good men, to whom the community may safely confide important interests, the simple question at issue is, Whether such a body of men is more likely to err, in choosing its successors and those who are to manage its concerns, than bodies depending upon popular election and continually varying their aspect?

On this subject, what do the corporations of nearly all our Colleges and Seminaries speak? The interest felt concerning the late decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Dartmouth College, will answer this question; and so will the maxims which the experience of the civilized world has settled in the appointment of the higher officers of justice. Why is it, that the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions deserves to be characterized, in the strong language of the Editors, as an Institution "of all others affording perhaps the least temptation to abuse?" They choose their successors, and the community very confidently and justly expect, that they will choose men of like views and like spirit with themselves.

The Reviewer has referred to Cambridge as an unhappy instance of the perversion of funds; but did he know when he made the reference, that Cambridge was wanting in the very arrangement for its trusts which the American Education Society has made? The Board of Overseers of Harvard College, when it changed its character, had not the right of electing its own members, but depended upon popular election. The pastors of the six neighbouring towns (including Boston) together with the Councillors and Senators of the State, chosen annually, were ex officio members of the Board. These last, of course, gave a different character to the College, when a majority of them departed from the faith of their fathers.

I might appeal to other cases; but the principle is too obvious to require illustration. So long as the maxim holds true, in the moral as well as natural world, that like causes are adapted to produce like effects, so long human experience and human testimony will decide, in favour of the mode of organization which the American Education Society has adopted, as best suited to guard permanent funds of any kind against future perversion.

It were easy to show, that the very thing on which the Editors place their ultimate reliance for safety, in regard to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, viz. popular annual election, (supposing the church in general should become corrupt, and that this is possible, the history of the church in past ages affords sufficient proof), would of itself be a most terrible engine of evil, and a most formidable obstacle in the way of reformation. When this should once happen, what would prevent the adequate majorities of the Presbyteries from "changing the doctrines and discipline of the Presbyterian church,' and throwing all its funds, Seminaries, and every thing else pertaining to it, into the hands of the enemies of evangelical truth? The Editors and the Reviewer seem to have no fear of the future perversion of this mighty power in the hands of the General Assembly; and they challenge a comparison of its mode of organization, with that of the American Education Society. Comparisons of this nature are always to be avoided, if possible, lest they should seem to be invidious.

But

since the subject is forced upon my attention, I hope I may be allowed to inquire, without being supposed to be unfriendly to the Presbyterian Church, Where lies the ultimate security against perversion, according to the Constitution of that Church? The Reviewer and the Editors both build their hopes upon the annual election of Commissioners to the General Assembly by the Presbyteries. But how are the Presbyteries constituted? The Book of Discipline says, that they consist "of pastors and elders, within a particular jurisdiction." By whom are these pastors and elders chosen? The same authority answers, that a pastor is to be chosen by "the electors of the CONGREGATION," over which he is to be settled. And how are the ruling elders to be chosen? Why, "every CONGREGATION shall elect persons to the office of ruling elders;" and the mode of election is to be "the most approved and in use in that congregation." (Form of Gov. and Dis. Chap. XII. §2, and XIV. §3.) Now the congregation consists of those who are church members, and of those who are not; and nearly always, to say the least, the latter exceeds the former in point of numbers. The power, then, of electing those who are to determine what men shall constitute the General Assembly, lies ultimately in the hands of the CONGREGATION; i. e. as the Book of Discipline explains it, the pew holders or proprietors, (or in some instances it may be attendants on public worship), a majority of whom, in most instances, are NOT professors of religion. The church as such, and by her separate vote, elects neither her pastors nor her ruling elders.

Will it be said, now, that those who are to be elected, must be members of the church, and give their assent to the Confession of Faith; so that church membership and the creed become a check upon the congregation, i. e. upon the world? I answer, this may be ; and it is equally true, also, that it may happen otherwise. To confirm this, I bring the testimony of the Editors themselves, in a previous article of the very number of the Repertory in question, who tell us, that "The Lutherans have their Confession of Augsburgh: the English Church, their Thirty-nine Articles; the Scotch and the French Calvinists have a Confession still more extended and minute: but the Lutherans are Neologists; the English are Arminians; the Scotch have their moderate men, which is but another name for Arminians; and the French, as a church, have now, if we are rightly informed, no creed at all. Philosophy, as it is called, has produced these changes. And it is not in human wisdom effectually to guard against them. We see corresponding changes taking place, even in the best constituted churches in this country. Our own denomination [the Presbyterian Church] affords a very STRIKING INSTANCE of this kind,” p. 490.

The Editors have said much about what is possible in regard to the future character and fate of the American Education Society. It is possible, I admit, that "eleven men" of corrupt or sectarian views may, at some future time, constitute a majority of the members present at an annual meeting of the American Education Society, and may take advantage of their accidental ascendency to change the Constitution, and to elect hundreds of men into the Society of like character with themselves; and all this may take place in a way so sudden and

unlooked for, that the remaining 390 or 400 members will not have taken the alarm in time to prevent the mischief. But surely the Editors will not now deny, that it is possible, (must they not admit it to be even probable?) that, at some future period, the WORLD may break through the slender barrier of a Confession of Faith, and elect pastors and elders for the Presbyterian churches, who will give her tears to drink, instead of the water of life; and who will commission men to represent them in the General Assembly, with whom those now on the stage, and who for the present annually constitute that venerable body, would refuse to hold communion for an hour. When that gloomy day comes, then who shall wield the vast and accumulating power which is subservient to the will of the General Assembly?-a power which has at its disposal, seminaries, professors, students, funds, and every other means of influence pertaining to a denomination, wealthy, powerful, and spread over all parts of our country. The churches of Massachusetts, deprived of their rights by parish influence, (that very influence which now elects the pastors and elders of the Presbyterian church), and looking in vain for protection to Confessions of Faith, and long established usages, once fully acknowledged as valid even by the civil power, afford a lesson of admonition on this subject, which should never-never be forgotten.

It would be easy to enlarge; but this would draw me aside from the course, which, on the whole, I have thought it my duty to pursue. Some passages in the remarks of the Editors, not immediately connected with the foregoing heads of discussion, claim attention. On these I shall make a few observations, and then bring my remarks to a close.

P. 616, the Editors intimate, that because the salaries of ministers in this country must, in the great majority of cases, be small, therefore the ability to refund cannot exist, except in a very limited degree; and consequently that the principles of the American Education Society must have an oppressive influence. It is also stated, that I "appear strangely to have forgotten" my own remark on this subject, in arguing that young men of good talents may, with proper diligence and economy, return into the Treasury of the Society what they have received. To this, it is sufficient to reply, that ability to refund, has ordinarily quite as much connexion with economy, as with the amount of salary received. Many whose salary is barely sufficient to meet their wants, even with "the strictest economy," have nevertheless found the means of cancelling every debt contracted for their education, by prudent management; and, especially, by not injudiciously increasing their responsibilities, as soon as they have entered upon their public labours. How often has this been done by the indigent young men of talents, in other professions, whose efforts no Education Society ever aided or encouraged? If there be any one particular reason, why the American Education Society should maintain the principles which they have adopted, this is one, the very one, to which President Nott has alluded in his letter, quoted by me, p. 23, as a reason for preferring a system of loans to a system of donations, viz. that, in a country like ours, the people, if supplied at all, must be supplied by ministers who can live on small salaries; and that it is wise to raise up men

who can so live. Compare now the salary system of educating students in a course of preparation for the ministry, (so earnestly recommended by the Editors), and the system adopted by the American Education Society; and can there be a doubt, which of them is best calculated to promote such an object?

The Editors more than intimate, in several places, that the power which the American Education Ssciety possesses, is a power to control the place of education to which every student shall go; and consequently, to control their principles and views of theology, as well as to build up, or pull down, any Seminary or College. But is this dealing justly by a Society, whose fundamental rule, in all its operations, is impartiality and uniformity, in regard to its treatment of young men and Institutions; and which has encountered no small amount of objection and prejudice, in consequence of adhering inviolably to this broad and catholic principle, and extending it to different evangelical denominations? And this, too, when the American Education Society is the only Education Society in the United States, which is known to have acted on the same broad and catholic ground. If, in any instances, "the friends and officers of its tributaries and Branches" have departed from this principle, (as the Editors say), let the cases be pointed out, and the Society will doubtless use whatever influence they possess, to guard against a recurrence of the same evil in future. But let not the Society be charged with doing, or attempting to do, what they utterly disclaim in their fundamental rules of proceeding, and what they, as at present constituted, have no lawful "power" to do. Ought not the bare enumeration of seventy-seven Academies, twenty-three Colleges, and ten Theological Seminaries, in which have been aided nine hundred young men, the natives of almost every State of the Union, including individuals of five or six evangelical denominations; all this, too, by funds obtained chiefly from one denomination, and I may add, from one State; ought not such facts to shield the Society against imputations of local or sectarian perversion? The causes which led to its formation, and which have produced its enlarged and truly Christian policy, are to be traced to higher and more benevolent views of the wants of our country and of the world, than pertain to a sectarian spirit.

The Editors have taken much pains (pp. 626-629), to shew that what I have said respecting some assertions of the Reviewer relative to the unrestrained power of the Parent Society over all funds in its treasury, is irrelevant, and therefore require no answer at all. But what are the assertions of the Reviewer? Not merely, that monies are refunded to the Parent Society, but that they are placed "entirely beyond the reach of the Branches." It was proved, if I mistake not, that this is not a just view of the case; and numerous checks were pointed out, which were intended to prevent the evils referred to by the Reviewer. In what other way should assertions of this nature have been answered? Every candid reader, on comparing the two articles, will be competent to judge.

I might go on to comment, in a similar manner, on many other passages; but it is unnecessary. I shall notice but one more remark of the kind to which I now refer.

On p. 635, the Editors, after disapproving the methods pursued by the American Education Society, in regard to the establishment of permanent scholarships &c., say; "Our mode of carrying the same principle into effect, is to collect all the money which the Christian public is able and willing to give for the purpose, and to expend it immediately in educating youth of a suitable character." To this mode the American Education Society can surely have no objection, since it is the mode which they have most commonly practised. But do the Editors mean to say, that this is the only or the principal method which has been pursued, at the distinguished Seminary in their neighbourhood, and with which some of them are connected? Where then are the nearly fifty thousand dollars invested for the benefit of that Seminary, in PERMANENT scholarships? Have the funds thus raised for charitable purposes, "been all expended immediately," so soon as received; or, has only the interest been applied?

A word, on the defence made by the Editors of the manner in which the attack was commenced upon the American Education Society, and I have done.

The Editors entirely mistake, if they suppose that the friends of the Society wish to "hush up" the subjects under discussion. They, as well as all others, may rest assured, that from whatever quarter serious objections may come, the American Education Society will not shrink from canvassing them; nor strive to suppress them, even when they might wish the manner in which they are made to be different. Having no end in view but the highest good of the Redeemer's kingdom, they only wish to know the best way in which this can be accomplished, and they will feel themselves bound to adopt it; and this, whether they come to the knowledge of their duty by open rebuke, or by private conference and kindly admonition.

But the abstract right to attack openly a benevolent Society like the one in question, and to make a public impeachment of its measures, does not prove, and cannot prove, that Christian confidence and fraternal regard are not due to it. I cannot help feeling, that an attack of such a nature, and on the ground of such a right, is one of those cases, in which civilians would say, Summum jus, summa injuria. The Editors say, "We might as well have placed our objections in the fire, as presented them to the Board," p. 603. And yet, in different parts of their remarks, they intimate that the objections, which they bring forward against the American Education Society, are so forcible, so plain, and so convincing to all men of candour, that none of this character can refuse to feel their weight. What sort of men, then, must the "Board" be, before whom objections so plain would do no more good than if they were "placed in the fire?" And are these the men, too, of whom the Reviewer, from his personal acquaintance with some of the Directors, and from information obtained concerning them all, has said, (and the Editors tell us they are not disposed to call these assertions in question); "We believe them to be as pure in their intentions, as single in their purpose, and as devoted to the cause of evangelical piety, as any men on earth; and we disclaim any knowledge of a single act in their management of this great charity, which