as they shall choose, or wherever the providence of God may call them? The ecclesiastical act gives them their authority as ministers, and beyond this the control of the presbytery extends no further than to the exercise of a salutary discipline over them as members. The presbytery, it is true, may ordain evangelists for the purpose of their becoming missionaries, [see chap. 17.] but this does not make them missionaries; it only makes them ministers, with authority to preach the gospel and administer its ordinances, but still perfectly free to exercise their official functions, as evangelists, or as pastors or missionaries, on their own agreement with whatever individuals, congregations, churches or societies may choose to employ them, and they are responsible to the presbytery only for the correct discharge of their duties as ministers in whichever of these spheres of labor they may choose to engage. The whole work of employing and sustaining missionaries, either at home or abroad, is embraced in what is sometimes denominated the secular function, of the work. This, as we understand it, is the doctrine of the. presbyterian system, and it is in full accordance with the views of the author of the "Plea," which are correctly and very clearly stated as follows:

A large majority of those who have, hitherto, been most actively engaged in promoting the cause of missions, and other objects of christian philanthropy, have regarded themselves as perfectly free to associate, for these purposes, in any manner which might seem best adapted to the object. The right of individual property being secured to them by the principles of the Bible, as well as the laws of the land, they have supposed that, by the laws of Christ's house, they possess entire personal liberty, and are under solemn obligations, to dispose of it according to their best discretion, for useful purposes. Their associations for such purposes have, accordingly, been free and voluntary, unsupported by civil or ecclesiastical power. Such are most of the great benevolent societies of this country, the Bible, the Tract, the Sunday School, the Education, the Home and Foreign Missionary and Temperance societies. The supporters of these institutions have been accustomed to discriminate between those duties which are appropriate to the official functionaries of the church, such as the preservation of doctrinal purity, the maintenance of discipline, the ordination and government of the ministry, etc., and those personal duties which are submitted to the discretion of individual Christians. To the latter class, in their view, belong the contribution and disbursement of money for the support of missions and other purposes of benevolence; and in the exercise of their individual discre

tion, guided by the light of God's countenance and favor, they have voluntarily associated in the missionary societies above named, whose operations are conducted by boards of trust, chosen annually for the single purpose of exploring and supplying, to the extent of the means placed at their disposal, the wants of the destitute. These boards are accountable only to the christian community, whose servants they are, and are dependent on their faithful and successful exertions for public confidence and patronage. They have no concern with the licensing or government of the ministry, nor with any thing that appertains to the authority of church courts, but are helpers of the church, as faithful members, by employing and sustaining such missionaries only as are approved by the proper judicatories and pronounced qualified for their work.

All then, that is claimed by voluntary societies is what is denominated the secular part of the work. This we maintain, is the whole of the work. At least it is all about which there is any dispute. The real question at issue is whether the presbyterian church, as such, and as she is represented in her ecclesiastical courts, is bound, by her constitution, to assume and conduct the work of missions, as above explained in the "Plea," or whether this work may be conducted by voluntary societies?

On the other hand, it is the opinion of many, that efforts for the supply of the spiritually destitute and for the conversion of the world, ought to be submitted to the supervision and control of ecclesiastical bodies, and that the authority of these bodies to organize and direct such operations is the same as that which they possess for the preservation of doctrine and for the maintenance of discipline. Here it is proper to say that there is considerable diversity of opinion among the friends of ecclesiastical organizations as to the extent to which the authority of the church should reach in controlling benevolent efforts. Some Christians in this country, and more in Great Britain, contend that Bible and Tract societies, and even Temperance and other associations for the promotion of christian morals, should be amenable to ecclesiastical courts. Others are of opinion that societies for the advancement of objects which are in a degree secular, like that of the American Colonization society, should not be connected with the church. Bible and Tract societies, in the view of many, afford common ground for the united efforts of Christians of different denominations; while missions foreign and domestic, and the education of men for the ministry are matters which properly come within the precincts of ecclesiastical orVOL. IX. No. 26.

62

ganizations. On this last point there is some apparent division of sentiment. It is maintained, on the one hand, that the funds of the members of the church, by the laws of all social order, ought to come into the treasury of the body to which its possessors belong; while, on the other, liberty is granted, at least nominally, to all Christians to cast their charities into whatever channel they please. This seems, however, to be a distinction without a difference. All the members of a denomination, it would appear, are bound to see, in the first place, that the organized boards of their own denomination are fully supplied with funds. When this is done, the surplus may be elsewhere bestowed. But here is a case where no surplus revenue will be likely to accrue. In the present condition of the country and the world, any missionary board, which is well managed, may profitably employ all the pecuniary means which any one denomination can supply.

In the prosecution of his inquiry the author adduces the following objection to ecclesiastical organizations for missionary pur

poses:

For church courts to assume the control and direction of missionary operations and disbursements is an attempt to subject to ecclesiastical legislation that which the Great Head of the church has left to the unbiassed decision of every man's conscience. Though Jesus Christ has made it the duty of every man to give as God has prospered him, he has not authorized any ecclesiastical tribunal to assess the amount of each one's contribution, nor to prescribe the objects or the modes of its administration. Alms-giving, whether for the alleviation of distress or the conversion of the world, is one of those relative duties which no human legislation can enforce. According to the definition of Dr. Paley, it is "a duty of imperfect obligation,' which cannot be measured or regulated by civil or canon law. If this is admitted, (and it cannot be denied,) then is the claim of a divinely instituted organization for the above purposes precluded; for there cannot be a perfect freedom of discretion in regard to the amount and mode of giving, in the face of a divine prescription fixing both the mode and the channel of our contributions.

It may be said in reply that no ecclesiastical organization proposes to assess the amount of money which a Christian shall give, or to dictate to him at all in the premises. Yet the whole tendency of the organization is, in our opinion, to produce such a result. If we mistake not, language has been employed which would leave the benevolent Christian no other alternative

but to throw his money into a particular channel, or incur the displeasure of the soliciting agent and of the board who sent him out. The entire aspect of the thing, the terms employed, the high ecclesiastical sanctions under which the agent acts, favor the notion that a compulsory requisition is to be made on the churches. That perfect freedom in respect to almsgiving, which our Saviour and his apostles allow and enjoin, is certainly abridged by ecclesiastical organizations. The agents of voluntary societies have been in one instance at least excluded, so far as the solemn vote of an ecclesiastical body could exclude them, from the territory of that body. Is not this in effect assessing contributions on the well-disposed and on the ill-disposed alike? And is it not the tendency of the system to lead its abettors to advance such high and extravagant claims?

Another position of our author is, that there is no enactment in the Bible, enjoining on the church, as such, in her organized form, by her judicatories, to evangelize the world. As this topic was adverted to in our last Number, we need not here dwell upon it. If any point in the New Testament is clear, it is this, that no command is given to the whole church, by a visible, catholic ecclesiastical organization, to prosecute the work of missions. In evangelizing the heathen world, the primitive Christians did not act in any organized form, or methodical manner. On this, our author pertinently inquires:

When our brethren, therefore, claim that the church, as such, is bound to conduct the work of missions, by her judicatories, they cannot mean the whole church, but only that each denomination, by itself, is thus bound. But has God organized the several denominations, and enjoined it on each to enterprise the propagation of the gospel in its church form? Where is the distinctive organization of each recorded, and where the direction that each shall perform its labors of love in its distinctive form as a church? Whence come separations, and divisions and sectarian organizations? Is God the author of denominational churches? And has he forbidden them to volunteer, and mingle their common charities and prayers for the conversion of the world? Has he commanded them to march under separate banners, and do whatever they do ecclesiastically, each denomination by itself, and each by the authority of its own church courts? Is it any where ordained in the Bible that the Episcopal, the Baptist, or the Methodist church in its distinctive character, as a church, shall prosecute the work of missions? Where then is the authority or the obligation binding the Presbyterian church to do it in this particular way?

It is sometimes asserted that the church is bound, in her distinctive capacity, to propagate the gospel in order that she may preserve the purity of faith in her missionaries. An ecclesiastical organization, it is said, will be much more likely than an irresponsible, voluntary association to guard the missionary field against the intrusion of error. To this allegation, we might answer by referring to actual facts. Missionaries in large numbers have been sent out, for forty years past, by the voluntary societies, yet what notable instances of defection from the faith have occurred? Among these hundreds of men, how many have fallen into the ranks of heterodoxy? We do not assert that single instances have not occured. But the proportion of cases of defection we venture to say, is less than in any religious denomination in Christendom. Perhaps, the fact may be accounted for in part from the habitual and pressing need which the missionary feels of the support furnished him by the doctrines of the gospel. He has little time to speculate on their nature; he must feed upon them. They are his life, his light, his joy. Surrounded, as he is, by the darkness of polytheism, he feels that they are true and of infinite importance. Again, on the supposition that he needs the watch and counsel of his ministering brethren, organized into a presbytery, or other ecclesiastical association, he can easily secure this supervision, if a sufficient number of brethren are situated in his neighborhood; or if they are not thus situated, he may retain his relation to the presbytery or association with which he became connected in his native land; and they can stand vouchers and guardians of his faith. We see, then, in this case, little necessity for an ecclesiastical board in conducting missions.

No objection is more frequently urged, against voluntary associations than that they are interfering with the appropriate work of the church. This objection proceeds on the ground that the church can exert her instrumentality for the conversion of the world, in one mode only, that of ecclesiastical organizations. To this assumption, our author pertinently replies:

What is the church, but the collective body of Christ's disciples? And what are the conscience and the faith of the church, but the conscience and the faith of her individual members? What then are the duties of the church, but the duties of the individuals who constitute it? Now, it is but a small portion of the duties which the members of the church are bound to perform, that they can accomplish through the church ecclesiastically. It is the duty of the church