| OFFICIAL REPLY 
 , eo 
 
 OF THE 
 
 * : 
 
 BOARD OF MISSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 
 
 Og 
 
 TO 
 
 ‘ | SIX LETTERS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REV. ABSALOM PETERS, 
 
 Pal ; Corresponding Secretary of the American Home Missionary Soctety, 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 2 “A@ Plea for Anion in the Bases.” 
 PUBLISHED IN THE 
 
 “ CINCINNATI JOURNAL,” 
 
 IN FHE COURSE OF THE MONTHS OF DECEMBER AND JANUARY LAST. 
 % 
 
 a BB Stern 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: " 
 ; Clark & Raser, Printers, 33 Carter's Alley. 
 1831. . 
 
AN OFFICIAL REPLY, 
 &§e. 
 
 To the Christian Public. 
 
 Ir is with no ordinary feelings of regret and anxiety, that the Board 
 of Missions appear before the Christian community, at the present 
 
 time, in the attitude of self-defence, as respondents to certain allega-_ 
 tions contained in the above named letters. Had these allegations been 
 of a light and trivial nature in themselves—had they been founded on 
 publications which had not been duly authorized and sanctioned by the 
 Board—or had they proceeded from the pen of a private individual, — 
 sustaining to the Christian community the relations and responsibili- | 
 
 ties simply of an ordinary minister of the gospel, we might consist- 
 ently have passed over in silence, although we could not have read 
 without emotions of grief and surprise, the unexpected productions 
 which now engage our attention—But this is not the case. The alle- 
 gations made, are of a very grave and serious nature; they are founded 
 on two formal and official documents, both of which were duly author- 
 ized and sanctioned by the Board of Missions, and one of which was 
 “ accepted and adopted,’ with great unanimity, by the General Assem- 
 bly, and put into the hands of our Ex, Committee for publication and 
 distribution throughout the churches. The author of these allegations 
 is not only an ordained minister in the Presbyterian church, but he, 
 also, sustains to an important national missionary institution, a very 
 high, and sacred, and official relation—and although they are not given 
 to the public in the usual form of strictly official communications, yet 
 they are sanctioned by the name of a gentleman who is universally 
 known and recognised as the official organ and agent of the American 
 Home Missionary Society—and are in accordance with the “counsel”’ 
 of his “esteemed associates in the Home Missionary enterprise, and other 
 valued friends of the cause,’ as Mr. P. explicitly declares in the first 
 part of his second letter. 
 
 These allegations, it appears from the same letter, were not brought 
 before the public incautiously, or in haste, but after the apprehended 
 “impropriety and inaccuracy of its statements” [those of our last an- 
 nual report] had been “reflected on” for more than six months, with 
 “unmingled regret.” This was also done under a deep impression of 
 “the solemn responsibilities involved, and of the consequences which 
 might ensue. “We know,” continues the writer, “we know that such 
 an exposure may occasion a malignant satisfaction in the minds of op- 
 , posers; and we regret its necessity, especially at the present time, when 
 the eyes of an infidel world are watching with eagerness for the halting 
 _% of Christians. But if the enemies of Christianity, and of the benevo- 
 © lent efforts of the day, must have occasion to reproach the professed 
 “+ followers of Christ, let them be compelled to do so in full view of the 
 ~~ fact, that ourselves are the first to expose every error in the church or 
 
 ri its members, which cannot be otherwise corrected. It is our solemn 
 
 1 onORG6 
 
 250 
 
 4 : t<. 4 Fe, 
 Sa 2 W al Ta 
 
 Y \o' 
 
 € 
 
 ‘ 
 
 “SUX V 
 
_ ministry, 
 
 4 
 
 impression that no fears as to the consequences, ought to bear the 
 weight of a feather against our high and holy obligations, as Chris- 
 tians, to provide things honest in the sight of all men. I cannot, there- 
 fore, convince myself that, on account of the delicacy of my official re- 
 lations, it is any longer my duty, as an individual, to shrink from the 
 responsibilities of a step which a just regard to the honour and purity 
 of our benevolent institutions appears so imperiously to demand.” 
 
 Although the Secretary, in the last sentence above quoted, speaks of 
 himself as “ an individual,’ yet he seems to have been fully aware 
 of “ the delicacy of his official relations,’ and of the extreme difficulty 
 of addressing the public over his own proper signature, without 
 necessarily involving the Society he serves, in the responsibilities 
 incurred. He sometimes speaks in the singular, and sometimes in the 
 plural numbers; and we are greatly at a loss to determine, when he 
 employs the terms “ we,” “ ourselves,’ &c. whether he intends to speak 
 of himself as an individual, or in the name of his “ valued friends in the 
 ” or of the Society whose plans and operations are said to 
 have been “ misrepresented.”’ We are entirely convinced, however, 
 that the letters of Mr. P. as they have been presented to the public, 
 will be regarded generally, in the same light as they would have been, 
 had he actually appended to his name, his usual title of Correspond- 
 ing Secretary. : 
 
 Under such circumstances we cannot remain silent, without a tacit 
 acknowledgment of the justice and propriety of charges—plainly and 
 deeply implicating our character and conduct as men, as christians, and 
 as servants of the churches—of charges, which go directly to impeach 
 publicly, all the “exclusive friends” of the Roard, their Western 
 Agents, and “the highest judicatory of the church itself.’ For 
 such charges we are sure there is no real foundation; and of this fact 
 we hope entirely to satisfy the public mind. We have been deeply 
 afflicted to find ourseives repeatedly assailed in Mr. P.’s letters, with 
 the unholy weapons of irony and sarcasm; but these we shall studiously 
 avoid in our reply. 
 
 We present, in the first place,— 
 
 THE CHARGES ALLEGED AGAINST THE BOARD OF MISSIONS. 
 
 These we shall exhibit in the very words of Mr. P. as we find them 
 in various parts of the letters, entitled “.2 Plea for Union in the West.” 
 In the first letter the Board are charged with having made “ several 
 statements,” “injurious in their tendency,” and “not sustained by 
 facts,”—‘ assertions,” which the writer says, “ it is my duty publicly 
 to disprove.’ Of one statement in the letter of the Board, he says— 
 “so far from its having the slightest foundation in fact, the very reverse 
 of this statement is true.” Again he says— These statements I have 
 hastily selected from the letter under consideration, as specimens of the 
 erroneous representations with which it abounds.” 
 
 In the second and third letters the Board is charged with “ assumed 
 authority’’—* responsibility which disregards the authority of Sessions, 
 Presbyteries and Synods,”—a “ sentence’ “ written for effect” or “ in- 
 tended as a hyperbole ;’’ “a cluster of errors’? “incautiously thrown 
 before the public, over the signature of an individual, claiming the 
 authority of the highest judicatory of the cffurch.” | 
 
 In his fourth letter, Mr. P. complains, “that representations unfa- 
 vourable to the A. H. M.S. have been tadustriously circulated by some 
 
3 
 
 of the zealous partizans of the Board, in the West,’ and throws out 
 against our Cor. Secretary, the following unwarranted insinuation— 
 “If the Secretary of the Board, in the ‘ extensive correspondence’ which 
 he claims to have held with pastors, churches, §c. in the West, has 
 taken as much pains, as in the letter under review, [{ the official letter of 
 the Board,]| to depreciate the character and doings of the Society, it is 
 no marvel, if, under the misapprehensions produced by such influences, 
 some individuals and churches have been excited to address to the Board 
 of Missions ‘ assurances of strong attachment and decided preference, and 
 also to express their ‘deczded opposition to a united agency for missionary 
 purposes.” 
 
 In his fifth letter, Mr. P. charges the Board with entering into 
 “details to depreciate the doings of the A. H. M. Society, and to magni- 
 fy those of the Board—with “ erroneous assertions,” and “ depreciating 
 comparisons” “as foreign as possible from the position to be proved.” 
 He affirms positively, that “the Board of Missions has adopted, and _ 
 prosecuted its plan of operations irrespective of previous organizations _ 
 for missionary purposes,’ and then says—‘ Here, then, is the true 
 reason why the Board of Missions has had none of those large and 
 efficient auxiliaries which: have so much aided the A. H. M. Society.” 
 Further quotations might be given from the letters, but these are suffi- 
 cient to exhibit the very serious nature of the charges which have 
 been publicly alleged by Mr. P. against the Boards; and that no injus- 
 tice may be done to the writer, our readers are earnestly requested to 
 refer to the letters named, and examine the foregoing quotations in the 
 several connexions in which they may be found. We shall leave it for 
 others to decide, whether it is proper and becoming for the Christian, 
 under any circumstances, to employ such language, and publish it to 
 the world, respecting the character and conduct of his fellow Christians. 
 Certain we are, that no just provocation to such severity was given in 
 the letter of the Board, or in their Annual Report; and we hope to be 
 preserved, in the present communication, from any thing which may 
 bear the slightest resemblance to it. Whether there be any real foun- 
 dation for charges against the Board of so injurious and alarming a 
 character, the public will be the better able to judge, after a candid 
 and careful consideration of the following— 
 
 FACTS AND EXPLANATIONS. 
 
 1. As to the “ assumed authority of Mr. R.’s letter.’ It is a fact that 
 the Secretary of the Board of Missions, was directed, by a vote of the 
 Board, to do, precisely what was done. He assumed no authority; nor 
 was there any assumption of authority on the part of the Board itself. 
 It is well known to Mr. Peters, and to all reflecting men in the church, 
 that the duties and responsibilities of conducting the missionary opera- 
 tions of the General Assembly, devolve almost entirely on the mem- 
 bers of the Board residing in Philadelphia. Distant members are not 
 required or expected to attend the monthly meetings of the Board, and 
 this would manifestly be impracticable, and as the members in the city 
 were duly notified, and as more than twice the number necessary to 
 form a quorum, actually did attend the meeting, at which the letter 
 was directed to be prepared, it is difficult for us to account for the 
 remarks of Mr. P. on this subject; nor shall we, indeed, attempt it. 
 Let the remarks of Mr. P. on this subject be carefully re-examined, 
 and let every man form his ewn judgment of the “ object.” 
 
6 
 
 2. As to the “oBJECT OF THE LETTER: — 
 
 The object of the letter has not been misapprehended by Mr. P.—It 
 was expressly designed to discourage all further attempts to effect a union 
 in the West, between the Assembly’s Board, and the A. H. M. Society 
 —and this object was openly and frankly avowed in the letter itself, 
 which consisted almost entirely of reasons, which the Board deemed 
 satisfactory, why such attempts should be utterly abandoned. The 
 relevancy and weight of those reasons are still perfectly apparent to 
 the Board, and to its numerous patrons and friends in the West; and 
 so entirely confident are we of the conviction they will carry to every 
 candid mind, that we shall pass by, without any extended remarks, the 
 greater portion of those two entire letters of Mr. Peters, which are de- 
 signed as a reply to them. 
 
 In the part of Mr. P.’s second letter, now under consideration, there 
 are, however, a few incidental remarks, which we cannot forbear briefly 
 to notice, in reference to the efforts of the H. M. Society to promote 
 union, and the “ opposition of the Secretary and Agents of the Board 
 of Missions” to their “plans.’’? It is, indeed, true, that opposition to 
 the “plan”? of union proposed by Mr. Peters, has uniformly been 
 avowed and manifested by the Board and its agents. The reasons of 
 that opposition are assigned in our communication to the Presbytery 
 of Cincinnati, and it is unnecessary here to repeat them. But let it 
 not be supposed, for a moment, that we are opposed to the purity and 
 peace of the Western churches. Far,very far from it. We are averse 
 to the “plan” of union, because we are “fully persuaded” that it is net 
 a good one, not feasible, by no means calculated to diminish, but greatly 
 to increase the “collisions”? complained of by Mr. Peters. This opinion 
 was expressed by the Board in their letter, and they declared also that 
 they were fully convinced, that the proposed union would be “utterly 
 disapproved and rejected by a large number of the Presbyteries, and 
 a still larger number of the Sessions and Congregations in the West.” 
 The correctness of these opinions Mr. P..explicitly denies, and casts 
 upon the Board and its agents the blame of “nearly all the divisions 
 which now exist in those churches.” The most direct way to settle 
 this question, willbe to let the people of the West speak for them- 
 selves. We shall therefore present in this connexion, a few of the 
 many documents on which the opinion of the Board is founded. 
 
 1. THE OPINION OF INDIVIDUALS IN OHIO, RESPECTING THE PROPOSED 
 UNION. 
 
 The following communication, signed by feve/ve ministers and four 
 elders in Ohio, dated September 10th, 1830, was received at this Office 
 early in November, and duly laid before the Board. 
 
 : Ohio, September 10th, 1830. 
 To the Board of Missions of the General Assembly. 
 
 The undersigned, wishing you prosperity and peace, desire to inform 
 you, that we rejoice in the increased extent and success of your mis- 
 sionary operations. And we trust the Great Head of the church will, 
 by your instrumentality, more and more bless the destitutions and va- 
 cant churches of our denomination. We rejoice in the increasing con- 
 fidence manifested by so many of the churches and individuals of our 
 connexion, in your fidelity and energy; evidenced by expressions of 
 appprobation and liberal contributions, our prayer and hope is, that 
 
7 
 
 this confidence, and these contributions, may be increased an hundred 
 fold, if necessary, until the whole energies of our denomination, so far 
 as respects domestic missions, shall be concentrated in your Board, 
 the regularly constituted organ for this work. We sincerely regret 
 that there should be any hindrances to your full and free operations 
 throughout the whole extent of the Presbyterian church in these United 
 States. And it is with increased dissatisfaction that we notice the 
 continued efforts of the Home Missionary Society, to counteract your 
 measures, or to coerce you into a subordinate connexion. ‘Towards that 
 institution, we could wish to cherish no feeling but that of kindly re- 
 membrance of the good it had been instrumental of doing in the ex- 
 treme exigency of the case. But its early and strong opposition to the 
 reorganization of your body—its unceasing attempts ever since, to 
 thwart your measures, or consolidate them with its own, have greatly 
 lowered it in our opinion. Besides, we hesitate not to say, that under 
 present circumstances, we view the operations of this non-ecclesiastical 
 institution, within our church, as unconstitutional and intrusive. To 
 the church herself (of every denomination) belongs the duty and privi- 
 lege of cherishing and providing for her feeble and destitute portions. 
 To the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church specially, is con- 
 stitutionally confided the missionary operations within her jurisdiction. 
 Your Board is the constituted organ to effect this object. And while 
 with wisdom, integrity, and zeal, you persevere in the course you are 
 now pursuing, you will, we believe, have the confidence, the prayers, 
 and the alms of the churches, under God, to sustain you. But any sur- 
 render by you, of the rights of the church, to institutions unknown to 
 our church constitution, will greatly weaken the confidence of many 
 Presbyterians in your integrity, and slacken their exertions for your 
 support. The increasing innovations of late years, upon both the prin- 
 ciples and discipline of our church, has become alarming to many, in 
 their view endangering its peace and unity. Even now, the evil is seen 
 and felt to an extent and degree, that nothing but a return and strict 
 adherence to first principles, can remove: so we believe, and therefore 
 speak: unwilling any longer, by our silence, to connive at what we 
 believe to be of injurious tendency to the doctrines and government of 
 that church, the vows of which are upon us. This communication, as 
 we design it for your encouragement, so we are cordially willing that 
 it should have publicity given to it, believing that, substantially, it ex- 
 presses the views of many others in the Presbyterian church, as well as. 
 those of the undersigned ministers and elders of that communion. 
 Very respectfully, &c. 
 
 2. RESOLUTIONS OF THE PRESBYTERY OF STEUBENVILLE, OHIO. 
 
 Mount Pleasant, October 6th, 1830. 
 SESSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERY OF STEUBENVILLE. 
 
 “Resolved, unanimously, That we view the transaction of Missionary 
 business to be especially the duty of the church, in her distinctive cha- 
 racter. That we consider the present organization of the Board of 
 Missions of the General Assembly, as most consistent with the order 
 which should be taken in this matter—and hope, that that institution 
 will continue and prosper. That it is most proper, that this Presbytery 
 be an Auxiliary to that Board,” &c. &c. 
 
 A true extract. | 
 Cuaries Cuinron Beatry, Stated Clerk. 
 
8 
 
 _ 3. RESOLUTIONS OF THE PRESBYTERY OF LANCASTER, OH10, 
 
 Zanesville, October 22, 1830. 
 SESSIONS OF THE LANCASTER PRESBYTERY. 
 
 “Whereas repeated efforts have been made, and are likely to be re- 
 newed, intended to produce an amalgamation of the Assembly’s Board 
 of Missions and the A. H. M. Society; and whereas this Presbytery do, 
 on many accounts, feel opposed to any amalgamation, which would 
 sia the principles, character, and responsibility of the Assembly’s 
 
 oard,— | 
 
 Therefore, Resolved, Ist. That we deem any amalgamation of these 
 Boards, as unnecessary, undesirable, and highly inexpedient. 
 
 2d. That we view with regret and disapprobation, the efforts re- 
 peatedly made to produce this amalgamations and hope, for the peace 
 of the church, these efforts will be speedily discontinued. 
 
 3d. That a copy of this preamble and these resolutions, be forwarded 
 by the Stated Clerk, for publication in the Missionary Reporter.” 
 
 “'To this decision, Messrs, Miles, Putnam and Whitehead entered 
 their dissent,” 
 
 A true extract. 
 [ Attest, | James Cu.pertson, Stated Clerk. 
 
 4, RESOLUTIONS OF THE PRESBYTERY OF RICHLAND, OHIO. 
 Mansfield, (Ohio,) September 30, 1830. 
 
 Rey. and dear Sir,—The Presbytery of Richland, in session at Can- 
 ton, on Thursday, the 16th inst. adopted the following resolution:— 
 
 “ Resolved, That this Presbytery express their hearty approbation of 
 the Board of Missions of the General Assembly, in its onward course 
 of efficiency and success, since its reorganization in 1828. This is as 
 it should be—this Board being the regularly constituted organ for 
 conducting missionary operations within the Presbyterian church. 
 This Presbytery feel also that they are called, from the circumstances 
 of the times, to express their decided disapprobation of the attempts 
 made and making, in various quarters, to produce an amalgamation of 
 the Assembly’s Board with the A. H. M. Society—a measure which 
 this Presbytery would deprecate as a violation of both the spirit and 
 letter of our well devised form of church government:—so many in- 
 roads upon which have already been made, that it has, in view of this 
 Presbytery, become indispensably necessary for all that wish to pre- 
 serve inviolate the principles of government of the Presbyterian church, 
 to take a decided and open stand in their maintenance, and in openly 
 disapproving of all such measures as tend to weaken or impair the 
 soundness of the one or the efficiency of the other. Such is the ten- 
 dency, it is believed, of the operations of the Home Missionary Society 
 in its distinctive, independent, and non-ecclesiastical character, within 
 the Presbyterian church.”’ 
 
 “ Resolved, That a copy of the above resolution be sent to the As- 
 sembly’s Board of Missions by the Stated Clerk.” 
 
 A true copy. 
 James Rowxanp, Stated Clerk. 
 
 These formal and official documents may serve as “specimens” of 
 the sentiments entertained by some of the brethren of the West, and of 
 the manner in which those sentiments haye been, from time to time, 
 
9 
 
 expressed to the Board. Wemight add to these a number of commu- 
 nications from highly respected and influential individuals in the West, 
 of a similar import; but we deem it unnecessary. In the language of 
 Mr. Peters, “ they will doubtless adopt such measures as they may judge 
 expedient, to make known to the General Assembly, and to the Christian 
 public, the true state of facts and their own wishes, on a subject in- 
 volving interests so immensely important.” 
 
 5. AS TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE LETTER OF THE BOARD. 
 
 In his first letter, Mr. Peters uses the following very extraordinary 
 language in reference to this letter:—*I do most unfeignedly regret 
 that an opportunity was not afforded of correcting these statements before 
 they were given to the public.” “ But that privilege was not allowed to 
 us.’ “Why is it that this letter is brought before the public without 
 its counterpart?” The plain import of these declarations is, that Mr. 
 P. has been denied a privilege, and that the Christian public have been 
 deprived of information, which the Board were sacredly bound to give. 
 A few facts, in reference to the origin and publication of this letter, 
 will serve to show whether there be any real cause for these complaints. 
 Let it then be distinctly understood, that nether the Board of Missions, 
 nor tts Secretary, nor its Ex. Committee, have had any concern whatever in 
 the publication of this letter or its counterpart! On the contrary, tt was 
 formally determined by the Board, that they would publish neither. They 
 did, however, suppose, that the General Assembly had fully authorized 
 them to answer, in a respectful manner, the communication of the Cin- 
 cinnati Presbytery; and they did not once suspect that they were en- 
 croaching either upon the prerogative or the “privilege’’ of Mr. Peters, 
 when they ventured to forward their reply, without submitting it to 
 him for “correction!’? The letter of the Board first appeared in the 
 “ Cincinnati Christian Journals’? and we have since been informed, that 
 it was published at the particular request of one of the Committee to 
 whom it was addressed, on his own responsibility: and although this 
 fact occurred several months ago, the letter has never yet been rEPUB- 
 LISHED by the Board. The Letter of the Committee of the Cincinnati 
 Presbytery was published in the same paper, Dec. 31, 1830, at the par- 
 ticular request of Mr. Peters; and this has been preceded and followed 
 by sax letters from Mr. P., containing the very serious charges, and the 
 alarming “exposure” before alluded to. Still, however, the Board have 
 till now maintained a profound silence. They have “published” no- 
 thing, and they would probably have continued to be silent, had they 
 not been constrained by a sense of duty to themselves, to the churches 
 in the West, and to the General Assembly, whose servants they are, to 
 publish the facts and explanations which are contained in this commu- 
 nication. In view of these facts, on whom, we ask, rests the responsi- 
 bility of the unprovoked attack which has been made, publicly, upon 
 the Board, its Secretary, its Western Agents, and upon the General 
 Assembly itself?—and where, we ask again, has Mr. P. found his au- 
 thority for the declaration with which he commences his “srricruREs 
 ON THE LAST REPORT OF THE BOARD OF missions,” “We are invited care- 
 fully to analyze the report of the Board?’ The Board did, indeed, 
 say, in their communication to the Committee of the Cincinnati Presby- 
 tery, “ By carefully analyzing these Reports it will be found, &c.”—but 
 was this an “¢nvitation” addressed to Mr. Peters? Is Mr. P. zdentified 
 with that Committee? If not, why this “assumption” of affinity? Is 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 there any thing here to justify either the matter or the manner of the 
 “strictures” upon a report which was read to the General Assembly, 
 “carefully examined” by a committee of five, and then deliberately 
 “adopted, and put into the hands of the Ex. Committee for publica- 
 tion?” Mr. P. not only affirms, “we are invited,” but he continues, 
 “ This reminds me of a duty, Mr. Editor, which I have perhaps too 
 long neglected, and to which I confess I have come with the greatest 
 reluctance. Soon after the publication of the above Report, I did care- 
 fully analyze some portions of it for my own satisfaction. The result 
 was unexpectedly painful.” ) 
 
 May we not inquire, by whom this dufy was imposed upon the Se- 
 cretary of the A. H. M. Society? Was it by the Assembly? No record 
 can be found in the minutes of that venerable body, authorizing and 
 appointing Mr. P. to this “ painful’ office. Was it by the constitution 
 of the Society which he serves?) We can find nothing there which im- 
 poses such an obligation. We differ entirely with the Secretary, in his 
 “ view of duty, too long neglected,’ and we are verily persuaded, that, 
 “on account of the delicacy of his official relations,’ he would have 
 been held entirely guiltless, had he altogether neglected to make these un- 
 justifiable strictures upon our last Annual Report. The duty (if there 
 were any) assumed and discharged, with the “ greatest reluctance,” by 
 Mr. Peters, belonged to the Committee with whom the Board were in 
 correspondence. Our letter was addressed to them, in their official cha- 
 racter, and to them exclusively. They were referred to the reports of 
 the two Boards, for the import and correctness of our statements; and 
 it belonged to them alone, to detect the “errors,” and correct the “ mis- 
 representations,’ with which Mr. P. affirms that our letter “ abounds.” 
 Had they been left to speak for themselves, it is not at all probable, 
 that the public would ever have been afflicted by “an exposure which 
 may occasion a malignant satisfaction in the minds of opposers.” 
 
 6. AS TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE CINCINNATI PRESBYTERY. 
 
 In his second letter Mr. P. alludes briefly to the appointment of this 
 Committee “to address the Board of Missions, and urge them to unite 
 with the A. H. M. Society in the appointment of a common agency;”’ 
 but he has omitted to inform the public, that he himself was present at 
 the meeting of the Presbytery, and “urged them’ to make the appoint- 
 ment. Of the prominent part which Mr. Peters took in that meeting 
 of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, in July last, at which the above named 
 Committee were appointed, we have received from a responsible indi- 
 vidual, who was present, the following account—viz. 
 
 “ On Monday afternoon, during the interval of worship, and on Tues- 
 day, Mr. Peters spoke before Presbytery in favour of the wnion in the 
 West between the two Boards of which you have heard so much. He 
 commenced by reading an extract or extracts, if not all contained in 
 pages 55, 56, of their last Report, making, in the meantime, his shrewd 
 remarks upon them. He spoke of the plan of union in detail, which 
 was referred to a respectable committee of the Assembly, and then dis- 
 missed without a proper and righteous investigation, and also of the 
 feasibility of this plan. He then adverted to a resolution which the 
 Board of Missions passed some time before the sitting of the Assem- 
 bly—after hearing of the Committee of Agency for the Home Mis- 
 sionary in the West—not to unite with them. He spoke of the protest 
 which was signed by a number of great names, some of whom were 
 
11 
 
 mentioned; of the proceedings of the Assembly in dismissing the sub- 
 ject of a plan of union in the West, as they did; and last of all, he ex- 
 patiated very pathetically and feelingly on the evils growing out of the 
 separate action of the two Boards—and remarked that he would spend 
 his life, if need be, in effecting this union. These are the points upon 
 which he dwelt in his speech. The manner he treated them, as you 
 will readily apprehend, was well calculated to seize upon the feelings 
 of the members of Presbytery.” 
 
 Now, if it be true that Mr. P. travelled from New York to Ohio, to 
 attend the meeting of the Presbytery of Cincinnati—that he occupied 
 parts of two. days, in publicly advocating a plan of union which had al- 
 ready been rejected by the Board of Missions, and also by the General 
 Assembly, and in publicly animadverting upon a private resolution of the 
 Board, and the doings of the Assembly itself—it is surely “no marvel,” 
 that the Presbytery were at length prevailed upon by the pathetic and 
 solemn appeals and entreaties of Mr. P. to appoint this Committee. 
 But it is “truly amazing!”’ after all this, to find in his letters repeated 
 declarations respecting the “ unfeigned regret,” and the “ unspeakable 
 reluctance,’ with which he entered, six months after, upon the dis- 
 charge of his “long neglected duty;’’ and above all, to hear him say, 
 “the blame of having brought this discussion before the public belongs 
 not to me!!”” If the journey of Mr. P. to Ohio, and his open attack 
 upon the unpublished resolution of the Board, and the proceedings of 
 the Assembly, before the Cincinnati Presbytery, does not amount to 
 “ bringing this discussion before the public,” then we have yet to learn 
 what publicity means. | 
 
 7. FACTS IN RELATION TO MR. P.’s “ CORRECTIONS.” 
 
 In closing his third letter, Mr. Peters says—“ Thus I have found oc- 
 casion for a whole letter, tocorrect four sentences in the article under 
 review; and I cannot bring it to a close without expressing my unfeign- 
 ed regret that such a cluster of errors have been incautiously thrown be- 
 fore the public, over the signature of an individual claiming the autho- 
 rity of the highest judicatory of the church.” | 
 
 The “four sentences,’ which Mr. P. has found it so arduous a task 
 to “correct,” read in connexion, as follows:—“‘ The one, [the B. of 
 Missions,| is strictly ecclesiastical, the other, [the A. H. M. S.,] as 
 strictly voluntary. The one is directly responsible to the highest ju- 
 dicatory of the church for all its acts, and is in all respects, under its 
 immediate and constant supervision and control; the other is responsi- 
 ble only to a small number of private individuals, and those too widely 
 scattered over the country, and actually at variance in their views of 
 doctrines, discipline, and ecclesiastical polity. The one proposes to 
 conduct all its distant operations chiefly by the agency of Sessions and 
 Presbyteries, the other by voluntary associations and agencies, wholly 
 disconnected with ecclesiastical judicatories.” 
 
 These “ four sentences,” express clearly, and without reserve, the de- 
 liberate opinions of the Board from which they emanated, and by which 
 they have been fully sanctioned; and notwithstanding the protracted 
 reasoning's and bold assertions of Mr. P. respecting their incorrectness, 
 our opinions remain unaltered, and we find no occasion to retract a 
 single sentence. The Board, as well as Mr. Peters, have examined for 
 themselves, the Constitution of the Church, and that also of the A. H. 
 M. S., and they have also investigated with care, the system of organi- 
 
12 
 
 zation, the plan of operations, and the principle of responsibility chosett, 
 recommended, and published by that Society, and diligently com- 
 pared them with those of the Board, and the conclusions to which 
 they have been conducted, are fairly stated in the passage above quoted 
 from their letter. It would not comport with the primary object of 
 this reply, nor do the Board deem it at all necessary, to enter into an 
 argument, to prove what Mr. Peters plainly denies—the constitutional 
 power of the General Assembly, to appoint a “permanent Board to ap- 
 point Missionaries during the year.” We shall take it for granted, that 
 the Assembly understand their own Constitution, and that they have 
 not been engaged for nearly half a century, in conducting the Mission- 
 ary operations of the Presbyterian church, without having paused to 
 inquire whether they were empowered by their Constitution so to do. 
 If the Assembly have transcended their constitutional powers, and ap- 
 pointed a permanent Board without authority, we must leave them to 
 answer for themselves. 
 
 “ CORRECTION SECOND” involves another constitutional question, and 
 here again we must leave the Assembly to make its own defence. 
 
 “ CoRRECTION THIRD,” requires a passing remark. The subject of 
 correction here, is the clause which asserts that the A. H. M. S. is 
 “ responsible only to a small number of private individuals, § ec.” “ Did 
 not the writer know,” says Mr. P., “ that the A. H. M. S. is composed 
 of all who contribute annually to its funds, and these are perhaps twenty 
 thousand individuals ina year?’ “ Andis not the Society responsible 
 to its own members?”’ Certainly the Board were fully aware of all 
 this—but may we not still ask in reply, Did not the writer of this 
 “ correction’ know, that the Board of Missions was appointed by the re- 
 presentatives of the whole Presbyterian church in these United States, 
 embracing in its communion nearly 200,000 members, and in its con- 
 gregations, probably not less than half a million of souls? And is not 
 the Board responsible to the whole church by which it was appointed? 
 And did not Mr. Peters know, that “ perhaps twenty thousand indivi- 
 duals,” is a “ small number,’ in comparison with half a million? It 
 might be asked again, how many of the twenty thousand contributors, 
 are generally present at the anniversaries of the A. H. M.S., to hear 
 their reports, to share in their proceedings, and to inquire into the 
 propriety of their operations? Certainly if there be hundreds present 
 on those occasions, there are always thousands absent, and then, accord- 
 ing to the reasonings of Mr. P., respecting the “ assumed authority of 
 Mr. R.’s letter,” there is no responsibility at all, because there being 
 only a small minority of the members convened, they cannot be pro- 
 perly styled the A. H. M. Society. Such are the legitimate results of 
 Mr. P’s own principles, when applied to his own case. But admitting 
 that the Society is responsible to its members, and that these amount 
 to 20,000, still it is strictly, literally true, in the comparison instituted, 
 “that it is responsible only to a small number of private individuals,” 
 while the Board of Missions is as truly responsible to the whole 
 church, annually represented in the General Assembly. 
 
 As to the responsibility of the Society to “ Churches, Presbyteries, and 
 Synods,” the Board differ entirely from Mr. P. in opinion, and that 
 too, after having duly considered the “ Stipulations, Resolutions, &c.”’ 
 appended to the Annual Reports of the Society—and as these reports 
 are “* widely circulated,” they would just refer the Christian public to 
 these, and to the Annual Reports of the Board, for all the information 
 
13 
 
 necessary to enable them to form an accurate judgment of the nature 
 of the responsibilities implied. 
 
 “ Correction FouRTH.”’—In reference to the assertion of the Board, 
 that the A. H. M. Society “ proposes to conduct its distant operations 
 by voluntary associations and agencies wholly disconnected with eccle- 
 siastical judicatories,’ Mr. P. says, “I am not aware that this declara- 
 tion has the slightest foundation in fact. If it have, will the Secretary 
 of the Board direct us to the evidencer’? The evidence is abundant, 
 provided it be admitted, that the Society “proposes,” or intends to doy 
 what it actually does—or, in other words, that the doings of the 
 Society are in strict accordance with a preconceived plan of opera- 
 tions. It will probably be denied by none, that the Society itself is a 
 voluntary association, “ wholly disconnected with ecclesiastical judicatories,” 
 and according to its title, its jurisdiction is co-extensive with America. 
 So far, then, as the Society acts, our aflirmation is unquestionably true. 
 The agencies also, established at Utica and Geneva, N. Y., and Cincin- 
 nati, Ohio, for the whole Valley of the Mississippi, “are strictly volun- 
 tary, and wholly disconnected with ecclesiastical judicatories.’’ This, 
 it is believed, is also true of the Missionary Societies of Vermont, 
 New Hampshire, Maine, and Hampshire,—and by these associations and 
 agencies, “ the distant operations of the A. H. M. Society” are actually 
 conducted, as the annual reports abundantly demonstrate. The evi- 
 dence is therefore clear and conclusive; and the declaration of the 
 Board is founded on existing facts. 
 
 The “ query” which precedes the “fourth correction” is fully an- 
 swered in our last Annual Report, pages 15 to 203; and to that report 
 the public are referred, for all that need be said on the subject. We 
 shall take occasion, in another part of this communication, to show 
 that the “distant operations’ of the Board are not “ conducted in the 
 same manner,’ but in a manner widely different from those of the 
 Society. 
 
 In his fourth letter, Mr. P. contents himself chiefly with direct con- 
 tradictions of the Board, and an appearance of reasoning in support of 
 the three positions assumed— dissolution of auxiliaries not required,” 
 —“union desired in the West,’—and “ Increase of evils not to be ap- 
 prehended.” On the subject of “union desired,’ we have before given 
 ample “specimens” of the explicit expressions of sentiment which 
 have been forwarded to the Board by the people of the West, and on the 
 other two points, we deem it unnecessary, at present, to say any thing 
 more than we have said already in our letter. All the direct charges 
 contained in this whole letter against the Board, its Secretary and 
 Agents, and other “ exclusive friends,’ may be reduced to the four 
 following:—1. Injustice to the churches west of the Alleghanies.— 
 2. Slanders “industriously circulated” against the A. H. M. Society. — 
 3. Misrepresentations, and 4. Unyielding opposition to the wishes of 
 Presbyteries and Synods, and to the peace of the Western churches. 
 To these charges we plead not guilty, and cheerfully commit the whole 
 matter as it is, to an ingenuous Christian public for adjudication; not 
 because we are incapable of offering a vindication of our conduct in 
 the matters involved, but because we deem such a vindication unneces- 
 sary—and because it is the grand object of our communication, to 
 refute the still more serious charges which have been alleged against 
 us in the last two letters of Mr. Peters. 
 
14 
 
 8. FACTS IN REFERENCE TO THE “ ERRONEOUS ASSERTIONS.” 
 
 The portion of our letter embraced under this head, is as follows:— 
 
 “ By carefully analyzing these reports [the last Annual Reports of 
 the Board, and of the A. H. M. Society,]| it will be found that the 
 Board of Missions have actually sent into the field, during the last 
 year, a larger number of missionaries than the A. H. M. Society as 
 such has done. Of the 392 missionaries reported by the latter Society, 
 it will be found that 196 are employed and sustained, not by the Parent 
 Society, but by auxiliary societies, most of which were in successful 
 operation, long before the A. H. M. Society was formed.” “This com- 
 parison is not instituted either for the purpose of detracting from the merits 
 of the 4. H. M. Society, or boasting of the success which has crowned 
 the humble efforts of the Board of Missions; but it is instituted simply 
 Sor the purpose of presenting more distinctly to your view, interesting facts 
 in reference to both these favoured institutions.” 
 
 The design of this brief comparison is so explicitly and kindly ex- 
 pressed by the Board, that they were greatly surprised and grieved, 
 not only to find the truth of their positive declarations called in question, 
 and their motives suspected, but also to find themselves directly ac- 
 cused of having “entered into details to depreciate the doings of the 4. H. 
 M. Society, and to magnify those of the Board.” Here it will be dis- 
 tinctly perceived, that Mr. Peters and the Board are directly at zssue, 
 and that too,on a point involving the secret feelings and motives of 
 the heart. If these secret feelings and motives of our hearts, are 
 better known to Mr. Peters than they are to ourselves, and if the 
 Christian public are prepared to accredit his suspicions and asser- 
 tions, rather than our own candid and sober declarations; then we fully 
 agree with Mr. Peters in the opinion expressed in his last letter, that 
 “ Gt is surely time for the 170 members of the Board of Missions to give 
 their attention to this matter, and by interposing their authority, to put a 
 stop to misrepresentations, so manifestly tending to mislead the public 
 mind! !? But if it be admitted that the Board are capable in any case, 
 of being ‘ honest,’ and speaking truth, and that they are, on the whole, 
 better qualified to ascertain and express their own motives of action, 
 than Mr. Peters, or any other man; then, in the case under considera- 
 tion, and in all others of a similar nature, found in Mr. P.’s letters, we 
 have no doubt that the Christian public will give an enlightened and 
 righteous judgment: and they will decide also for themselves, whether 
 such “accusations of the brethren” ought to be countenanced and 
 sustained. 
 
 But, leaving these secondary topics, we come now to the subject 
 matter of those “ specimens of the erroneous representation,” with which 
 Mr. P. affirms, that the letter of the Board “ abounds.” 
 
 Ist Specimen.—* The Board of Missions have actually sent into the 
 field, during the last year, a larger number of missionaries than the 
 A. H. M. Society, as such, has done.” “This statement,” says Mr. P. 
 “is truly amazing, and I must be permitted to say, that so far from its 
 having the slightest foundation in fact, the very reverse of this statement 
 is true.” 
 
 2d Specimen—* Of the 392 missionaries reported by the latter 
 Society, it will be found that 196 are ‘ employed’ and ‘ sustained, not by 
 the Parent Society, but by auxiliary Societies, most of which were in 
 successful operation, long before the A. H. M. Society was formed.” 
 
15 | 
 
 3d Specimen.— The 198 reported by the Assembly’s Board, are alf 
 employed and sustained by the Board alone, without the agency of a 
 single auxiliary of the kind just named.” 
 
 For the import and correctness of these declarations, the Committee 
 of the Cincinnati Presbytery were referred to the two last Annual Re- 
 ports of the Board and Societys nay, they were “invited” carefully to 
 “analyze” them. Our comparison was brief, general, and by no means 
 invidious; and we thought it most fair, candid and honourable, to ex- 
 press our own opinion of the contents of the reports, in this particular, 
 and then leave the committee to base their opinion on a careful analy- 
 sis. Had we really intended to “misrepresent” and “ depreciate” the 
 Society, and to “swell” and “ magnify” the doings of the Board, as 
 Mr. P. has accused us of doing, it seems hardly rational to suppose, 
 that we would have directed the attention of the committee to the very 
 documents, which on a “first perusal,’? must have carried to their 
 minds the “ deep impression’’ which Mr. P. received, of the incorrect- 
 ness of our statements. Of the intention to misrepresent and deceive, 
 we hope, then, to be acquitted. 
 
 The facts upon which our opinion was founded, were derived from 
 the Reports of the A. H. M. Society, and the reports of its auxiliaries. 
 To these facts the attention of our Secretary, and subsequently that of 
 the Board, was first directed, by a lay member of the Board. In the last 
 Report of the A. H. M. Society, page 11, under the head of “ Expiana- 
 tions,’ the Board found the following sentence,—* The following 
 abbreviations appended to the names of missionaries in the second 
 column, designate the auxiliary societies, by whose funds the congrega- 
 tions and missionary stations, against which they are placed, have been 
 aided.” The plain meaning of this declaration, is precisely the same, 
 as that of the term “ sustained,’ as used by the Board. Guided by this 
 explanation, the names of the “ missionaries thus sustained,” or of the 
 “ congregations and missionary stations aided,”’ were carefully counted, 
 and the number was found to be precisely what was stated, 196. If, in 
 this particular, the Board have erred, it was owing entirely to the ex- 
 plicit instructions of the Secretary of the Society. But they used in 
 their letter, also, the term “ employed,” and this, certainly is not found 
 in the explanation of the abbreviations; but it is a fact, that both of 
 these offensive terms are used repeatedly, in other parts of the reports, 
 both of the “ Parent Society” and of its auxiliaries. Thus in the Re- 
 port for 1828, pages 65 to 68, the “ Western Agency”’ in their Report to 
 the Parent Society, speak of “a list of the names and locations of the mis- 
 sionaries within this agency, with the amount of aid granted to each, and 
 the date and period of his appointment.” Again—* The aggregate 
 expense of these missionaries to our funds, for the year, including the 
 compensation of the Agent of the A. H. M. Society, (who is also the 
 Secretary of this Board) together with the incidental expenses of the 
 Agency, such as postage and stationary, is $5000. Our receipts for 
 the same period have been $5670 27,—leaving a balance in favour of 
 the general treasury of $670 27.” 
 
 In the same communication they speak repeatedly of “ our funds,” 
 “our Missionaries,” “ our congregations,” “our Missionary stations, 
 &ec.”? In the Report for 1829, pages 68 and 69, the same agency say, 
 “ This year 69 Missionaries, including the agent, have been ‘ employed’ 
 within this agency, &c.’”’ “The aggregate expenditure of the year, 
 in support of these labourers, kc.” “The blessing of God has attended 
 
; 16 
 
 the labours of our Missionaries. The congregations have increased 
 and strengthened, at the stations to which they have been appointed, 
 &c.’”? In the Report for 1830, p. 58, they say, “ The Missionaries ‘ em- 
 ployed’ the year now past, under the care of this Board, &c.;”’ and in 
 other parts of the same Report, they use language and make statements 
 similar to those above quoted. This is also true of the Auxiliary So- 
 cieties of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Virginia. But this 
 is not all—for it is not a little remarkable, that Mr. Peters himself actu- 
 ally furnished us, in his last 4nnual Report, with the very words we 
 have used. Thus, page 44, Mr. Peters says in reference to the Western 
 Agency, “The number of Missionaries ‘ employed’ on that field, is 67, 
 and the agency assure us of the hearty co-operation of the churches, 
 in sustaining their efforts.” 
 
 “The Maine Missionary Society ‘has sustained’ 38 Missionaries 
 within its bounds.” Of the Vermont Society, he says “ Jts number of 
 Missionaries is 27’’—and of the New H. Society, that it “ has aided in 
 the support of 28 Missionaries.”’ But even this is not all—for although 
 Mr. P. affirms of one of our assertions, that it is “ altogether a misrepre- 
 sentation of the manner of the co-operation between. the 4. H. M. Society 
 and its auxiliaries,’ we do nevertheless soberly appeal to that very plan 
 of co-operation, for another tlustration of the truth of that assertion, 
 and we will here quote from the last Annual Report of the Society. 
 
 1. The 8th Article of its own Constitution, page 8th, which reads 
 thus:—* Every Auxiliary Society, which shall agree to pay the whole of 
 éts funds to this Society, shall be entitled to a Missionary, or Mission- 
 aries, to labour in such fields as it may designate, at least to the amount 
 of its contributions; provided such designation be made at the time of 
 payment.” 
 
 2. The 5th Article of the “form of Constitution recommended to 
 the adoption of Auxiliary Societies,’ page 63, which reads thus:— 
 “The annual receipts of the Society, after defraying incidental ex- 
 penses, shall be paid over to the treasurer of the Parent Society, with 
 directions as to the section of country in which it shall be expended in 
 Missionary labours, should the Board deem it important to give such 
 directions.” . 
 
 3. The Ist and 2d resolutions recommended to the adoption of Auxi- 
 liary Societies, page 64, which read thus:— 7 
 
 “ This Society shall pay over, &c.” | 
 
 4, The “reasons of the foregoing recommendations,” pages 64 and 5, 
 some of which are as follows :— ’ 
 
 “ By these stipulations, each auxiliary society is left to the znde- 
 pendent and unembarrassed exercise of all its rights, in the business of 
 appropriating its own funds to the relief of the needy within its li- 
 mits, &c.” 
 
 “ These stipulations, wherever they shall be adopted, will put it out of 
 the power of the National Society to contravene the wishes of those 
 whose business it is to manage the affairs, and guard the purity of the 
 churches, in the different sections of our country.” “ Jt can plant no 
 Missionary in stations yielded to the supervision of an Auxiliary So- 
 ciety, Presbytery or Synod, without the approbation of the same, &c.”’ 
 
 “ The missionaries of the auxiliaries being also the missionaries of 
 the Parent Society, will be reported as such in our annual alphabetical 
 list, with appropriate marks, to denote by what auxiliary society they have 
 been supported.” 
 
17 
 
 We have now furnished a part of the “misapprehended data,’ de- 
 manded by Mr. Peters in his fifth letter, on the ground of which 
 “Mr. Russell does not hesitate to declare officially, that 196 (not 91) 
 of the missionaries [“ reported by’?] the American Home Mission- 
 ary Society, were employed and sustained, not by the Parent Society, 
 but by auxiliary societies, §c.’’ If the language of auxiliaries and 
 agencies in their annual reports, if the declarations of Mr. Peters 
 himself, and if the articles quoted from the Constitution of the Parent 
 Society and of its Auxiliaries, and the resolutions and stipulations pro- 
 posed (and “ adopted,” as Mr. P. says, page 64, “by the New Hamp- 
 shire Missionary Society, the Vermont Domestic Missionary Society, 
 the Hampshire Missionary Society, Mass., and substantially by a num- 
 ber of other socicties, as the basis of their auxiliary connexion with the 
 A. H. M. Society’’)—if, we say, all these things have any meaning, then 
 to us, at least, it is perfectly obvious, that the auxiliaries and agencies 
 of the A. H. M. Society, generally, do not only “ employ and sustain,” 
 but also “appoint,” “control,” and “pay” their own missionaries—that 
 they are auxiliary in name and form, but “independent and unembar- 
 rassed” in fact. If it be true that the National Society, “can plant no 
 missionary in stations yielded to the supervision of an auxiliary society, 
 without the consent of the same,”’ and that the “appropriate marks” de- 
 note “by what auxiliaries” the missionaries “have been supported”— 
 then, why, we ask, does Mr. P. complain of the statements of the 
 Board, and pronounce them “erroneous,” “depreciating,” “ inappro- 
 priate,’ and “not sustained by facts?” Surely he cannot reasonably 
 blame us for believing he is “honest” and true in his own assertions, 
 especially in documents which he has carefully prepared for the eye of 
 the public! And what have the Board done more than receive and 
 follow his own principles and directions in forming their offensive es- 
 timates. | 
 
 In his fifth letter, Mr. Peters says, “ Al the missionaries named in the 
 last report of the Society were appointed by the Ex. Committee at New 
 York, and paid from the Treasury of the Parent Society, excepting those 
 who were sustained by funds derived from ¢éhree auxiliaries in New 
 England.’ But does the Report say this? Far, very far from it—the 
 “appropriate marks” “designate the auxiliary societies by whose funds 
 the congregations and missionary stations, against which they are 
 placed, have been aided,” p. 11—they “ denote by what auxiliary society 
 they [the missionaries | have been supported.”’—p. 65. 
 
 The “ Western Agency” also say, in their last report to the Society, 
 p- 58-9, “The missionaries employed the year now past, under the care 
 of this Board, {67 in number] have been located within the several 
 counties, as follows, having charge of one, two, and in some cases three 
 congregations each, and deriving aid from our funds to the average 
 amount of from $75 to $100.” We would by no means attempt to im- 
 peach Mr. P.’s veracity in this matter, nor would we be understood to 
 insinuate, that he has made any “erroneous asseriion,” but we bring 
 these apparently opposite statements together, in order to show that 
 there are some difficult points in the public documents of other socie- 
 ties, as well as our own, which require explanation, and which ought 
 not to be hastily condemned as “erroneous,” and “not sustained by 
 facts.” Sufficient, we trust, has now been said, to justify the Board in 
 the comparison they presumed to institute between the operations of 
 the A. H. M. Society, as such, and those of the Assembly’s Board. To 
 
 C 
 
18 
 
 the results of that comparison, they were unavoidably conducted by the 
 “ data’ already given, and derived from the annual reports—and not- 
 withstanding all the declarations, reasoning, and accusations of Mr. 
 Peters, they are still constrained to believe, that they did not err in 
 their judgment in the particulars we have already considered. 
 
 There is one of the “erroneous assertions’? quoted by Mr. Peters, 
 upon which, so far as we have noticed, he has omitted to bestow a sin- 
 gle remark. We refer to that which affirms, that most of the auxilia- 
 ries named, “were in successful operation, long before the 4. H. M. So- 
 ciety was formed.” As its truth is directly called in question, we feel 
 ourselves bound to exhibit some of the “data” on which this opinion 
 was formed. 
 
 The whole number of the auxiliaries alluded to in our letter is eight. 
 In reference to four of them, the Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, 
 and Hampshire Sucieties, there will be no question, we presume, either 
 of their existence, or of the success of their operations, before the for- 
 mation of the A. H. M. Society. In regard to the Western and Cen- 
 tral Agencies, the fact is not equally clear and unquestionable. The 
 obscurity in reference to these, is owing to the circumstance, that their 
 names and relations have been somewhat changed. ‘The change effected 
 in the former is thus related in the 2d Report of the Society, 1828, 
 page 65,—“ The Board, formerly denominated the Geneva AcGENcy, 
 was reappointed by the Ex. Committee, Aug. 23, 1827, under the title 
 of the Western Agency of the A. H. M. Society, for the state of New 
 York.” In 1826 the Geneva Agency made a report to the United 
 Domestic Missionary Society of New York, in which allusion is made 
 to a similar report, made in 1825, a year before the formation of the 
 A. H. M. Societys and it was then in successful operation, and how 
 many years preceding it had been so, we have not at present the means 
 of stating with precision, nor is this necessary, for the facts already 
 stated are sufficient for our purpose. 
 
 The organization of the “ Cenrrat AcEncy,” is briefly alluded to in 
 the last Report of the A. H. M. Society, page 60. “In our former 
 Reports, the “ Western Domestic Missionary Society,’ of the state of 
 New York, which had the seat of its operations in the counties lying 
 in, or contiguous to, the Synod of Utica, has been mentioned as sus- 
 taining a considerable number of missionaries. That Society having 
 been dissolved, and several Presbyteries and individual churches and 
 ministers having expressed a desire that the Domestic Missionary 
 efforts of that region might be more intimately connected with the 
 A. H. M. Society, the Ex. Committee in October last, appointed a 
 Board of Inquiry and Reference, similar to the “ Western Agency,” 
 and denominated the “ Central Agency of the 4, H. M. Society, for the 
 State of New York.” 
 
 As we have already shown that “ most” of the auxiliaries named 
 (five out of eight,) were in successful operation before the A. H. M. 
 Society was formed, we need not stop to inquire when, or by what 
 means, the “ W. D. M. Society” was formed; but we wish to show, 
 that it was in “successful operation’? before it was converted into an 
 “agency.” This may be clearly demonstrated by abrief comparison 
 of the Report of the “ W. D. M. Society,” in 1829, with that of the 
 “ Central Agency,” in 1830. From these reports it appears that the 
 number of missionaries employed in 1829, when the Society was nomi- 
 nally auxiliary, but virtually independent, was 64; the number of congre- 
 
19 
 
 gations supplied “ upwards of one hundred, the amount of expenditures 
 and appropriations, $6324 80; and the receipts and subscriptions, 
 $6506 28.” In 1830, when the Society had been changed into an 
 agency, and was “more intimately connected with the A. H. M. Society,” 
 it had “received applications for twenty-eight different congregations, 
 recommended to the Parent Society appropriations amounting to 
 52116 66, and $1479 25 subscribed for the objects of the Agency.” 
 We think it must now be manifest to every candid mind, that the 
 declarations made in our letter respecting the Auxiliaries of the 
 A. H. M. Society, were founded in truth; and the evidence already 
 adduced on this point, we trust will be satisfactory. We stated dis- 
 tinctly in our letter, and we again affirm, that we did not infentionally 
 institute any “ depreciating comparisons;”’ but as we stand charged be- 
 fore the public with having done so, we will now endeavour to show 
 
 that 1 comparisons have ever been made in fact. [See Appendix, 
 No. II. 
 
 9. THE STRICTURES ON OUR LAST ANNUAL REPORT. 
 
 Under the head of “ Numper or Appointments!” Mr. Peters in his 
 fifth letter quotes from our last Report, page 24, the following passage: 
 “The whole number of appointments and reappointments for the year 
 is 246,’ and then significantly inquires, “ What does this mean? Is it 
 not that 246 appointments, &c. were actually made by the Board, within 
 the year ending May, 1830.” For the year, that is, from May, 1829, 
 to May, 1830.” We answer,—it means what it says. “ For the year,” 
 that is, as we clearly apprehend, the whole number of appointments 
 and reappointments [embraced in the Report| for the year is 246; and 
 not, as Mr. Peters is resolved to have it, “that 246 appointments, 
 &c. were actually made, by the Board, within the year ending May, 
 1830.” The meaning is so perfectly obvious, that we were «truly 
 amazed’’ that it was so grossly misinterpreted. Had the Board really 
 intended to convey the idea suggested by Mr. P. they would undoubt- 
 edly have expressed it clearly, definitely, and perhaps tautologically, 
 as he has done. But they manifestly had no such intention. It would 
 have been palpably erroneous and directly contradictory of facts, repeated 
 more than thirty times in the preceding details. Let the Report be its 
 own interpreter, and no man need mistake its import. The details of 
 the appointments and reappointments show distinctly, not only “ the 
 year,’ but the very month and day when each was “actually made,” 
 and also the precise length of time embraced in each commission; and 
 in these thirty-nine (not forty-one as Mr. P. states,) instances, the fact is 
 therein recorded, that this number of the appointments was “ actually 
 made” before the month of May, 1829. How then could any man, not 
 under the blinding influence of “ very strong doubts,” both of the sanity 
 and veracity of the Board, have even suspected that they intended, 
 directly afterwards, in the very same public and official document, to 
 contradict explicitly those thirty-nine formal details! Had Mr, Peters 
 permitted the Report to speak for itself, his inquiry, “ what does this 
 mean ?”? would have been distinctly answered thirty-nine times! 
 
 If this forced construction be inadmissible, then the report is perfectly 
 consistent with itself, and we shall hereafter make it appear, that it is 
 perfectly consistent also with facts, and that every important statement 
 contained in it is strictly true. 
 
 Mr. Peters represents it as a very extraordinary circumstance that 
 
20 
 
 forty-one, as he says, but thirty-nine, as the Report states, of the ap- 
 pointments named in the Report for the year were the “ very same 
 which were reported the year previous,” and after referring to the cases of 
 Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Bumstead as “ specimens,” he inquires, “is it 
 not plain that thus fo swell the list of appointments ‘for the year,’ by 
 counting forty-one former appointments, is calculated to produce an 
 impression on the public mind, far surpassing the truth, as to the efh- 
 ciency of the Board?’ We answer, positively, no! For if the thirty- 
 nine had not been counted, we should have come just so far short of 
 exhibiting the “truth.” The precise and palpable object of the Board, 
 in all these calculations of appointments, reappointments, and appro- | 
 priations, was to present in bold relief the nconomy of their plan of 
 appropriations. To effect this object they might, with the utmost pro- 
 priety, have made all the appointments and reappointments, and 
 appropriations, embraced in the reports for the fwo years, the basis of 
 their calculations, but this they did not think proper to do, because a 
 similar calculation had already been made in the Report for 1829, 
 and its accuracy had never been called in question, because nearly the whole 
 amount of services to be performed under these thirty-nine appoint- 
 ments which were “actually made,’ but not fulfilled, before May, 1829, 
 came properly within the Report for 1830; and because they wished 
 to show by a direct contrast, that they had actually, in one year, re- 
 duced the average amount of appropriation to each missionary from 
 $300 to $130. These the Board think were sufficient reasons for pre- 
 ferring the method of calculation. adopted, to that which Mr. Peters 
 has been pleased to suggest to them. Had it been the object of the 
 Board, in this calculation, to exhibit the average expense of each 
 year’s labour actually performed, then, undoubtedly, a very different 
 kind of “ basis”? must have been adopted. But this was not their object. 
 The necessity of such a calculation was superseded by the minute 
 statements which were designed immediately to follow it; showing 
 that more than three-fourths of the missionaries employed were to re- 
 ceive from the Board, $100 (or less) each, for a year’s labours and 
 that not a single missionary of the Board, employed in the United 
 States, was to receive more than $200, or half the usual missionary 
 wages. 
 
 It being, then, the exclusive and palpable object of this calculation to 
 exhibit distinctly the economy of the Board in its appropriations, it was 
 not only proper, but indispensably necessary, that all the appointments 
 and reappointments made and accepted, and all the appropriations em- 
 braced in the Report, should be accurately enumerated—and in this 
 enumeration Mr, Peters himself admits, and has taken pains to prove 
 and illustrate the fact, that the Board made no mistake! We sincerely 
 thank him for the frank avowal of this fact, because it will supersede 
 the necessity of any trouble on our part to demonstrate it. Mr. Peters, 
 then, has ascertained, to his own entire satisfaction, that there were 
 (including those of the Secretary and his Assistant) 246 appointments 
 “actually made’’ by the Board, and “accepted,” too, we affirm, for ought 
 that he or we knew to the contrary, at the time the report was made. 
 He has ascertained, that the amount of time is really “in round numbers 
 182 years’’—and therefore the Board in this respect have made no mis- 
 take, and are spared the trouble of another tedious calculation. He 
 has, also, ascertained, he says, that forty-one of these appointments 
 were actually made previous to May, 1829—that “éhree appointments 
 
21 
 
 are reported in connexion with a single name!” —“that six individuals 
 received eighteen appointments and reappointments—that there are 
 thirty-four individuals named in the report as having received iwo ap- 
 pointments each, making sixty-eight appointments to the thirty-four 
 missionaries!” 
 
 But how, and where, did Mr. Peters ascertain all these acknowledged 
 facts? Let him answer for himself. “I have cownted with care all the 
 appointments named in this Report’ —“1 have carefully estimated the 
 time embraced in the 244 appointments named in this Report!! It was, 
 then, by a careful analysis of our own Report—by counting the appoint- 
 ments and reappointments, and by estimating the time named in the 
 Report, that he arrived at the very same results as the Board have 
 briefly stated in words which they hardly deemed it possible for any 
 one to misunderstand—and concerning the import of which, if a doubt 
 should arise, no man can be at a loss, after hastily glancing at the plain 
 and accurate details by which they are preceded in the Report. Why, 
 then, does Mr. Peters complain, and bring forward against the Board, 
 such charges as, if supported, ought not only to deprive them of their 
 arduous office, but also subject them to the severest censures of the 
 Christian church? Simply because he has dlegitimately inferred, from 
 a single expression in their Report, that they intended to say, or ought 
 to have satd—precisely what they never did say—and which they could 
 not have said, without deliberately uttering a palpable and useless false- 
 hood, and that, too, directly in the face of thirty-nine previous declara- 
 tions to the contrary! With such unparalleled folly and iniquity, the 
 Board stand virtually charged before the public, by the Corresponding 
 Secretary of a sister institution—for he affirms, in one place, that their 
 statements in this matter were made “ deliberately and with accuracy,” 
 and in another, that they are “calculated to produce an impression on 
 the public mind far surpassing the truth!’ Yrom this decision of Mr. 
 P., the Board now confidently appeal to that of the Christian public. 
 
 It is a fact somewhat remarkable, that while Mr. Peters has‘ alleged 
 it as a very serious charge against the Board, that they have counted 
 in their Report “for the year 1830,” 41 appointments which were 
 named in the Report for 1829—the very same fact occurs in his own 
 report for 1830 no less than thirty-six [not 39!| times. By referring to 
 the details of that report, it will be found, if we have “counted accurate- 
 ly,” that 36 of the missionaries reported as in commission for twelve 
 months each, “are the very same which were reported the year previous !” 
 The whole amount of labour actually performed by these 36 missiona- 
 ries in commission for one year each, is precisely twelve years and nine 
 months—say, in round numbers, 13 years. If we find it difficult to in- 
 form the public, agreeably to Mr. P.’s request, “how it is” that 198 
 missionaries have received, in a single year, 246 “appointments and 
 reappointments for the year,” we find none at all in showing from the 
 details of his own report, “how it is’? that 36 missionaries are named 
 in that report “for the year,’ as in commission for twelve months 
 each, while the whole amount of service, actually performed by them, 
 was less than thirteen years. We can also show, that at this rate it 
 would require 758 missionaries, in commission for one year each, to 
 perform the 274 years’ labour which was actually done by 392. Ac- 
 cording to this estimate, then, it is plain that 392 missionaries might 
 have “received,” in a single year, 758 “appointments and reappoint- 
 ments” for one year each, in order that 274 years of labour might be 
 
oe 
 
 actually performed. It is a little remarkable, also, that there is nothing 
 in the details of this report connected at all with these estimates, dif- 
 ferent from the details of our own report, except the addition of a co- 
 lumn in which the months of labour actually performed by each mis- 
 sionary are stated. This we omitted to state in our details, (and Mr. 
 Peters did the’same in 1829)—nor was this necessary to a right under- 
 standing of our report. The amount of the labour actually performed 
 by the whole number of our missionaries, was distinctly stated, in the 
 body of our Report, and in immediate connexion with these estimates, 
 to have been “equal to the continued labour of a single individual for 
 more than eighty years.” On this point, therefore, the public were in 
 danger of no mistake. In the details, the precise date of each com- 
 mission was given, and the precise length of time embraced in each; 
 and it was perfectly easy for any one to ascertain in a moment the 
 exact proportion of time embraced in any given commission, which 
 came properly within the particular year for which each report was 
 made—thus in the extreme case (quoted by Mr. Peters) of Mr. Bum- 
 stead; the report for 1829 states that Mr. B. was appointed, Sept. 24, 
 1828, for one year. From this date, until May, 1829, there were seven 
 months and six days—leaving four months and twenty-four days, of the 
 time named in the commission, to be fulfilled after that date. It was 
 of course necessary to name the same appointment in the Report for 
 1830, because four months and twenty-four days of the service actually 
 performed belonged exclusively to the estimate for that year. In the 
 same way, all similar cases in our Report may be explained, if any ex- 
 planation be necessary. We have presented Mr. Bumstead’s as an ex- 
 treme case, because the appointment of Mr. B., and those of the Rev. 
 Joshua Moore and James Smith, were the only appointments ac- 
 tually made in 1828—(whereas thirty-six of the appointments reported 
 by Mr. Peters in 1830, were actually made in 1828, and had been pre- 
 viously named in the Report for 1829)—the remaining thirty-six ap- 
 pointments were actually made in 1829, and most of them but a short 
 time before our Report was prepared; and in our next Report it will 
 appear that not more than six or’seven years of the labour actually per- 
 formed under those commissions really belonged to the amount actually 
 performed in the preceding year. But it was not necessary to deduct 
 these six or seven years from the 182 embraced in our estimate, because 
 it was not the design of that estimate to ascertain the amount of labour 
 actually performed, and the average expense of each year of actual ser- 
 vice, but the whole amount of time specified in all the appointments and 
 reappointments, and the average expense of each year’s labour, accord- 
 ing to this economical plan of appropriations. In the very next line of 
 the Report after this estimate, it is distinctly stated: —* Some of these 
 commissions have been recently issued, and have as yet been fulfilled 
 only in part.” Some of what commissions? Certainly of those em- 
 braced in the estimate, and distinctly recorded in the preceding details. 
 It is difficult for the Board to conceive how this matter could have 
 been more plainly expressed, than it has been in the Reports and it is 
 equally difficult for them to imagine how any man could have mistaken 
 their meaning, as the Secretary of the A. H. M. Society has done. 
 The Board have not brought the Report of their sister institution 
 into comparison with their own, for the purpose of charging upon 
 their brethren, either “ misrepresentations” or dishonesty, but to show, 
 that in their apprehension, it is open to the very same objections as 
 
23 
 
 their own. They do firmly believe, however, that both Reports fully 
 explain themselves, and are essentially correct, in the particulars 
 above named. 
 
 But, as the Secretary of the A. H. M. Society has felt himself not 
 only justified, but constrained by a sense of duty, to subject their official 
 doings, after they have been examined, and approved by the General 
 Assembly, to very severe, extensive, and unmerited censure, the Board 
 deem it proper in their appendix, to notice a few statements, calcu- 
 lated to illustrate the fact, that to “err is human,” and that the best of 
 men are liable to make mistakes. [See Appendix, No. III. | 
 
 Our own report has been “ carefully analyzed” since Mr. Peters’ letters 
 appeared, and we are happy to assure the public, that the result has 
 been a full conviction of its strict accuracy and truth in every particular 
 alluded to by Mr. Peters, with the exception of one typographical error, 
 of which we shall presently speak. If Mr. P. has made no mistake in 
 his own Report, for 1829, we are certamm he has made several in his 
 “ careful examination” of ours. On this point we speak with confi- 
 dence, because we think it is no vanity in us to affirm, that we feel — 
 ourselves better qualified to judge in this matter, than even Mr. Peters 
 himself. We have noticed some of his mistakes in this matter al- 
 ready, and we have others still to mention. In the last part of his fifth 
 letter he arrives at the positive conclusion, that the whole number of 
 appointments “ for one year each,’ is only 136. The Board have never 
 asserted that the whole number of “ appointments’? was 1363 for this 
 would have been erroneous, the number being much less; but their 
 Report does affirm that “the whole number of appointments and re- 
 appointments for the year, is 246. Of these, 159 were for one year 
 each, and 87 for a shorter term.” This is the language of the Report, 
 and the exact truth of this statement the Board do now, after a careful 
 re-examination, positively confirm, although they deem it unnecessary to 
 furnish the public with “the data, by which to account for such a 
 mistake!’ | 
 
 We deem it also unnecessary to make any extended remarks respect- 
 ing the “ specimens,’ (which Mr. P. has exhibited with notes of ex- 
 clamation |!]| and interrogation [?]|) of the appointments and re- 
 appointments, and appointments for two years of the same indivi-. 
 duals! for we have yet to learn, wherein either the impropriety or error 
 of recording such facts, consists. The facts existed, and in giving our 
 details, we deemed it our duty to record them. ‘They are open to the 
 inspection of the public, and need no explanation. 
 
 10. EXPLANATION OF ‘THE “ TABLE.”’ 
 
 On the sixth letter of Mr. Peters, which is much the longest, and the 
 most severe, and, also, the most positive, we shall make but few re- 
 marks, because some of the insinuations contained in it, are accom- 
 panied by their own correctives. An instance of this kind occurs in 
 reference to the “ Zable exhibiting a brief view,” &c. There occurs in 
 this table a real error, and this is frankly admitted. It is, however, 
 merely, and manifestly a typographical error! and the truth of this de- 
 claration, Mr. P. himself virtually demonstrates. We shall state the 
 facts in his own words,—“In the Report for 1829, (page 19) we are 
 told that the * appropriations’ for that year were ‘about $15,000,’ and 
 that the ministerial labour pledged under those appropriations, when 
 performed would amount to ‘more than 50 years,’ and by dividing 
 
24 
 
 $15,000 by 50 years, the result was found to be $300. This the Secre- 
 tary understood and reported as the average expense of each year’s 
 ministerial labour. But in the table before us, the number of years 
 embraced in the commissions named in the previous Report, is defi- 
 nitely stated at 60 years, which is ten years more than the number 
 estimated in the previous Report, while $300, which was the result of 
 $15,000 divided by 50 years, remains the same!”’ Had the difficulty 
 respecting the 60 years been presented to us, we should have said at 
 once, it is manifestly a typographical error, and ought to be 50; and 
 had this been doubted, and proof required, we should have referred, 
 as Mr. P. has done, first to the table itself, where the results of a deli- 
 berate calculation show, that the number required was 50; and secondly, 
 to the Report of the former year, where the number is distinctly stated 
 to be about 50. And to make the demonstration complete, we should 
 have added, that the number /i/ty is distinctly printed three times in ten 
 lines, and twice italicised. And who would then have hesitated to be- 
 lieve, that the error was merely typographical? “ How then shall we 
 account” for the following sarcasm of Mr. P. immediately following his 
 own demonstration? “ How to account for this clashing of statements, 
 and this borrowing of ten, in division, without altering the result, I 
 confess myself at a loss!” 
 
 The entire correctness of the table, with this single exception, is 
 perfectly obvious to the Board, however swollen and contradictory it 
 may appear to Mr. Peters. The principles on which it was manifestly 
 constructed have been so clearly developed in our preceding remarks, 
 that we think it unnecessary to do more than repeat the declaration, 
 that it formed no part of the design of the Board, either expressed or 
 implied, in the estimates made, or in the table based upon them, to 
 exhibit the amount of labour actually performed and the average expense 
 of such labour; but it was their design, both implied and expressed,‘to 
 exhibit distinctly their plan of appropriations, as an illustration of their 
 strict economy. The table simply presents to view the results of the 
 estimates made in the annual Reports; and in those Reports, the pro- 
 cess by which these results were obtained, is accurately stated. Mr. 
 Peters himself admits the correctness of the results, but complains of 
 the process by which they were obtained; and with how much can- 
 dour and kindness, we leave it for an enlightened Christian public to 
 decide. ) 
 
 11. THE TREASURER’S REPORT. 
 
 The last particular embraced in Mr. Peters’ “ disclosure,” we present 
 in his own words, and with his own emphasis, as follows:— 
 
 “ Again, it appears from the Treasurer’s account, appended to the 
 Report for May, 1830, that the receipts of the Board during that year, 
 (exclusive of $1500, ‘ borrowed on the Treasurer’s note, and $702 ‘ due 
 the Treasurer, to balance his accounts,) were $9668. 
 
 “The Secretary in the table before us states the receipts to have 
 been $12,632! ‘The public ought to be told how it is that these two 
 official statements can thus differ $2964, and yet both be right! 
 
 “JT have only to add, on this topic, that, if the Secretary is in the 
 habit of indulging in such statements as the foregoing, in his official 
 Reports and other publications, it is surely time for the 170 members 
 of the Board of Missions, to give their attention to this matter, and by 
 interposing their authority, to put a stop to representations, so mani- 
 festly tending to mislead the public mind.” 
 
25 
 
 _ In reference to the insinuations contained in the preceding sentences, 
 and in many other parts of Mr. Peters’s letters, and aimed directly at 
 their Corresponding Secretary, the Board have only to say, that they 
 are happy to be identified with him in all the official documents which 
 he has heretofore presented to the public, and in that which he has now 
 prepared, in compliance with our instructions. They take pleasure, 
 also, in assuring the public, that their Secretary is in the habit “of in- 
 dulging in such statements” as contain and exhibit truth, as we think 
 we have fully demonstrated in the preceding vindication of his con- 
 duct and ours, from all the charges which have been published to the 
 world, by Mr. Peters. If further proof be needed, of the utterly 
 groundless suspicions indulged and expressed by Mr. P. respecting the 
 veracity of the Board and their Secretary, it is furnished in the facts 
 connected with this last subject of his animadversions. The public 
 then shall “be told how it is that these two official statements can thus 
 differ $2964, and yet both be right!’ The T reasurer, Solomon ALLEN, 
 Esq. was “right,” because he reported precisely the amount which 
 he had actually received. The Secretary, also, was right, because he 
 stated in the body of his Report, as he was in duty bound to do, the 
 whole amount of the monies which had actually been received during 
 the year, not only by Mr. Allen, but also by Isaac SNowvEN, Esq. who 
 acted as the Treasurer of the Board, for a part of the year, before 
 Mr. Allen accepted his appointment and entered upon the discharge of 
 his duties. The problem of Mr. Peters then is solved: his demands 
 are answered: his charges are refuted: and the Secretary and Trea- 
 surer of the Board are placed before the public unimpeached! — 
 
 In the Appendix to this Reply, No. IV., there will be found a state- 
 ment of facts, in reference to the “ radical difference’? between the plans 
 and operations of the Board, and those of the A. H. M. Society, which 
 we deem highly important and indispensably necessary, to a complete 
 vindication of the principles upon which our missionary operations 
 have hitherto been conducted. After an attentive perusal of this com- 
 munication, and a careful examination of that part of our Appendix, 
 in connexion with the second number of the same, we are entirely con- 
 fident, that those principles will be highly approved by the Christian 
 public, and that the conviction on every candid mind will be deep and 
 irresistible; that the charges alleged against the Board by Mr. Peters, 
 were entirely gratuitous, and manifestly unjust. We cannot find lan- 
 guage to express the regret and astonishment excited in our own 
 minds, both by the unwarrantable manner, and the extraordinary 
 matter, of these unfounded charges. We were utterly unconscious of 
 having betrayed the trust reposed in us by the General Assembly, or 
 of having given any just occasion of offence to any kindred institution 
 in our land. Shortly after the reorganization of the Board, in 1828, 
 we addressed to the A. B. C. F. Missions at Boston, and to the 
 A. H. M. Society at New York, respectful and affectionate communi- 
 cations, distinctly avowing our plans and principles of action, and prof- 
 fering on our part, what we earnestly solicited from them, a friendly 
 correspondence and co-operation in the great and hallowed work of 
 forwarding the missionary enterprise. We distinctly recognised, and 
 cordially saluted both, as independent, but sister institutions, and 
 manifested our disposition to reciprocate cheerfully all the offices of 
 Christian courtesy and kindness. In our letter to the Committee of 
 the Cincinnati Presbytery, we said, and now repeat it,—“the Board 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 simply claim what they cheerfully yield to others, the privilege of moving 
 forward ‘kindly, peaceably and independently, to the occupancy and 
 improvement of such portions of the wide spread desolations, as may 
 be fully opened to their view, and need their assistance.”” Under such 
 circumstances we could hardly have believed it possible, had we not 
 been furnished with an ocular demonstration of the fact, that we 
 should ever be assailed by the Corresponding Secretary of the A. H. 
 M. Society, not with calm, dispassionate and conclusive arguments, 
 but with the unholy weapons of wit, irony and sarcasm. Such a 
 course, however, has been deliberately adopted by the Secretary; and 
 if confirmation of the painful fact be required by any, let them procure 
 and read for themselves, and candidly interpret the letters of Mr. P. as 
 originally published in the “ Cincinnati Journal,’ and republished, 
 recently, in the “New York Evangelist.” To all the allegations 
 brought against us, we have endeavoured to reply in that spirit of 
 meekness and forbearance, which the gospel demands; and we now 
 willingly commit the whole matter to the church of the living God, 
 and its glorious Head, in the full assurance of hope, that the great and 
 benevolent enterprise in which we are engaged, will be vigorously 
 sustained by the counsels, the prayers, and the offerings of all who 
 earnestly desire the prosperity of Zion, and the universal reign of the 
 Prince of Peace. | 
 
 In the name, and by order of the Board of Missions 
 
 of the Presbyterian Church. 
 JOSHUA. T. RUSSELL, 
 
 Corresponding Secretary. 
 
 Office of the Board, Philadelphia, March 2, 1831. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 Office of the Board of Missions, No. 25, Sansom street. 
 Philadelphia, September 15, 1830. 
 
 To the Rev. Messrs. J. L. Wilson, D. D.,.S. Thomson, D. Root, and J. 
 Gallagher, Committee of Correspondence of the Presbytery of Cin- 
 cinnati. | | 
 
 GENTLEMEN, f 
 
 Your important communication of the 26th of July, was received at this office on the 
 6th of August, and laid before the Board of Missions on the 10th of the same month. 
 On account of the absence of many members of the Board from the city, it was deemed 
 best to defer the particular consideration of your communication until after their re- 
 turn, in order that a full meeting might be secured. Of this decision you were duly 
 informed. On the 7th of the present month a special meeting of the Board was held, 
 and your letter was again read; and after some deliberation, a decision on the matter 
 submitted was postponed until the 14th inst. At three o’clock yesterday afternoon, 
 
 ‘the Board was again convened, and the following members were present, viz—Dr. 
 Green, Mr. M‘Calla, Mr. Pratt, of Georgia, Mr. Russell, Mr. Winchester, Mr. Barnes, 
 Mr. Sanford, Mr. Engles, Dr. Skinner, Mr. Allen, Mr. M‘Mullin, and Mr. Smith; and 
 the result of their deliberations is expressed in the following minute and resolutions, 
 which were adopted without a single dissenting voice. 
 
 ‘“‘A communication from the Cincinnati Presbytery, signed by a committee of several 
 clergymen, was read, suggesting the propriety of establishing a united agency in the 
 West, through which the Board of Missions, and the A. H. M. Society, might unitedly 
 conduct their missionary operations. After a full conversation on this subject, it was 
 
 “Resolved, That while this Board have the highest confidence in the integrity and 
 purity of motives of the Committee of the Cincinnati Presbytery, in the suggestions 
 which they have submitted in respect to a united agency in the West for conducting 
 missionary operations; and while they sincerely regret that any difficulties and colli- 
 sions should have arisen in the prosecution of this great and important work, they are 
 nevertheless constrained, by a sense of duty to many of the churches and Presbyteries 
 in the West, which are already auxiliary to this Board, on the plan which has been ap- 
 proved by the General Assembly; as well as by their own earnest desire to pursue such 
 a course as they deem best adapted to secure the permanent peace and tranquillity of 
 the churches, to express their full conviction of the entire inexpediency of attempting 
 to organize such a United Agency in the West. 
 
 “Resolved, That the Ex. Committee prepare and forward to the Committee of the 
 Cincinnati Presbytery a respectful letter, presenting in detail the reasons which have 
 conducted this Board to the conclusion above expressed.” 
 
 In compliance with the resolution of the Board, and in behalf of the Ex. Committee, 
 I now proceed, gentlemen, to lay before you some of the reasons which, in the opinion 
 of the Board of Missions, render any further attempts to establish a United Agency in 
 the West, entirely inexpedient. 
 
 1. The Board deem such attempts entirely inexpedient, because the Union contem- 
 plated would be incongruous. Between the Board of Missions and the A. H. M. So- 
 ciety, there is a radical difference in the principles of their organization, responsibili- 
 ties, and plan of operations. The one is strictly ecclesiastical, the other as strictly 
 voluntary. The one is directly responsible to the highest judicatory of the church for 
 all its acts, and is, in all respects, under its immediate and constant supervision and 
 control—the other is responsible only to a small number of private individuals, and 
 those, too, widely scattered over the country, and actually at variance in their views 
 of doctrine, discipline, and ecclesiastical polity. The one proposes to conduct all its 
 distant operations chiefly by the agency of Sessions and Presbyterics—the other by 
 voluntary associations and agencies wholly disconnected with ecclesiastical judicato- 
 ries. Such being the true state of the case, it is perfectly obvious, that the Union pro- 
 
 _ posed,.if assented to, on the part of this Board, would imply an utter abandonment of 
 that whole plan of operations which they have formed with great i a and care, 
 
28 
 
 which has repeatedly been approved by the Assembly, and under their full sanction 
 been earnestly recommended to the churches and Presbyteries in every part of our 
 country. It may, indeed, be said, that the ultimate object of these two missionary 
 Boards is essentially the same—to supply the destitute with an able and faithful minis- 
 try; and that therefore minor differences, as to the particular method of effecting this 
 great object, should be disregarded. It is also true that evangelical Episcopalians, and 
 sound Presbyterians, have the same ultimate object in view, in all their missionary 
 operations—but still a union, between these distinct denominations, for the purpose of 
 effecting this object, would be regarded by both as extremely unnatural and incon- 
 gruous—and by the members of this Board, the proposed union between this ecclesias- 
 tical Society, and an irresponsible voluntary association, is regarded somewhat in the 
 same light. 
 
 2. The Board deem further attempts to effect this union entirely inexpedient, be- 
 cause it would at once dissolve an auxiliary connexion which has recently been formed, 
 at considerable labour and expense, and after very mature deliberation, between this 
 Board, and a large number of congregations and Presbyteries in the West. In the 
 valley of the Mississippi there are, at the present time, ten or fifteen Presbyteries, and 
 about two hundred Sessions, which sustain to this Board a direct auxiliary relation ; 
 and in all these judicatories the plans of the Board have been fully approved, and cor- - 
 dially adopted, and are now in very successful operation; and it is morally certain that 
 the dissolution of this relation would be highly injurious to the cause of domestic mis- 
 sions. 
 
 3. The Board deem further attempts at union entirely inexpedient, because they are 
 fully convinced that the proposed Union would be utterly disapproved of, and rejected 
 by a large number of the Presbyteries and a still larger number of the Sessions and © 
 congregations in the West. Not a doubt is entertained by a single member of the 
 Board, that you express in your letter of the 26th of July, the honest and deliberate 
 convictions of your own minds when you say, “ this communication speaks the senti- 
 ments of a large majority of the brethren in the West, who have seriously deliberated 
 on this matter.” In this opinion, however, the Board do not, by any means, agree 
 with the Committee. For the last eighteen months, the Board have maintained an 
 extensive correspondence with pastors, churches and presbyteries in the West, and by 
 means of such correspondence, together with the reports of their missionaries. and 
 agents, they have acquired, as they conceive, a pretty ‘accurate knowledge of the 
 views and feelings of the people generally, in reference to this matter. In the course 
 of this extended correspondence, they have received, not only from individual minis- 
 ters and laymen of high standing and influence, but also, from several important Ses- 
 sions, Presbyteries and Synods, the most satisfactory assurances of strong attachment, 
 and decided preference. From the same official sources they have also learned, that 
 many of the presbyteries, and a very large number of the ministers, and sessions in the 
 West, are decidedly opposed to a united agency there for missionary purposes. Nor 
 is the most decided opposition to all measures of the kind, suggested by the committee, 
 confined to the West; it exists, also, in many Presbyteries and Synods of the middle 
 and southern States, and their views on this subject have been clearly and repeatedly 
 expressed to this Board. 
 
 4. The Board deem further attempts at union entirely inexpedient, because they do 
 honestly and fully believe, that, if it could be effected, it would greatly increase the very 
 evils it is designed to remove. The committee state, that there are serious collisions 
 and contentions existing among ministers and churches in the West, in reference to 
 missionary operations. Now, if such be the state of things at present, when every 
 presbytery, pastor, and session, are at perfect liberty, both by the decisions of their 
 respective synods, and of the General Assembly itself, to connect themselves with 
 either Board, as shall be most agreeable to their own wishes, how much greater would 
 such collisions and contentions be, if those who have already made their election, and 
 formed their plan of operations, should suddenly be compelled to abandon their favourite 
 plan, and to adopt another to which they are avowedly and decidedly averse! The 
 Board cannot hesitate to believe, that the, consequences would be disastrous in the 
 extreme; and they do most earnestly deprecate the experiment proposed. 
 
 >. The Board deem this measure entirely inexpedient, because they are fully per- 
 suaded that, under existing circumstances, a far greater amonnt of good will be 
 accomplished by the distinct and separate action of the two Boards, than could pos- 
 sibly be effected by a united agency. Their conclusions on this subject are based on 
 existing facts, and for a clear development of these facts, they would respecttully 
 refer the Committee to the last Annual Reports, of the Board of Missions, and the 
 A.H.M. Society. From these it will be clearly ascertained, that while the H. M. 
 Society has been steadily and rapidly advancing, for the last two years, in its career 
 
29 
 
 of usefulness, extending its operations, augmenting its resources, and increasing its 
 number of missionaries, the Board of Missions has in the mean time, been reorganized 
 by the Assembly, and under the most appalling difficulties and discouragements, has 
 been brought up to the missionary work, with a degree of energy and success, which 
 has far exceeded the most sanguine expectations of its friends, and already secured 
 the confidence and patronage of many who were decidedly opposed to its reorganiza- 
 tion. By carefully analyzing these Reports, it will be found, that the Board of Missions 
 have actually sent into the ‘held, during the last year, a larger number of missionaries, 
 than the A. H. M. Society, as such, has done. Of the 392 missionaries reported by 
 the latter Society, it will be found that 196 are employed and sustained, not by the 
 Parent Society, but by auxiliary societies, the most of which were in successful opera- 
 tion, long before the A.H. M. Society was formed; whereas, the 198 reported by the 
 Assembly’s Board, (to which number more than 40 have been added, since the Report 
 was made,) are all employed and sustained by the Board alone, wit the agency of 
 a single auxiliary of the kind just named. This comparison is n stituted either 
 for the purpose of detracting from the merits of the A. H. M. Society, or boasting of 
 the success which has crowned the humble efforts of the Board of Missions; but it is 
 instituted simply for the purpose of presenting more distinctly to your view, interest- 
 ing facts in reference to both these favoured institutions, for the existence of which, 
 all who love the missionary cause, are bound to give thanks to the great Head of the 
 Church, and in view of which, the members of this Board cannot entertain a doubt, 
 that the separate and independent operations of these two Boards, have hitherto been 
 blest of God, to the spiritual benefit of many thousands in our land, who would other- 
 wise have remained destitute of the regular administration of the Word and ordinances 
 of religion. By the exhibition of these facts to the last General Assembly, thesame 
 conviction was produced upon the minds of the members generally, as has been express- 
 ed by this Board in the foregoing resolution; and it was under this conviction of the 
 inexpediency of the plan of union proposed to them by the Cincinnati Presbytery, 
 that the proposition was dismissed by a large majority of that venerable body. The 
 good actually accomplished, is apparent to all; but the difficulties and collisions com- 
 plained of by the Committee, appear to be apprehended by comparatively few of the 
 churches and presbyteries. 
 
 The Board of Missions have never yet experienced, nor do they now apprehend any 
 serious evils, arising out of the separate action of the two general societies. On this 
 subject, they have never yet uttered a single complaint, nor have they any to make. 
 They do most sincerely bid their sister institution, God speed, in all judicious efforts 
 to build up the waste places of Zion in every part of the land, and in all the prosperity 
 and successes of that institution, they do most unfeignedly rejoice. There remaineth 
 yet very much land to be possessed, and the Board simply claim what they cheerfully 
 yield to others, the privilege of moving forward kindly, peaceably, and independently, 
 to the occupancy and improvement of such portions of the wide spread desolations, as 
 may be fully opened to their view, and need their assistance. 
 
 6. The Board deem further attempts to effect the proposed union, entirely inexpedi- 
 ent, because all past efforts to effect this object have not only failed, but they have 
 also occasioned serious disquietude and dissatisfaction, not only in the minds of the 
 friends of the Board generally, but also in the minds of many of the warm friends of 
 the H. M. S., in this section of the country. It is now nearly two years, since the se- 
 cretary of the H. M.S. presented in person to this Board, a plan of union between the 
 two societies. He then urged at full length, the reasons which rendered a union de- 
 sirable in his own view, and in that of the Committee in New York. The whole sub- 
 ject was then very maturely canvassed and candidly considered by this Board, and the 
 result was a full conviction of the utter inexpediency of the proposed union. Since 
 that time the subject of a general union, and also of a limited union in the Valley of 
 the Mississippi, has been presented in various forms and aspects before this Board, 
 and the decision of the Board, and of its friends generally throughout the country, has 
 uniformly been the same. From. the proceedings of the last Assembly in reference to 
 this matter, it is perfectly manifest, that a large majority of its members entirely ap- 
 proved of this decision. The Board do very deeply regret, that the Presbytery of Cin- 
 cinnati should have thought it necessary, after the doings of the Assembly, to agitate 
 again this unpleasant subject, and they do now, gentlemen, earnestly and affectionately 
 entreat you, and through you, the Presbytery,to consider prayerfully the resolution 
 which they have adopted, and the reasons which they have assigned for it. They 
 have no doubt, the Presbytery have been actuated by the purest motives in the mea- 
 sures they have adopted, and in the propositions they have directed you to make to 
 this Board. Your communication has been received, and considered in the same spirit 
 
 ‘of kindness and candour with which it was submitted; and after having bestowed upon 
 
30 
 
 it the most careful and prayerful deliberation, the Board find themselves under the 
 painful necessity of expressing in the most decided manner, an opinion entirely differ- 
 ent from that of their brethren of the Committee and Presbytery. While the Board 
 feel themselves solemnly constrained to adopt this course, they do nevertheless cherish 
 the most fraternal affection and regard for the Committee and the Presbytery whom 
 they represent, and they wish them to be assured, that the Board will promptly adopt 
 all proper and consistent measures in their power, to prevent collisions, and to promote 
 peace and harmony throughout the churches. The Board do most sincerely believe, 
 that if the churches in the West, are left to make their own election of the particular 
 channel through which their charities shall flow forth to bless the perishing, and the 
 Presbyteries to adopt and pursue such plans as they may severally deem most expedi- 
 ent to promote the cause of Missions, existing evils will soon be removed, and harmony 
 and peace will pervade every section of the church, in reference to future Missionary 
 
 operations. . 
 BPic: of the Ex. Committee, and in the name and in behalf of the Board 
 of Missions of the General Assembly, I am, gentlemen, very respect-. 
 
 fully, yours, &c. 
 JOSHUA T. RUSSELL, 
 Corresponding Secretary. 
 No. Il. 
 
 In the letter of the Board to the Committee, it will be perceived, that they have dis- 
 tinctly stated the specific object of the brief and candid comparison, which they deemed 
 it proper to institute between their own doings, and those of the A. H. M. Society. 
 They have solemnly disavowed the intentions imputed to them, and they are utterly 
 unable to discover, in this letter, any just grounds of offence. A more minute and ex- 
 tended comparison (which would certainly have been strictly just and honourable) 
 would have led to results far more favourable to the Board, than any which have been 
 stated in their letter. Such a comparison it is now necessary to make, in order to vin- 
 dicate the Board from the charges, on this point, alleged against them by Mr. Peters. 
 
 The following statements, which have all been derived from official documents, 
 published to the world, will clearly show, that the “comparisons” heretofore instituted, 
 were very far from having a tendency to “ depreciate the doings of the A. H. M. So- 
 ciety, and to magnify those of the Board.” 
 
 The A. H. M. Society, it is wellknown, was first organized in the year 1826. “The 
 United Domestic Missionary Society” of New York, had then been in “ successful ope- 
 ration” for four years, and reported at that time 127 missionaries, and 148 churches 
 and congregations aided. From this local society, the national institution originated ; 
 and in order that the doings of the national society, ‘‘as such,’ may be fairly and fully 
 compared with those of the Assembly’s Board, “as such,” since its reorganization in 
 1828, we must ascertain the precise increase of missionaries actually employed and 
 sustained by each. ; 
 
 In 1830, the A. H. M. Society reported 392 missionaries. From this number, let 
 the 127, reported by the “ U. D. M. Society, out of which it was formed, be deducted, 
 and the actual increase in the four years will be 265. But a large proportion of these 
 were reported to the National Society as having been employed and sustained by aux- 
 iliary societies, which had been in suceessful operation before the A. H. M. Society 
 was formed. In 1828, the “ N. H. Missionary Society,” the “ Vermont D. M. So- 
 ciety,” and the “ Hampshire Missionary Society,” and in 1829, the ‘ Maine Missionary 
 Society,” were announced as auxiliaries to the A. H. M. Society, and the whole num- 
 ber of missionaries reported by these auxiliaries, at the time when they were formally 
 recognised as such, was 98. In 1829, the “ Western Domestic Missionary Society,” 
 which was then formally auxiliary, but virtually independent, and which has since be- 
 come an Agency, reported 64 missionaries—total, 162—which, deducted from 265, 
 leaves 103. From this calculation it will be seen, that if the several societies above 
 named had remained independent, as they were before their connexion with the A. H. 
 M. Society ; and if they had continued their operations, wzthout any increase of their 
 number of missionaries, until 1830, they would then have had in their employment 289 
 missionaries—so that the actual increase of missionaries, secured by the operations of 
 the A. H. M. Society, “‘as such,” in four years, was precisely 103—whereas the actual 
 increase of missionaries secured by the operations of the Board of Missions, “as such,”’ 
 in two years after its reorganization in 1828, was 167, the Board having commenced 
 in 1828, after its reorganization with 31 missionaries, and having reported in 1830, 198. 
 Such, it appears from the Reports of the several societies above named, are really the 
 facts in this case ; and even in this estimate, we are very far from ‘“ depreczating” the 
 doings of the A. H. M. Society, as such, for we think it would not be unreasonable to 
 
~ 
 
 $1 ‘" 
 
 suppose, that the increase of missionaries would have been nearly as great, if the seve- 
 ral societies had continued to act separately, as it has been, by their ‘united action.” 
 
 No. III. 
 
 In the Report of the A. H. M. Society, for 1829, page 10, the Committee say—“ In 
 the third year, which is embraced in the present report, the number of congregations 
 and missionary districts aided, has been 401, and the number of missionaries and agents 
 employed 304”—and yet in the details of the same report it is distinctly stated, that 
 jive of these missionaries, the Rev. Messrs. Bradford, Espy, Orr, Osborn, and Stone, 
 did not fulfil their appointments at all—one having declined—one having settled—two 
 having engaged in the service of other societies, and one having removed. Two others 
 (the Rev. S. W. May and H. Ford) are included in the 304, the former of whom had 
 twenty-one, and the latter only seven days to serve in the year. Three others made 
 no reports, and did not fulfil their appointments, as it appears from the subsequent Re- 
 port. Let these ten be deducted, and the whole number will be reduced to 294. Had 
 instances like these been embraced in the Report of the Board for 1830, the number of 
 their missionaries might easily have been “ swollen” to considerably more than 200— 
 but they deemed this improper, and therefore, in all cases where they had information 
 that missionaries declined their appointments, or had engaged in the service of other 
 societies, they omitted to name them in the Report. The extraordinary example set 
 by Mr. Peters, in his anitmadversions upon the letter of the Board, would justify a dis- 
 tinct chapter on “ ERRONEOUS ASSERTIONS,” embracing no less than ten formal “ cor- 
 rections” on this single item of his Report for 1829. “ 4 just regard to the honour and 
 purity of our benevolent institutions” does not, however, appear to us ‘ imperiously to 
 demand” such an “exposure!” We cannot persuade ourselves to believe, that Mr. 
 Peters really intended to deceive the public, or improperly to “ magnify” the doings of 
 the A. H. M. Society; and although these, and a few statements, also, in reference to 
 the amount of labour actually performed, may require explanation, yet we deem it en- 
 tirely unnecessary and inexpedient to enter into a “ careful calculation,” to ascertain 
 whether all the estimates contained in the Annual Reports of the A. H. M. Society, 
 correspond precisely with our own views of the “ accuracy which ought to character- 
 ize the reports of a Missionary Board.” For ourselves, we have very great confidence 
 in the strict integrity and veracity of the managers of our benevolent institutions ge- 
 nerally—and while we are fully sensible, that all our brethren are liable to mistakes, 
 we do firmly believe that none of them are capable of an intentional fraud upon the 
 
 public. 
 No. IV. 
 
 The following statements are designed to confirm and illustrate the assertions made 
 by the Board of Missions, and denied by Mr. Peters, respecting the radical difference 
 between the A. H. M. Society and the Board of Missions. The most prominent points 
 of difference are exhibited in the following particulars :— 
 
 1. The Origin, Title, and Jurisdiction of the two Institutions. 
 
 The Board of Missions was first established by the General Assembly in 1816, pre- 
 cisely ten years before the A. H. M. Society was formed. It was reorganized on its 
 present plan, by the same ecclesiastical body, in 1828, just ‘wo years after that society 
 was instituted. The Board then owes its existence to the whole Presbyterian church 
 in the United States, as represented in the Assemblies of 1816 and 1828. It, there- 
 fore, justly claims to be, “the Board of Missions acting under the care of the General 
 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.” To this body it is directly 
 responsible, and it is under its ‘‘ constant” control, just as truly as ‘the Vational So- 
 ciety,” as Mr. P. says in the Appendix to his Report for 1830, p. 65, is “ consTANTLY 
 in session!” The Board, then, has a distinctive character. It is really and exclu- 
 sively a Presbyterian institution. Its operations are consequently limited to Presbyte- 
 rian churches, and over no other churches does its jurisdiction extend. The A. H. M. 
 Society claims to be a “national institution.” Its members and officers appertain to 
 three distinct denominations of Christians, viz —Preshyterians, Congregationalists, and 
 Dutch Reformed, voluntarily associated together, for missionary purposes. According 
 to the sixth article of the Constitution, the Society may be composed of as many dif- 
 
 . ferent denominations as there are to be found in the United States—for it says ex- 
 
 pressly, “any person may become a member of this Society by contributing annually 
 to its funds.” Its officers and directors are to be annually appointed by the Society, 
 which may thus be formed; and these officers and directors are to appoint an Ex. 
 Committee ; and among the powers of this Ex. Committee, the following are enume- 
 
rT 
 
 3 0112 059259108 
 
 rated in the fourth article of the Constitution—they “shall appotmt missionaries, and 
 instruct them as to the field and manner of their labours; shall have the disposal of 
 the funds; shall create such agency or agencies for appointing missionaries, and for 
 other purposes, as the interests of the institution may require.” Now, if these be not 
 prominent features of a society strictly and exclusively voluntary, and entirely inde- 
 _ pendent of all ecclesiastical control, then it is impossible for such an institution to have 
 an existence. From this voluntary society, which is also national, all agencies directly 
 emanate, and these agencies are empowered by the Constitution to “ appoint mission- 
 aries,’ &c. ‘Two such agencies have been established in the central and western parts 
 of the State of New York, and one in Cincinnati, Ohio, for:the whole valley of the 
 Mississippi, embracing one-third of the population of the Union. By these voluniary 
 agencies, “ which are wholly disconnected with ecclesiastical judicatories,” the Society 
 does “‘ PROPOSE (in tts. very Constitution) to conduct its distant operations.’ The Con- 
 stitution of the A. H. M. Society no where recognises the existence of any “ ecclesias- 
 tical judicatories,” to whom it acknowledges the slightest responsibility, or ‘‘ over 
 whose heads” it-may not constitutionally pass, to collect funds, to establish agencies, 
 and to locate missionaries. 
 
 In the Appendix to the Fourth Annual Report of the A. H. M. Society, there are 
 certain “terms and stipulations recommended by the Ex. Committec,” by which any 
 local societies, whether voluntary or ecclesiastical, may, on condition of becoming auz- 
 lvary, enjoy certain przvileges which are withheld from those who are not auxiliary— 
 but does this imply responsibility to ecclesiastical judicatories? Mr. P. affirms, that 
 the Society is “responsible to its own members.” ‘What does this mean?” The 
 members of a society constitute the society. It is therefore responsible only to itself. 
 
 . 2. Appropriations, Pledges, and Outfits. 
 
 A very few facts will serve to show, that there is a manifest and very wide differ- 
 ence in these particulars, if in no others, between the plans of the Board and the So- 
 ciety. In this connexion, the practical utility of the offensive “table” and “ estimates” 
 of the Board will be evident. In the last Annual Report of the Board, it was stated, 
 hoth in the body of the Report and in the tabular view, that the whole amount of * ap- 
 propriations’’ for 182 years’ service, was $23,782.34. Let this estimate be compared 
 with the ‘“ pledges” given to forty-two missionaries by the A. H. M. Society, and it 
 will be found, that $16,800 (exclusive of outfits) were pledged for forty-two years of 
 ministerial service. In the Report for 1830, p. 40, the committee say, “in reference 
 to these forty-two missionaries, that they have found it “‘necéssary to assume their 
 entire support, including such sums as they derive from the fields on which they labour.” 
 And from the tables connected with the detazls of that Report, it appears that these 
 forty-two missionaries were appointed for one year each, and that the ‘months of aid 
 pledged” were twelve to each missionary. Of these forty-two missionaries, eighteen 
 were located in the State of Ohio. The amount of aid “ pledged” to the eighteen, was 
 $7200. The Board of Missions reported last year thirty-six missionaries in Ohio, and 
 twenty-six of these were appointed for one year each, and the whole amount appro- 
 
 priated to the twenty-siz, was only $2585. On this plan of appropriations, then, the | 
 
 amount pledged by the A. H..M. Society for ezghteen years’ labour in Ohio, exceeded 
 the amount which would have been pledged by the Assembly’s Board, for seventy-two 
 years’ labour in the same State. This, too, is exclusive of “ owéfits.” In the last Re- 
 port of the Society we are furnished with no “data” by which the amount of outfits 
 can be accurately ascertained—but from the Report for 1829, it appears that seven of 
 the missionaries who were appointed to Ohio that year, (whose ‘entire support, in- 
 cluding such sums as they derive from the fields on which they labour,” was pledged) 
 received “ outfits” to the amount of $295; and that seven others, appointed to different 
 States, received similar “pledges” and “ outfits” to the amount of $585. Total amount 
 of outfits, to fourteen missionaries, eight hundred and eighty dollars. But the Board 
 of Missions, although they have more or less missionaries in nearly all the Wéstern 
 and Southern States of the Union, never allow a single dollar by way of outfiti—nor do 
 they find it ‘‘necessary” in any case to become responsible for more than one-half the 
 ordinary missionary pay, or $200 for a year's service. _ 
 
 It is readily admitted that the A. H. M. Society, as an independent association, has 
 a right to pledge its funds in such way as may be most agreeable to its members, to 
 whom, alone, as Mr. P. says, they are “ responsible’—and it is neither our province, 
 nor our intention, to bring any “charges” or complaints against them for so doing. 
 
 But we do claim it as the right, and regard it as the duty of the Board, and its friends, 
 
 to present very distinctly to the public, these important points of “radical difference” 
 between the plan of appropriation adopted by the Board, and the plan of pledges and 
 outfits chosen by the A. H. M. Society. 
 
 s 
 
 ; 
 | 
 
 er