ac- 
 tion of the Home Missionary Committee does not at all touch 
 the ecclesiastical standing of a single Church in our communion. 
 But you say it does aflect their relation to our funds? Well, 
 then ! ivhy do you not meet them fairly on that issue, and not on 
 the odious and unreal charge of attempting discipline. You 
 well knew that such a charge would excite the odium ecclesiasticum 
 against the Committee in the mind of every Constitutional Pres- 
 byterian ; and so it was considered safer to meet their action on 
 this factitious ground than on the real and true ground. And, 
 therefore, about this point, the whole clamor has been raised. 
 Now no Presbyterian man would be ready to defend the Home 
 Missionary Committee in an " act of discipline." But that Com- 
 mittee has done no such thing. What have they done ? They 
 have refused to disburse missionary funds on certain moral 
 grounds. Now meet that act on its real and alleged grounds, 
 and almost to a man our Church will stand with the Committee, 
 when their act is put on its true grounds. But if you get up a 
 mistaken and invidious charge of discipline — throwing dust in 
 the eyes of men — you may get a temporary verdict, but facts 
 will reverse it. On the issue you have made, of course, every 
 Presbyterian would stand with you. The only trouble about 
 the matter is, there is no such issue. You have got a fictitious 
 and unreal one in the place of the true and real one. 
 
3^ ^^ CLEVELAND, O. ^ 
 
 But, perhaps some one will say, 1 do not \iW^ 'wS^ iire spQ»T^r"Yp\^ 
 
 sible, voluntary Society ontj^ide of tbe CMairch, fo --wianfijEe tms-^V^*^ 
 matter of tuuds. Well, then, put your ohjections fairly on tha'f*^ 
 ground, and they will be (rat^kly answered or allowed. 
 
 Another may say, these Home Missionary funds are in part 
 contributed by our meinhers, };nd the General Assembly should 
 have a voice in their disbursement. But how, if the individuals 
 who have contributed these funds, are willing to leave them in 
 the hands of this voluntary Society ? Is the General Assembly 
 to step in, and in^^ist upon the right to disburse tlie funds of 
 members of our communion, though not committed to her, be- 
 cause they are her members ; perhaps, at the same time, she had 
 better undertake a general supervision and disposal of all their 
 pecuniary afifairs. 
 
 2. But suppose you could alienate from the treasury of the 
 Home Missionary Society every dollar of funds contributed by 
 Presbyterians, and get them into other hands, are you sure that 
 the contributors would permit you to do any ditierent with them 
 than this Society has done. Many Presbyterian men feel that 
 they are already as much connected with this subject of slavery, 
 as they can conscientiously tifford to be. 
 
 We have found that the evil can not be reached by any direct 
 measures of discipline under the Constitution. There is no chance 
 of initiating discipline in the primary bodies, and we can get no 
 questions answered. Now to all this we calmly submit — haviisg 
 reached the limits of constitutional action, we stop there. We 
 say, we are sorry this evil is among us. We are sorry any of 
 our Churches are even by rumor implicated in this matter. But 
 we can get no legal proof — we can institute no constitutional 
 measures which will reach and rid us of this matter. We do not 
 believe in excision. We will not violate the Constitution to 
 reach the greatest supposed offender. We feel, too, that we are 
 not responsible for oflir-nses which we can not reach, nor for our 
 constitutional connection with them ; having testiOed against 
 them, and having done all which was constitutional to free our- 
 selves frorn complicity with them. It is so in civil life. For 
 there cannot be obligation where there is no ability ; where 
 there are no functions and powers, we can not be guilty for not 
 using them. The Congregationali>t may say, that is a fault of 
 our polity— so it is of their own. They could not discipline a 
 slaveholding Congregational Church in the South, nor can we 
 one of ours only under certain conditions. Are their Churches 
 independent by their polity, so are ours to this degree, under our 
 polity. Here conscientious anti-slavery men among us have 
 rested, saying, We have done all we could do in wisdom and 
 love; all any Church could do; more than any other Church 
 has done. Discipline must be initiated in the primary bodies. 
 We can not therefore initiate discipline, and we are not responsible 
 if it is not begun. But the contribution and disbursement of our 
 funds — that is a thing we^o, and are to do ; and for the way and 
 manner of doing which we are responsible ; this is an act of the 
 masses of the Church through their agencies. In this, and as to 
 
40 
 
 this, there is a responsibility on me and you, on each and all. I 
 am not responsible if discipline is not commenced against unjusti- 
 fiable slaveholding as supposed to exist in a particular Cburch 
 in Mississippi. But I am responsible if I contribute my money 
 blindly and without question, and permit it to be disbursed to 
 sustain Churches where I have reason to believe this kind of 
 slaveholding is admitted to their fellowship and communion. 
 That is my act ; it is intelligent and voluntary ; it is something T. 
 might have foreborne, and 1 am responsible for it. Now, we say. 
 there are hundreds and thousands of Presbyterians who, as to 
 this matter of Slavery, do not feel that their constitutional rela- 
 tions forbidding discipline, would compromise them — who would 
 feel that this function of disbursement, if exercised without in- 
 quiry or limit on this question of slavery, would compromise 
 them. They would have nothing to do for a moment with an ar- 
 rangement which should bind them blindfold to contribute and 
 to permit the disbursement of their funds, asking no questions for 
 conscience' sake in this matter 
 
 And if such questions are to be asked, what difference does it 
 make as to alleged discipline, whether asked by a Church Board , 
 a Church Committee, or the honored Committee of an honored 
 voluntary Society ? Suppose these moneys and this matter of 
 disbursement to be committed to a Church Board or Committee. 
 Many think this a panacea for all evils. What then ? May 
 this Church Board or Committee ask these questions and adopt 
 such a rule? And if they do not adopt such a rule, they will 
 disburse but little funds. 
 
 Now look at the alternatives. (1) If they do adopt such a 
 rule, then the cry of unconstitutional discipline would be raised 
 against them also. A Church Board or Committee has no more 
 right surely to discipline churches than any other Board or Couj- 
 mittee. Then (2) they must relinquish the rule. They mu8t 
 stop all inquiry. What then is to be done ? Constitutional dis- 
 cipline, we have seen, is impossible — that is in the hands of these 
 very Churches concerned, and so also is disbursement, for you 
 cannot refuse to disburse these funds ; that would be virtual dis- 
 cipline — discipline with a " money penalty," as says the Presby- 
 terian. What then is to be done ? Why, nothing! You are 
 sold and gone — " cork and sinker." You have only to shut your 
 eyes and ears, and open your hands ; and in a most expressive 
 phrase, " go it blind." 
 
 These Churches, over whom some are thus disposed to throw 
 a triple shield, have now " virtually" the sword of discipline in 
 their hands. Give them this constitutional right, unquestioned 
 and unquestionable, to our Church funds, and then they will have 
 both " purse and sword ;" which I should call having " virtually" 
 the whole, while we are hopelessly, helplessly, for good or ill, 
 bound to them. *' Oh ! wretched men that we are, who will de- 
 liver us?" 
 
 When you have constructed this iron wheel, perhaps you will 
 bind the free limbs of the Church to it. Perhaps not. 
 Buffalo. G. W. H. 
 
ARTICLES OF THE CENTRAL CHRISTIAN HERALD. 
 
 From the Herald of April 23, 185Y. 
 HOME MISSIONS AND SLAVERY. 
 
 As the discussion upon the recent action of the Executive Com- 
 mittee of the Hofne Missionary Society goes on, the real qaestion 
 at issue before the Ch' istian community, is becoming more and more 
 evident. Stripped of all disguise, it is simply tliis : Shall a slave- 
 holding Christi'inity be sustained by the pecuniary contributions 
 and moral iufluence of the American Home Missionary Society 
 and its numerous contributors ? Shall they lend their influence 
 to uphold and propagate a form of religion which recognizes 
 the rigtitfulness of slavery, miintains that the Gospel sanctions it, 
 and teaches that piety and slavebolding are entirely compatible? 
 Or shall they say, tirmly and decidedly : "Such teachini^s and such 
 practice can receive no countenance from us, as they do not from 
 the Scriptures?" 
 
 To this question, viewed from one side, the Christian commu- 
 nity at the North have already given an emphatic answer. With 
 few exceptions, the refusal of the Home Missionary Society, some 
 years since, to aid in the support of slaveholding ministers, has 
 received their warm approbation. They saw at a glance, that 
 it is vain to expect such ministers to preach a pure Gospel, and 
 that their example and influence, even if they should say not a 
 word, would inevitably foster an adulterated Christianity. 
 
 The same question, precisely, has now come up in another form. 
 Shall the benevolent contributions and the moral influence of the 
 North be given to the support of shueholding churches, or what 
 amounts to the same thing, to churches which receive slaveholders, 
 retain them in their communion and practically declare that slave- 
 holding is no bar to the fellowship of the church? Is a church 
 which takes this ground and sets itself to propagate such a prac- 
 tical apostasy as the genuine gospel of Christ, worthy of encourage- 
 ment and aid ? Is such a church, sanctioning and sustaining as 
 it does the system of slavery, " holding forth the word of life," or 
 misrepresenting the principles and spirit of the religion of Jesus? 
 
 Suppose a church in Utah should receive polygamists, does not 
 every one see that it becomes thereby a particeps criminis, «nd 
 that though its creed were as orthodox as the Westminster 
 Catechism, it would indorse in that very act, the iniquity of that 
 corrupt community, and lose its power to protest against it ? A 
 sort of gospel might, indeed, be preached within its waifs, but it 
 would not be the gospel of Jesus Christ. Repentance might be 
 preached, but it would not include a turning from the sin of poly- 
 gamy. There would be a worm at the root, and the inevitable 
 
42 
 
 result of such an exhibition <jt the Gospel would be a spurious 
 Christianity. 
 
 In these remarks, we have used the words slavery and slave- 
 holdiog in the same sense in which they are used in the laws and 
 the ordinary intercourse of the Southern States. Both the Detroit 
 resolutions of the General Assembly, however, and the recent ac- 
 tion of the Home Missionary Society assume, as they should, that 
 slaveholding may sometimes exist in form, when it does ni)t in 
 fact — that a case may occur in a church, in which the relation 
 may be temporarily sustained, not only with no sinful intent, but 
 even with the decided protest of the church, and each of its 
 members against the-system. For such cases, ample provision is 
 made. Let the facts be stated to the Committee, so that as the 
 responsible agents of the donors to the Home Missionary Society, 
 they can be assured that they do not use these sacred funds in 
 supporting a slaveholding Christianity, and aid will not be with- 
 held. On the other hand, if such evidence is not furnished, how 
 can the Committee and the donors whose funds they expend, be 
 secured against the danger of indorsing and helping to propagate 
 a slaveholding and slavery- defending Christianity, and thus doing 
 a grievous wrong ? 
 
 The pretense that the action of the Committee is disciplinary, 
 we pronounced from the first, absurd. After wading through 
 the interminable articles on the subject, in the American Pres- 
 byterian oxi^ XhQ Jsfew-Yorlc Evangelist, v}e are more convinced 
 of it than ever. What is discipline ? It is the act of a church 
 or some other ecclesiastical body, suspending or excluding from 
 the LorcVs Supper, and from the fellowship of the body exercising 
 it, one or more persons charged with delinquency, or adopting 
 some measure which will lead to it, unless repentance follows. 
 Have the Executive Committee done this, or any thing like it ? 
 Have they excluded any individual or any church from the Lord's 
 supper ? Have they, in a word, altered, or in any way affected 
 their church standing ? The very statement of the question is 
 sufficient to show the emptiness of the pretense. 
 
 It is true that the refusal of the Committee to aid in the sup- 
 port and extension of a slaveholding Christianity, implies a re- 
 buke upon churches which stand upon this miserable basis. But 
 so does the recent work of Albert Barnes. So does every word 
 of remonstrance and entreaty which comes from our Presbyteries. 
 So does the general judgment of the Christian world, and the 
 various modes in which it finds expression. If this moral influ- 
 ence — this steady protest in word and deed — be discipline, the 
 more of it the better. There is not a church at the South which 
 ought not to welcome it, and to add its own influence to that of 
 the Christian world in protesting against this legalized iniquity, or 
 any participation in it. So far Irom being an infringement upon 
 others' rights, it is the simple exercise of our own. Far distant 
 be the day when extravagant notions of church prerogatives shall 
 question the right of those who give for the spread of the Gospel 
 to refuse, if they see proper, to contribute to extend the area or 
 strengthen the power of slavery. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Rev. R. Adair^ Corresponding Secretary of the Philadelphia 
 Home Missionary Society^ to Rev. A. D. Smith, D.D. 
 
 Philadelphia, March 17, 1857. 
 Rev. Asa D. Smith, D.D. : 
 
 Dear Sir : The Executive Committee of the Philadelphia Home 
 Missionary Society have under consideration the recent action of the 
 Executive Committee of American Home Missionary Society on the 
 subject of slavery, and perhaps it will be laid before our annual meet- 
 ing in April. In this city and vicinity there is but one mind among 
 the ministers and laymen on this subject. All regard it as the m- 
 troduction of a neio policy in the administration of the American 
 Home Missionary Society, and one that conflicts with the constitu- 
 tion of the Presbyterian Church. The wonder has been expressed 
 here that Doctors Smith and Hatfield, beiug Presbyterians, could sanc- 
 tion such a measure. And supposing you may take views of the 
 subject which have not occurred to us, and which led you to sanction 
 it, we would esteem it a favor to know them. We desire in our 
 contemplated action to avoid every thing that might mar our harmony 
 with the Parent Society, and on this account we are anxious to 
 know your views of the subject as Presbyterians. You will, we 
 trust, appreciate our motives in making this inquiry, and let us 
 hear from you as soon as convenient. 
 
 Yours truly, Robert Adair, 
 
 Cor. Sec, Phil. H. M. Soc. 
 
 Reply to the foregoing. 
 
 New- York, March 20, 1857. 
 Rev. Robert Adair : 
 
 Dear Brother: Yours of the 1 7th inst, reached me yesterday. 
 Before this can reach you, the inquiries you propose will have been 
 substantially answered through the press. You will learn my views 
 from an article in this week's Evangelist. And though I write over 
 my own name, and commit no one but myself, you will learn the 
 views of not a few others in this quarter. The more I think of the 
 matter, the more I am confirmed in those views. As to their essen- 
 tial correctness, I have little more doubt than I have of one of the 
 demonstrations in Euclid. Nor can I question that our Church will 
 sustain them. 
 
44 
 
 1 very much regret the position of the American Presbyterian. It 
 is tinder a great misapprehension. I think I see what excited the 
 fears of our brethren. It was nnfortunate that our action should 
 come out in just the way it did. But that was unintended on the 
 part of the functionaries licre, and unexpected. As I say in the 
 Evangelist^ so say I to you, it was no Congregational plot We, on 
 the Presbyterian side, were heartily for it, not only as Committee- 
 men, but as Freshyterians. We believed the best interests of our 
 Church called for it. If Congregationalists, deeming the Society pro- 
 slavery, go over to the " American Missionary Association," they 
 still remain Congregationalists. But if our members or churches go 
 over, there is, as to Presbyterianism, hut a step between them and death. 
 The next step is into the Congregational Clmrch. The post of ob- 
 servation at which Dr. Hatfield and myself stand, enables us to see 
 this, and causes us to feel it. Besides, we hear the cry from the length 
 and breadth of the Great West — our main field, where, if anywhere, 
 our great harvest is to be gathered — for a decided, unequivocal posi- 
 tion on the subject of slavery. They are about weary of " Delphic 
 Oracles." So far from their not liking our recent mild, conservative 
 action, I am not without fear that they will think it not decided 
 enough. It is already pronounced a mere brutum fulmen by the ex- 
 treme section of the anti-slavery press. Nothing less, I am sure, 
 would answer. Nor may our contributors be called, as the Evange- 
 list styles them, " outsiders." If they, our constituency, are not i7i- 
 siders, I would like to know who are. They have the clearest right 
 in the world both to speak and to be heard. 
 
 Besides, our action is, I repeat it, in principle, nothing new. You 
 will see my views on this point in the Evangelist. So Dr. Converse 
 views the matter. His position here is the only consistent one. I 
 honor him for his consistency. He would have us appropriate money 
 to slaveholding churches, without any inquiry in that regard. On 
 the same general principle, he would have us employ slaveholding 
 ministers. Would the Presbyterian have us do that ? It must, to be 
 consistent. 
 
 "As to the Committee's exercising discipline, I need, perhaps, say 
 nothing more. Unless my brains have oozed out tlu-ough some invis- 
 ible aperture, or have become softened so that I should call in my fam- 
 ily physician, there is a distinction in the nature of things, the very 
 distinction I have drawn, between di-'^bursement and discipline — be- 
 tween the management, in the way of giving or withholding, of funds 
 intrusted to our discretion by our individual contributors, and the 
 exercise of ecclesiastical authority, the inflicting of ecclesiastical cen- 
 sure. This distinction can never be set aside. I mean no reproach 
 upon my esteemed brethren at Philadelphia. Their pure and clear 
 minds have not well con.sidered this point. On due reflection, I will 
 not permit myself to doubt, they will see it as it is. 
 
 " As to separating the action of the Committee from the great ques- 
 tion of slavery — or the question as to our Church, of pro -slavery or 
 anti-slavery — it cannot be done. The two things are bound together by 
 a more than Gordian knot. It can not even be cut. I know the keen- 
 ness of the Philadelphia cimeters, but they are not equal to the task. 
 You will find it so. Even an attempt, in our Assembly, to make the 
 separation, would do us harm. It would remind the world again, as 
 well as Dr. Ross, of old Delphi. 
 
 And now, before I close, allow me to say a word on another 
 point, which my regard for my Philadelphia brethren forbade me to 
 
45 
 
 introduce into my printed article. You write rww, wishing to know 
 the views of Dr. Hatfield and myself; "o-s Pre-shyteriansy It is very 
 kind of you. I cannot speak for brother Hatfield by authority ; but I 
 presume I may say. we are both greatly obliged to you. It certainly 
 implies, that you not only regard us as Presbyterians, but suppose 
 we have some views in that relation, worthy of some little considera- 
 tion. That you do not quite suspect us of having had our eyes put 
 out. and being set to grind in the Congregational mill We are ob- 
 liged to you for such charitable and brotherly thoughts. But then 
 you remind me of looking to the stable-door after the horse has escaped 
 — of opening, /or the first time, negotiations about the grounds of war 
 after a pitched battle has been fought. Why could not the Presby- 
 terian have waited a little ? The heavens would not have come 
 down ? Why did not some one write to brother Hatfield and myself — 
 not to speak of other intelligent Presbyterians, ourofl&cial associates — 
 before the paper had committed itself ? Why, m so important a mat- 
 ter, could not some little conference have been asked for ? I will 
 leave myself out of the question — though all my ministry, and more 
 than a score of years, has been spent in the Presbyterian Church. I trust 
 I have not been wholly unmindful of its interests. Nor have I been 
 indifferent to the matter of cooperation with Philadelphia. Some of 
 the brethren will remember that, when a deputation came here on 
 the subject of the Publication Rouse, 1 was not slow to raise my 
 voice in its behalf. But leaving myself out of view, surely Dr. Hat- 
 field might have been somewhat confided in. It could not be fancied 
 that he had forgotten the interests of our Church. Why were not his 
 views sought for ? It was affirmed, I know, by Dr. Converse, that 
 tne new Philadelphia paper was designed as a sort of autocratic in- 
 stitution, a central power to rule and regulate the Presbyterian 
 Church. But that was said, probably, in a moment of excitement. 
 That view is not, I am sure, to be rested in. The good and charita- 
 ble Doctor would himself, now, I am bound to believe, hardly persist 
 in it. Why, then, was the battery prepared, unmasked, discharged 
 — a Sevastopol fire — without any consultation with New-York ? It 
 carries me back again to my school-boy days, when, after Pedagogus 
 had promptly and thoroughly belabored some ofiending or suspected 
 urchin, he would say to him : " What now do you think of it? Don't 
 you think you deserved it ? I should hke to know your views, as a 
 good, dutiful schoolboy.'''' And when you say, as you do in your letter, 
 "We desire to avoid every thing that might mar our harmony with 
 the Parent Society," it makes me think again — excuse the allusion — 
 of the aforesaid Pedagogus, saying to the whipped boy, "I did it 
 with the very kindest feelings. It wiU not mar the harmony between 
 us. You will love me for it?" 
 
 If the matter was thought worthy, as I hear, of two days' delibera- 
 tion at Philadelphia, could not an hour be given to our little city? 
 You will find a feeling here not represented in the Evangelist I 
 would speak with the utmost kindness of its present worthy editors. 
 But the paper, as you know, and as has been proclaimed in its own 
 columns, does not sustain now the relation it had some time since. 
 The relation, I mean, to an advising and contributing circle of minis- 
 ters. 
 
 I have written, as you see, freely and frankly. On all this subject, 
 I have a window in my bosom. You may show what I have 
 written to any body you please, only hold to the legal rule, if you 
 show any of it show the whole. I write with love and respect for my 
 
46 
 
 brethren of your city. I write with hope, too, that the good Phila- 
 delphia ship, though she may have careened a little, "where two seas 
 meet," will yet lift herself up, and move on her way majestically as 
 ever. 
 
 In which hope I send greeting to you, and to all the dear brethren 
 who may care to know what my poor cogitations are. 
 
 Very fraternally yours, Asa D. Smith. 
 
 P. S. — In a letter just received, from an eminent and very influen- 
 tial minister of our Church in the West, he says: " As to the action 
 of your Society, one word. Your Committee can defend it on the 
 ground, that it is called for by the contributors of the Society." He 
 adds: "You will be sustained," etc. 
 
 Dr. HatfieM's Reply to a similar Letter. 
 
 New- York, March 20, 1857. 
 Rev. R. Adair : 
 
 Dear Brother : It would have been better for the brethren at 
 Philadelphia to have examined their witnesses before coming to a 
 decision, and making the decision public. You will see from the 
 Evangelist how Dr. Smith and myself regard the action of the Execu- 
 tive Committee. The fullness of liis statement removes the necessity 
 of an extended reply on my part to the inquiries made in your letter. 
 We are prepared to defend the Committee in the action, anywhere 
 and everywhere, as Presbyterians and as Christians. We are be- 
 coming increasingly sensitive on the subject of slavery. My own 
 opposition to it is deepening daily. In every lawful and honorable 
 way, I shall resist its encroachments. I am sick to the heart of the 
 attempts to keep every Northern Church and its Pastor silent on the 
 whole subject. A few more such letters as Dr. Ross has written, it 
 read at all, will produce such an utter loathing of the system, and o? 
 our connection with it, as to make us rejoice at any constitutional 
 means of separating ourselves from all fellowship with slaveholding 
 churches. 
 
 As a matter of policy, if nothing more, it is vastly .more to our in- 
 terest to retain the G-reat West, than the feeble and plague-stricken 
 South. The speeches of Drs. Reed, Boyd, and Ross, with others of 
 the same kind, in the last General Assembly, have already wrought 
 us deep injury. The next Assembly will be told of it. The free 
 West wiU be heard then. Our brethren at Philadelphia are deceiv- 
 ing themselves, if they think there ever will be peace in our Church, 
 so long as our ministers and elders attempt to defend or justify the 
 continuance of slavery in the churches of our denomination. Our 
 only hope of peace is not in getting rid of the agitation, but of the 
 gangrene itsei£ 
 
 I am for no unconstitutional action. I am a Presbyterian — in- 
 creasingly so. I love the Church, and shall abide by her principles, 
 so long as I am honored with an humble place in her ministry. But 
 if the South insist on the alternative of utter silence on our part, or 
 their withdrawal from us, I do not, for a moment, hesitate to choose 
 the latter. They must not, can not, should not prescribe to their 
 brethren. It is too much in the spirit of their own institutions. If 
 they can not bear our rebukes, they must retire. So say an increas- 
 ing number among us in New- York and the West. The Kansas 
 
outrages and the late decisioa of the Supreme Court have roused up 
 a spirit at the North and West, which says: •' If compromises are un- 
 constitutional, S3 be it. No more compro-nises in relation to moral 
 evils — away with the evil itself"' Depend upon it, such is to be the 
 tone of our Church. 
 
 Our Executive Committee can not possibly take one step back- 
 ward on this subject They have been years in coming to this posi- 
 tion. It is not the work of a moment — not a mere impulsive move- 
 ment, to be repented of And they wiU be sustained. 
 
 With kind regards, as ever, to the brethren, 
 
 Yours, in the Lord, 
 
 Edwin F. Hatfield. 
 
 II. 
 
 NATURE AND RELATIONS OP THE HOME 
 MISSIONARY SOCIETY. 
 
 From a Sermon, hy Rev. Robert W. Patterson, he/ore the 
 General AssemUij, May^ 1856. 
 
 " Twelve months since, for the first time within almost a score of 
 years, our G-eneral Assembly boldly asserted the right and the duty 
 of deciding for itself what measures should be devised to provide for 
 the feeble churches under its care, and to farther the Home Mission- 
 ary work in departments which seemed to liave been neglected. This 
 was done in all good faith toward the Home Missionary Society, with 
 which our particular churches and our Presbyteries have been accus- 
 tomed to cooperate. It was assumed that the American Home Mis- 
 sionary Society was a voluntary organization, as it always professed 
 to be, entirely independent of the General Assembly, although 
 brought into being and liberally supported by members of the Pres- 
 byterian Church. It was assumed that the Presbyterian and the 
 Congregational denominations were not at all, as bodies, partners in 
 any missionary association, while most of the members of these two 
 denominations were known to have long cooperated together, as indi- 
 viduals^ with the understanding that they would avail themselves of 
 the same Society as their common agency in the Home Missionary 
 work, precisely as far as it should be found to accomplish the high 
 Christian purposes which they had in view, and no further. It was 
 therefore assumed that the G-eneral Assembly was bound by no com- 
 pact, expressed or implied, to make the Home Missionary Society its 
 exclusive organ and agent in the prosecution of Home Evangelization 
 by the preaching of the Gospel. It was assumed that the same Gen- 
 eral Assembly which maintained a Board of Domestic Missions dur- 
 ing ten years after the organization of the American tiome Missionary 
 Society, was, of right, as iadexiendent of th'i Society in 1855 as it was 
 in 1835. And yet it was conceded that the American Home Mis- 
 
 £0 /ie3dli5(f 
 
48 
 
 sionary Society was one noble agency for the spread of the Gospel in 
 this iHisd, entitled to do its own work accordin^to the best judgment 
 of its managers, and ■worthy of the cordial and liberal patronage of all 
 our cl in I dies. 
 
 •• This is the true ground. The Home Missionary Society is not in 
 loTidage 1o the Prtahyterian Church, neither is the Presbyterian 
 Church in bondage to the Home Missionary Society. It is well for 
 the interest of both, that they should clearly underv><tand this import- 
 ant truth. Tiie Home Missionary Society was perfectly compelent 
 to decline compliance with the requests made of it by the (general 
 Assembly in 1852. And so, on the other side, the General Assem- 
 bly of 1855 was perfectly couipeient to make provision for neces- 
 sities on the Home Missicnary field whicii, in its judgment, were not 
 adequately met by any existing agency." 
 
 4 
 
 54 IT 
 

 
 ^ c*^ ♦J' 
 
 
 *A0« 
 
 
 
 
 %.*" .' 
 
 .^^r 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^0* ..IV 
 
 V *?^'\y 
 
 
 
 q.. ♦.. 
 
 «V' ^ ••• A." 
 
 
 r "^, 
 
 • ''•♦ "^r 
 
 
 
 
 /% V 
 
 • \<^^ .^ 
 
 ♦ aV '♦v . 
 
 
'*o^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 k ' « 
 
 'oV" 
 
 •>6' 
 
 rl«2*. 
 
 
 ^^ ^-^^ oV