/zn 
 
 % 
 
 v/ 
 
 REVIEW 
 
 OF THF 
 
 of tjje 5 cjmtatifltt to ftt&k 
 
 REPRINTED FROM THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY REVIEW. 
 
 ? Q/b & 
 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 HENRY B. ASHMEAD, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER, 
 
 GEORGE STREET ABOVE ELEVENTH. 
 
 1856. 
 
/ 
 
 A REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 fnbia 
 
 REPRINTED FROM THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY REVIEW. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 HENRY B. ASIIMEAD, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER, 
 
 GEORGE STREET ABOVE ELEVENTH. 
 
 1856 . 
 
 10 1921 
 

 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■■■■•■• ' ■ ■ v ifvtt.- • ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
Report or the Deputation to the India Missions, made to 
 the American Board of Commissioners for foreign Missions , at 
 a special Meeting , held at Albany , N. Y, March 5, 1856. 
 Printed for the Use of the Board. Boston : Press of T. R. Mar- 
 yin, 42 Congress street. 1856. pp. 84.* 
 
 Rarely has the attention of the Christian public been called 
 to a document of such interest as that whose title heads our 
 Article. Whether we look at the high source whence it comes, 
 or the occasion which produced it, or the topics it discusses, its 
 importance is of the first magnitude. If correct in its facts and 
 reasonings, it is plainly destined to exert a decided influence 
 upon our mission policy, for a long time to come. Our purpose 
 is to examine what claims it has to our acceptance. 
 
 Two reasons operate in advance to create distrust. One is 
 the ex parte character of the Report. It is virtually a plea put 
 forth in self-defence. We cannot regard it otherwise in the 
 circumstances. The Deputation appeared before the meeting 
 at Albany to give an account of proceedings, which had been 
 extensively called in question. Tidings of “revolution” from 
 the Missions they had visited, had taken the whole community 
 by surprise. Many were sorely pained to hear that institutions, 
 for which they had long contributed and prayed, were either 
 summarily done away with or badly crippled. And numbers, 
 whose confidence had never trembled before, now felt serious 
 apprehensions at the appearance of an extraordinary assump¬ 
 tion of power, which seemed both unwarranted and dangerous. 
 A state of affairs thus critical called for explanation. The 
 Deputation were summoned to state what had been done, and 
 with this, to establish the wisdom and propriety of their pro- 
 
 * This Review has been approved by three returned missionaries from 
 Ceylon. 
 
4 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 ceedings. It was a difficult position. In plain terms, they 
 were as defendants, set to plead their own cause, and obtain as 
 best they could a verdict in their own favor. A rare marvel 
 it would have been, if in the prosecution of this task they had 
 maintained a strict impartiality. We do not look for such dis¬ 
 interestedness in the best of men. We can hardly expect it in 
 our honored Deputation. 4 
 
 The other reason alluded to, is that men are seldom fair 
 judges of their own conduct. Their self-consciousness does not 
 reflect them truly. Especially is this the case, if they happen 
 to be men of strong opinions and determined will. Such per¬ 
 sons rarely estimate aright the momentum of their own move¬ 
 ments. Confident of their correctness, and honest in their 
 aims, they are often betrayed by their strength of purpose into 
 modes of speaking and acting, that appear at times a little 
 arbitrary, and even overbearing. Thus do they become guilty 
 of an unintended violence, and none are more surprised than 
 they, wdien told of the injury done. 
 
 Erom the fault here indicated, it is to be feared the Deputa¬ 
 tion were not wholly exempt. They are known to be men of 
 rare decision, energy and perseverance. With the senior 
 member in particular, these natural traits have acquired large 
 development in that commanding position he has long so ably 
 held. By constitution and habit he is a master-spirit. Eor 
 years, in the judgment of both, had a change of policy through¬ 
 out the India Missions seemed desirable. The auspicious mo¬ 
 ment at length arrived for carrying this change into effect. 
 Armed by the Prudential Committee with ample discretionary 
 powers for inquiry and direction, they are sent forth on their 
 desired enterprise, enjoying the freest scope for adjusting all 
 things to their liking. No opportunity could have been more 
 favorable, or tempting, for the exercise of a spiritual general¬ 
 ship. 
 
 Besides, a stress was upon them. The work was great. 
 An extensive region had to be traversed. Propitious seasons 
 were to be improved at the right places. Long delay any¬ 
 where was out of the question. What was to be done had 
 to be done quickly. Thus did the force of circumstances con¬ 
 spire with the force of character to impart an impetus to their 
 
5 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 movements ; and it was hardly in the nature of things for them 
 not to have borne somewhat strenuously against natures un¬ 
 nerved and debilitated by a long residence in a torrid zone. 
 Indeed, knowing as we do the working of things in India, we 
 cannot avoid surprise at the rapid progress made by the Depu¬ 
 tation, and at the amount of business they performed. It is no 
 wonder that a friend writes : “ The fact is, the brethren found 
 it hard and trying to attend the meetings of the Mission daily, 
 during the month of the Deputation’s visit here.” In such cir¬ 
 cumstances, how easy it was for the missionaries to yield to the 
 firm suggestions of persons authorized to assume the responsi¬ 
 bility, may be readily conceived. We submit, therefore, that 
 the Deputation were hardly in a condition accurately to state 
 what amount of influence they had exerted, and how far the 
 missionaries were cordial and free in their actions. It was as 
 if a strong wind should sweep through a grove, and one should 
 mistake the bending of the branches under its mighty rush, for 
 a graceful and willing obeisance to the spirit that was directing 
 its swift courses. 
 
 Whether these anticipations are justified, will be seen as -we 
 advance. 
 
 The narrow limits of our Article will prevent our following 
 the Deputation through their whole course. We shall, there¬ 
 fore, confine our criticisms to that portion of the Report which 
 treats of the Ceylon Mission. It is on this field that confessedly 
 the greatest changes were made. It was in reference to 
 these that exceptions were first taken at Utica. And what was 
 done here, may be regarded as fairly illustrating the methods 
 adopted and the principles carried out in other Missions. 
 
 Our first inquiry naturally touches the objects aimed at in 
 the appointment of the Deputation. What was it that the Pru¬ 
 dential Committee proposed to accomplish by this measure ? 
 In seeking an answer to this question, we may fairly look for 
 the mention of some important benefit, which could have been 
 secured in no other way; a benefit which should be, in some 
 degree, proportionate to the large outlay of time and means 
 incurred in obtaining it. To send off two men, occupying the 
 important positions held by the Deputation at home, across half 
 the globe, to be absent eighteen months, at an expense of over 
 
6 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 $8,000, is an expedient "which can he warranted only by the 
 promise of a good remuneration. Now what was the great thing 
 contemplated ? 
 
 Lest any personal motive should he suspected of having ope¬ 
 rated in the affair, we are expressly told at the outset, that 
 “ when the Deputation went forth, and for many years before, 
 there was no point in controversy between the Mission House 
 and any of the India Missions.” Language must here have been 
 employed in an original sense, if it was intended to express the 
 whole truth in the case noted. What peculiar meaning the 
 Deputation would attach to the word “ controversy,” we cannot 
 pretend to say. But certain it is, that there has long been a 
 decided antagonism of views and opinions between the senior 
 Secretary and the Jaffna missionaries, upon several points of 
 mission policy pursued by the latter. This is a fact so patent, 
 and so well established, that we cannot comprehend how the 
 Deputation should have attempted to disguise it. We have ac¬ 
 cess to private manuscripts which prove it abundantly, though 
 we will here quote but one extract from a letter written by 
 an old missionary, who sets this thing in a clear light: “The 
 Seminary got into bad odor before 1844, and our Secretary 
 said to me several times, what he afterwards wrote to the Mis¬ 
 sion in answer to Brother Poor’s letter, ‘ It seems as if every 
 interest must be sacrificed for the sake of the Seminary,’ or to 
 this amount. We could never remove this prejudice from his 
 mind, though we could show that not one in eight was devoted 
 to it.” This certainly looks as if there had been something 
 very like controversy on one topic, to say the least. That other 
 matters were also involved in discussion, will appear as we pro¬ 
 ceed. Knowing, therefore, something in reference to the state 
 of things, as they had actually existed, we are not disposed to 
 give the Deputation the benefit of their disclaimer. It is im¬ 
 possible for us to resist the conviction, that one benefit directly 
 anticipated by them in their expedition was the settlement of 
 a long pending issue, in which one of them, at least, had been 
 seriously involved. Indeed, we find something like an admis¬ 
 sion to this effect, in the letter of Dr. Anderson, published in 
 the Herald for September, 1855, p. 259: “We came to Cey¬ 
 lon, as you know,” he writes, “ with expectations of missionary 
 
The Deputation to India. 
 
 7 
 
 problems bard of solution and practical views among our breth¬ 
 ren, not easily harmonized.” In reading this extract, we can 
 hardly avoid the suspicion, that the writer had had something to 
 do with these differences of opinion alluded to here; and if he 
 had not directly occasioned them by his “letters of inquiry,” 
 that he yet took a direct interest in their adjustment. But 
 whatever may have been the facts of the case, we know that 
 several of the older missionaries regarded the coming of the 
 Deputation as having reference to the existing controversy be¬ 
 tween the Mission House and themselves, and that they made 
 preparations accordingly. With some, also, we know it was a 
 cherished hope, that having the Deputation on the field, with 
 the results of past labors before their eyes, they would be able 
 to effect a conviction in their favor, which they had hitherto 
 tried for in vain, by conversation and correspondence. It was 
 this hope that prompted the welcome spoken of in the Report— 
 a welcome which was still extended amid many apprehensions 
 and fears. The Deputation know what evidence we have for 
 this assertion. 
 
 But here the question arises: On whom is the fault of this 
 controversy chargeable, if fault there be ? Had the Mission 
 deviated from the plan originally marked out for them ? or was 
 it the Secretary who had changed his opinions ? Certainly the 
 change could not have been in the Mission, for, according to 
 the statement of the Report, p. 29, a statement which will be 
 noticed again hereafter, “ they had been following one track 
 for forty years.” Like consistent men, they had been stead¬ 
 fastly working on the plan publicly discussed and sanctioned by 
 the Board, at the beginning, and which they had always heartily 
 approved. The departure, then, we infer, must have been with 
 the Secretary. And this inference is confirmed by what is found 
 on p. 42. After speaking of the hinderance thrown in the way of 
 permanent congregations by free schools !—the Deputation add: 
 “We say this with perfect recollection, that we at home had a joint 
 and cordial agency with our brethren here, in this method of work¬ 
 ing the Mission, and have written and published much to secure 
 it favor.” Here, then, we have a change of views fairly admit¬ 
 ted ; and that this change did not take place in consequence of 
 the visit, we have already seen. It took place long before, and 
 
8 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 none will doubt that it furnished one motive for the Secretary’s 
 excursion to India. It was his telescopic vision, spying the 
 land from far, that first detected seeming failures in that system 
 which he once had approved; and these failures he now felt 
 constrained to point out in person, to his brethren, who, not¬ 
 withstanding all his previous asseverations from a distance, had 
 not been able, with their closer view, to discover them for them¬ 
 selves. 
 
 Now, it may be asked, have we not arrived at the real secret 
 of this movement ? Would it not have been more candid for 
 the Deputation to say frankly: We had long differed from the 
 missionaries in our ideas of a sound mission policy, and not 
 having been able to persuade them into our course, we went out 
 to take more efficient methods for setting them right ? Why 
 thus attempt to ignore, or disguise, a fact which after all shows 
 so clearly through the veil that is cast over it ? This is pre¬ 
 cisely the view taken of the matter in the public journals of 
 India, and it is the view which forces itself upon every person 
 who intelligently surveys the history of the mission for the few 
 past years. To our minds it is plain that the expedition of the 
 Deputation was designed as an effectual method for enforcing 
 a long cherished, but hitherto steadily resisted “ theory of 
 missions.” 
 
 But let us look a moment at the objects of the measure as 
 stated in the Report, and see how far they admit of being sus¬ 
 tained. From the list of Instructions, we perceive that the 
 Deputation were sent out mainly to gather “information.” 
 The Committee wished them to ascertain something which 
 “ they had not been able to ascertain with sufficient clearness, 
 either by correspondence or by conference with returned mis¬ 
 sionaries.” Now, here it strikes us, is a marvel. The Com¬ 
 mittee wished to discover something which neither Mr. Winslow, 
 nor Mr. Meigs, nor Mr. Spaulding, nor Dr. Poor, nor Mr. 
 Hutchings, nor Mr. Hoisington, nor Mr. Mills, nor Dr. Allen, 
 nor Mr. Burgess, nor Mr. Tracy, nor several other returned 
 missionaries who might be named—all able and intelligent men 
 —were able to communicate to them in a satisfactory manner. 
 They were to find out something Avhich all the missionaries 
 moreover, on the field, in their united capacity, could not suf- 
 
9 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 ficiently enlighten them upon by writing. There is certainly a 
 mystery here which we cannot solve. Two persons are deputed 
 into a foreign country, of strange customs and speech, to get 
 more accurate intelligence for the Committee, by ocular in¬ 
 spection during a flying tour, than could he imparted by mis¬ 
 sionaries who had lived and labored in the land from ten to 
 thirty-five years. Were the Deputation so vastly superior to 
 the missionaries in their powers of apprehension as to merit a 
 larger confidence in their observations ? Or were tin* mis¬ 
 sionaries refractory that they would not answer the inquiries 
 put them ? These things will not he pretended. What then 
 is the secret that demanded so costly a search ? What more 
 could have been needed for the guidance of the Committee in 
 their plans, than could be obtained by frequent and leisurely 
 interviews with those experienced servants of the Cross who, 
 worn with toils, had occasionally come home for refreshment ? 
 That must be a strict supervision, and savoring too, somewhat, 
 we fear, of distrust and espionage , which demands for its ad¬ 
 ministration a greater minuteness of knowledge than these 
 sources afforded. Could not the judgment of the missionaries 
 have been relied upon with safety in matters of apparently 
 doubtful expediency? Was not the responsibility of success 
 mainly with them, and were they not fairly entitled to decide 
 upon the means they should adopt in their labors ? And would 
 it not have been more prudent to have waited, until a Deputa¬ 
 tion was asked to assist in devising the right modes of opera¬ 
 tion ? 
 
 But, perhaps, our difficulties will be removed by looking at 
 the points to be investigated. It was made one duty of the 
 Deputation everywhere to see “ how far the oral preaching of 
 the Gospel is actually the leading object and work of the Mis¬ 
 sions, and to exert themselves fraternally to encourage the de¬ 
 termination of every brother and sister to know nothing among 
 the heathen but Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Oral preach¬ 
 ing a leading object of Missions! We had supposed on the 
 contrary, that the salvation of souls was the leading object; 
 and that in achieving this result, the missionaries were allowed 
 the liberty of Paul, to “ become all things to all men.” But 
 here it would seem as if the means were converted into an end, 
 
10 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 and insisted upon, regardless of results. Waving, however, 
 such criticism for the present, it may be asked, why this great 
 anxiety about oral preaching? Was there ground for suspect¬ 
 ing that the missionaries were particularly delinquent in this 
 branch of duty? Or were the Deputation so eminent in this 
 sacred work, that they were peculiarly qualified to inspire others 
 with a zeal for it ? Knowing the Jaffna missionaries as we do, 
 and having learned how noted they have been for indefati¬ 
 gable labors in preaching and visiting from house to house, we 
 really cannot believe that it was so expressly necessary for -two 
 persons, not a whit in advance of them in this particular, to 
 travel across the ocean to stimulate them in oral preaching. 
 Would there not have been as much propriety in having the 
 case reversed? 
 
 Again, the Deputation were to inquire, “how far the Mis¬ 
 sions were prepared to rely upon oral preaching, and to dis¬ 
 pense with the pioneering and preparatory influence of schools.” 
 We are almost tempted to indulge in a little amusement over 
 the very nature of this inquiry, wondering (e. g.) how Mr. 
 Pease and our city missionaries would look, were it seriously 
 proposed to them, to abandon their ragged or other schools, and 
 rely simply on preaching efforts. But admitting for the pre¬ 
 sent its perfect legitimacy, we ask again, were not the mis¬ 
 sionaries qualified to decide this point independently ? Did it 
 not fairly come within the range of their discretion ? We must 
 confess we do not understand this sensitiveness about schools; 
 this desire to exclude poor heathen children from the benefit 
 of biblical instruction, except it be on the ground of a theo¬ 
 retical prejudice, which had grown to be no longer tolerant. 
 
 Again, the Committee were anxious to know “whether mission 
 schools should not be restricted to converts and stated attend¬ 
 ants on preaching and their children”—that is, restricted to 
 those who could best afford to be without them ! on the princi¬ 
 ple, we suppose, that “to him that hath shall be given !” For 
 our part, we should be disposed to reason in precisely the op¬ 
 posite way. Believing that those who had become Christian¬ 
 ized, would have within them a stimulus to further acquisition, 
 we should be the more prompted to bestow our attention on the 
 poor unfortunates that were still enshrouded in the outer darkness. 
 
The Deputation to India. 
 
 11 
 
 If distinction were made anywhere, it certainly appears to us 
 that it should be in favor of those who were utterly destitute of 
 true knowledge. Such, according to our notions, would be the 
 dictate of common sense, and common charity; and how shall 
 we account for the strange inversion of this mode of reasoning 
 on the part of the Committee ? Had the mission schools been 
 purely literary or scientific institutions, we might readily ex¬ 
 plain this nervous apprehension. But when we reflect, that 
 the chief objects of study in these schools are the Bible and 
 Catechism, as is fully shown in the Report for 1852 ; that 
 they are, as one missionary styled them, “ daily Sabbath 
 schools,” attendance at which, Dr. Poor, in his letter to Dr. 
 Anderson, calls the children’s “golden period of probation for 
 time and eternity;” that they are youthful audiences, always 
 ready gathered for the missionary, we must confess ourselves 
 at a loss how to express our surprise. Are we not to care for 
 heathen children, even though the parents should remain idola¬ 
 ters? None but a man hopelessly bound to a theory would 
 answer, Nay. But conceding again the rationality of the Com¬ 
 mittee’s inquiry, we ask, once more, was it so profound a one, 
 that the missionaries could not, with all their experience, have 
 replied to it categorically ? and could not the Committee have 
 been content with their answer ? 
 
 But not to linger. The remaining topics of inquiry were, 
 the expediency of establishing collegiate schools; the reason 
 for so great a delay in putting native converts into the minis¬ 
 try ; the propriety of furnishing aid for the erection of churches; 
 the advisableness of reducing the printing establishment, and 
 the suitableness of having the correspondence between the Mis¬ 
 sion House and the missionaries secret, instead of free and 
 open as heretofore. Such are the main objects on which the 
 Committee desired to be enlightened. Now, it seems to us, 
 there is not an item in all the list which could not have been 
 fairly investigated by the aid of returned missionaries or by 
 correspondence. Matters of far greater moment are often set¬ 
 tled well, in the light of fewer data, than those constantly in 
 reach of the Mission House. We cannot help the feeling, 
 therefore, that there was a certain something in the minds of 
 the Committee, or of the Secretary which hindered their being 
 
12 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 satisfied with the responses that came to their inquiries from 
 abroad. Their appearance is that of men, disappointed in the 
 testimonies of others, yet so confident of the correctness of their 
 theory, that they must needs go in person and test its conclu¬ 
 sions for themselves. 
 
 But were the Committee sure that their Deputation were 
 liable to no mistake ? What peculiar facilities for knowledge 
 had they which the missionaries had not? Would the impres¬ 
 sions caught during a rapid survey, be more trustworthy than 
 the mature convictions of a resident of twenty or thirty years 
 standing? Would Americans, just arrived, be able to judge 
 accurately of the power of a Tamil sermon over an audience of 
 strange looking Hindoos ? or would they be competent to de¬ 
 cide on the fitness of native converts to assume all the respon¬ 
 sibilities of a Congregational church organization ? Could 
 they, at a glance, discern the beneficial effects of vernacular 
 schools, or instruct veteran missionaries in the best mode of 
 evangelizing a population of whose peculiarities they were prac¬ 
 tically ignorant ? With all their investigations, would they be 
 able, by a transient visit, to ascertain how far the missionaries 
 were relying upon oral preaching, and whether they were wast¬ 
 ing time in alien pursuits ? Who does not see, that, for all the 
 useful knowledge they might acquire on these subjects, they 
 would still be dependent on the missionaries, and for the best 
 of this, on those who have been longest in the work ?* Looking 
 
 * The difficulties in the way of correct knowledge, under the above circum¬ 
 stances, are thus set forth in an extract from “ The Friend of India,” given 
 by Dr. Poor, in his letter to Dr. Anderson, by way of caution: 
 
 “Sir C. T., after a tour of three months, may write an essay on the Con¬ 
 stitution of the United States of America. A correspondent of “ The Times” 
 may even run over southern France, and as he goes, obtain a life-like picture 
 of the vine-dressers of Bordeaux, and the commercial politicians of Mar¬ 
 seilles. But an English traveller in India cannot acquire even a partial 
 knowledge of the country. He has all his ideas to unlearn. He has not 
 simply to comprehend the language. He has to discover that it is possible 
 for every man who approaches him, on every occasion, to tell an untruth, that 
 rich men may prefer to walk barefoot, and that every attribute of respecta¬ 
 bility can coexist with the utmost habitual crime. He has to comprehend 
 that the gentle and courteous Baboo, whose phrases are all of abstract virtue, 
 or whose demeanor would do honor to a court, has ordered a village to be 
 burned, maintains gangs of bravos, or is an habitual suborner of perjury. 
 In short, he has to learn the great truth, which Manchester will never recog- 
 
13 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 at the whole subject, therefore, there is hut one advantage we 
 can conceive as attaching to the Deputation, and that is, the 
 opportunity thus gained, of culling such facts as suited their 
 purpose, and of directly suggesting the answers which they de¬ 
 sired. How far this opportunity was improved, will soon appear. 
 
 But the Deputation were not simply to search for informa¬ 
 tion. We read that they were invested “with full power and 
 authority to give such directions to the several missions, as they 
 shall judge that the best interests of the mission demand, in all 
 cases in which it was their united judgment that the exigency 
 was such as would not justify delay for the action of the Pru¬ 
 dential Committee.” What the Board think of this investiture 
 of plenary power over its ordained missionaries, we cannot pre¬ 
 tend to say. It may he constitutional; hut we agree with one 
 of our brethren abroad, in pronouncing it “ a most extraordi¬ 
 nary fact in the nineteenth century.” It strikes us the more 
 so, when we reflect, that it was done by a body, mostly com¬ 
 posed of laymen annually elected, without consulting the Board, 
 and in reference to Missions which contain some of the oldest 
 and ablest men the American churches ever sent out. A journal 
 widely circulated in India, “ The News of the Churches,” in its 
 issue of April 1st, 1856, contains the following expression on the 
 subject: “ Indeed, the Executive Committee is openly charged, 
 though all Congregationalists, with exercising higher powers 
 than Presbyteries or Bishops claim, and with treating the mis¬ 
 sionaries more as dependents than as ministers of Christ.” We 
 ask our brethren whether they consent to these assumptions ? 
 
 But it may he replied, that these powers were conferred only 
 in case of an emergency. True—but how liberal is the con¬ 
 struction to which this limitation was liable. All the Missions, 
 it seems, were found involved in this emergency. The first 
 news heard from them is, that the revolution was accomplished, 
 and we at home did not enjoy even the poor courtesy of being 
 warned that the thing was to be done—much less, of having our 
 advice asked. Yea, when it was announced at Utica, that the 
 changes had gone into effect, the officers of the Board declared 
 the thing impossible. 
 
 nize, viz., that society can exist under forms unknown to political economists, 
 and that the appearance of civilization is compatible with the total absence 
 of every quality which endows it in Europe with vitality.” 
 
14 
 
 The Deputation to India . 
 
 But it is replied again, that the action of the Deputation was 
 subject to an after revision. Granted. But was this a suffi¬ 
 ciently effectual bar against hasty proceedings ? Every one un¬ 
 derstands how serious are the objections to a counter-revolution. 
 The Deputation well knew, that if their desired changes were 
 once fairly established, there would be small likelihood of these 
 being ever set back. And here is precisely the pinch of our 
 present position. Multitudes, who are opposed to the changes, 
 now question the propriety of countermanding them; and yet 
 they hardly feel willing to let things stand as they are. And 
 was not this a difficulty to be anticipated ? 
 
 As to the precise matters in which directions were to be given, 
 we are not informed. The latitude conceded is very broad. 
 All we are told is, that the Deputation was “ to do that for the 
 India Missions which could not be accomplished effectually by 
 correspondence.” The language is very significant, and opens 
 wide scope for the imagination. 
 
 But was there no danger lest this endowment of power would 
 repress the freedom of conference, and impart to the sugges¬ 
 tions of the Deputation the force of law ? Reason, we know, 
 speaks to great advantage, when it is seated on an eminence 
 and gestures with a sceptre. Few are found bold enough to ar¬ 
 gue against its pronouncements, when these descend upon them 
 from the elevation of high official authority. Should the Depu¬ 
 tation, then, think fit to utter their views ex cathedra upon 
 any mooted point in discussion, what was to prevent their ob¬ 
 taining a ready acquiescence ? Who, of contrary opinion, would 
 venture to resist the voice of the Board, as it spake through 
 these, its delegates ? Or, supposing their words were only “ sug¬ 
 gestive,” how would a missionary be able to distinguish between 
 “a suggestion” and “a direction?” Were the Deputation al¬ 
 ways careful to insert parenthetically, “We speak this not of 
 commandment ?” 
 
 In view of these considerations it strikes us that, if the Com¬ 
 mittee wished to get at the real opinions of the Missionaries, 
 and learn the correct aspects of their fields, a more impolitic 
 thing could not have been done than thus to convert their Depu¬ 
 tation into Plenipotentiaries. Our letters from abroad abun¬ 
 dantly evidence the inexpediency of such a proceeding. Again 
 
15 
 
 The Duputation to India. 
 
 and again is the authority of the Deputation given, as the effi¬ 
 cient reason for much of the recent action taken, and we are 
 even told that in their eagerness to carry their measures through, 
 many interposed objections were summarily set aside as of little 
 worth. And if such statements are rebutted by testimonials of 
 a contrary kind, our rejoinder is, that those only can estimate 
 the force of the current who attempt to push up the stream. 
 
 We now proceed to show how far these anticipations were 
 realized in the Jaffna district. The Deptutation reached Cey¬ 
 lon April 2d, 1855. Seldom has the mission appeared in so 
 dilapidated a state. The ravages of the small-pox, cholera 
 and famine had left it a wreck. Its schools were mostly dis¬ 
 banded’; its congregations broken up ; several prominent church 
 members had died; and one of the founders of the Mission was 
 no more. Besides this, nearly all the brethren were worn out 
 and disheartened with manifold labors and losses. Apparently 
 it was a most unpropitious moment for exhibiting the true 
 workings of the system which had hitherto been pursued. One 
 might as well have attempted to judge of the beauty and effi¬ 
 ciency of a ship of war, after it had been brought into port, 
 dismantled by a storm. Dr. Anderson, however, in a letter 
 published in the Herald, congratulates himself on having ar¬ 
 rived “just in the right time.” As we regard his mission, it 
 must undoubtedly have appeared so. No situation could have 
 been more favorable for inaugurating the new theory. There 
 could have been nothing for regret. 
 
 Next, it will be instructive to observe, how the conferences 
 were managed. The Deputation, after having visited the sta¬ 
 tions separately, we are told, convened the Mission; and what 
 was the first step? Was it to propound inquiries and let the 
 missionaries speak ? Not in the least. This would have been, 
 simply to have opened the way for the same old replies which 
 had been given so often before, and set aside as not the thing 
 wanted. With the view apparently of obviating such a result, 
 the Deputation, as the Report tells us, (p. 18,) “ read a state¬ 
 ment of facts and opinions just as they lay in their minds.” 
 Here we must confess is a specimen of excellent tactics, to say 
 the least; as a shrewd device for carrying a point, nothing 
 could have been better. But what shall we say of its fairness ? 
 
16 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 It is true, the Deputation add, “we took care to affirm that all 
 we then said was merely suggestive.” But of what avail was 
 this assurance ? Such a disclaimer of intention to overrule de¬ 
 liberation on the part of those in authority is a well understood 
 form of courtesy which persuades no one. It is the soft glove 
 dressing the iron hand, the force of whose grip is just the same. 
 If this imputation he repelled as severe, where, we ask, was the 
 necessity of occupying a position which rendered this precau¬ 
 tion needful? Was there not rather a direct impropriety in it 
 which ought to have been scrupulously avoided ? In spite of 
 all precaution to the contrary, this preliminary declaration of 
 opinions was inevitably calculated to restrain the freedom of 
 discussion and give a biassed result. It was nothing less than 
 an index put up at the beginning of the course, pointing the 
 way for the docile to walk in. Or as one terms it, “it was a 
 bridge cast up for the purpose of reaching desired conclusions.” 
 To affirm that it had no determining influence, is to offend our 
 common sense. 
 
 But to proceed. Twenty days, we learn, were occupied in 
 discussing twenty-one topics and drawing up reports upon 
 them. This, as every one must concede, was rapid delibera¬ 
 tion—exceedingly so; when the number and extent of the 
 changes recommended are taken into the account. Here we 
 have at the outset a new theory sketched in regard to the 
 “governing object of missions,” marvelously resembling that 
 reported before the Board at Hartford. To suit this, the Bat- 
 ticotta Seminary is revolutionized, so as to render its suspension 
 necessary. Free schools are reduced in number and conflned 
 to proselytes and their children, an exception being allowed for 
 others in the present emergency. The Oodooville Female Semi¬ 
 nary is reduced to a size proportionate to the probable - demand 
 made by the catechists for wives. From all these schools Eng¬ 
 lish is to be rooted out, and those supported by Government 
 grants with a view to instruction in English, are given up. 
 Besides, the printing establishment is sold. All connection 
 with the local Tract and Bible Societies is dissolved. The 
 principle of open correspondence is abrogated, and the ecclesi¬ 
 astical organization is merged into that of a Mission, acknow¬ 
 ledging no court of appeal save the Prudential Committee. 
 With all this, a new church is organized, and a pastor examined 
 
17 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 and ordained over it. Such was the amount of business accom¬ 
 plished in twenty-one days. 
 
 The Deputation tell us : (p. 23,) “ Great unanimity prevailed 
 through the whole meeting.” “ It was the result of God’s 
 blessing on their ov T n experience.” A somewhat different view 
 of the matter is given us in a letter of a missionary, dated Feb. 
 8th, 1856: “ In regard to Dr. A’s statement in the Herald 
 as to the unanimity of the mission respecting all the changes 
 made here, I must say that I was greatly surprised, and that 
 1 do not understand w T e were so unanimous ; at the same time 
 I have no doubt that Dr. A. intended to state the matter fairly. 
 Certainly the mission never would have thought of making 
 some of these changes, and I feel that the Deputation should 
 assume a full share of the responsibility themselves.” And the 
 real secret of what unanimity did prevail, is hinted to us in the 
 following words: “ The Deputation were armed with great power, 
 and we certainly were not left in ignorance of the fact.” 
 Plainly there is a golden and a silver side to this shield; and 
 it is well for us to take a survey all round. 
 
 There are intimations enough in the Report that the chief 
 dissent existed on the part of the older brethren. This is fully 
 confirmed from other sources. Dr. Poor, before his death, left 
 his testimony against these changes in a general convention of 
 missionaries held preparatory to the arrival of the Deputation, 
 where they were in a measure anticipated and discussed. His 
 views, as his dying message to Dr. A. declares, “ were well 
 known;” and we have read the memorandum of these argu¬ 
 ments and statements which ho intended to lay before the De¬ 
 putation in person.* With him there firmly stood his old and 
 
 * The cause of truth here requires, that we say a word in regard to the 
 extracts given in the Report from Dr. Poor's letter to Dr. Anderson. We 
 have read that letter through carefully, and must say that the whole drift and 
 tenor of its argument are clearly the opposite of those which the extracts 
 imply. These have been so severed from their explanatory and modifying 
 context as to make the writer’s testimony tell in favor of the Deputation; 
 whereas they were but the concessions made to an opponent for the pur¬ 
 pose of securing greater credit for the adverse opinions maintained, as will 
 appear in the course of the Review. There is an unfairness here which im¬ 
 parts great pertinency to the following inquiry, which we discover in Dr. P.’s 
 “ Memoranda “ Has 1 the old logician ’f no influence over Deputations ?” 
 
 t See Matt. iv. 3. 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 well-tried fellow-laborers, Messrs. Meigs and Spaulding. They 
 were veterans of more than thirty years service, with their na¬ 
 tural force not abated. Here was to be found the real expe¬ 
 rience of the mission. The rest were comparatively young 
 men—four of whom had hardly enjoyed experience sufficient 
 to command a large blessing upon; two having been in the 
 field but two years, with only a smattering of the language, 
 and two were laymen having no direct concern in the matters 
 revised. The one longest resident was of thirteen years 
 standing. We mention these facts simply to illustrate that 
 “ pressure of experience” by which the measures under review 
 were carried. Computing it by years it was as one to four. 
 We see, therefore, that those whose counsel was best entitled 
 to deference were against the Deputation, and were simply 
 over-balanced by numbers. The actual pressure was that of 
 a simple majority of votes—votes, which we venture to say, 
 would never have been cast except under the countenance of a 
 Deputation assuming the responsibility. 
 
 In view of these facts we humbly submit that the exigency 
 in which the Deputation found themselves was not one that re¬ 
 quired haste; rather it plainly called for delay. The Mission 
 was the oldest but one in charge of the Board, and contained 
 a large investment of labor and funds from multitudes who 
 were deeply interested in it at home; and these most as¬ 
 suredly had a right to be consulted. Its system of operations 
 had been extensively wrought into the general structure of so¬ 
 ciety to such a degree, that its sudden alteration must necessa¬ 
 rily have occasioned wide-spread derangement, disappointment, 
 and offence abroad. The new measures proposed were adverse 
 to the judgment of many of the ablest missionaries in other 
 parts of India, and might therefore have been fairly distrusted. 
 And finally, we. insist that a particular respect was due to those 
 two veterans, who would be compelled, on the new system, to 
 see their life-long labors disparaged, and the fruits of their ex¬ 
 perience set at naught. Such considerations as these force on 
 us the conviction that the Deputation, far from precipitating 
 these changes, ought to have used their utmost authority in 
 staying proceedings until the approval of the Board and its 
 patrons could have been obtained. Their haste is contrary 
 
The Deputation to India. 19 
 
 to that judiciousness for which they have hitherto been sig¬ 
 nalized. 
 
 Such is the history of the doings of the Deputation as we 
 look at them. On reviewing its details we cannot avoid the in¬ 
 ference, that the result reached was the object distinctly con¬ 
 templated at the start. The theory which governs all the 
 changes appears in every section of the instructions, and the 
 whole course pursued makes directly for its enforcement. Watch 
 the movement through, and you see it going straight to 
 its mark—swiftly, determinately, without faltering, and pro¬ 
 ducing everywhere the same results—and our belief is irre¬ 
 sistible, that an anterior governing purpose regulated all its 
 issues. If the Deputation deny this conclusion, strengthened 
 as it is by many other testimonies, we can only say, that here 
 there is presented to us another instance of “ unconscious mo¬ 
 tive” which we would commend to the careful study of psycho¬ 
 logists, as a new illustration of how “ fearfully and wonderfully 
 we are made.” 
 
 We have been thus minute in this examination, because it 
 assists us in rightly estimating the utility of the movement 
 under review. The aim and methods of investigation necessa¬ 
 rily determine the value of the results obtained. Whatever 
 undue bias rules in the one, inevitably vitiates the other. How 
 far this has actually been the case will be seen by considering 
 the motives alleged for change in particular instances. 
 
 The grand argument which runs through the Report is, that 
 thus far the Jaffna Mission has proved a failure, and, therefore, 
 stood in great need of a revision. What has been done there 
 is styled an “ experiment”—valuable chiefly for the experience 
 which it has furnished. It is also termed a “preparation.” 
 Again, we are told, that “had so much piety, talent and labor 
 been employed for so long a time in direct preaching, without 
 schools, we should have been ready to regard this Mission as 
 without doubt to be relinquished for some more productive 
 field.” Such is the account given of the Jaffna district after 
 a mission culture of nearly forty years. It is not surprising 
 . that on the week subsequent to the Albany meeting, we found a 
 reverend corporate member knitting his brow in sad perplexity 
 as to how he should counteract the disheartening influence of 
 
20 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 this Report upon his audience at the next Monthly Concert, 
 and secure his usual collection. How many others might have 
 been discovered in a like predicament, may be conjectured. 
 Nor do we wonder at the exultation of the godless portion of 
 the press over these acknowledgments of inefficiency in efforts 
 for foreign evangelization. But how are we to reconcile with 
 the above expressions those flattering accounts from abroad, 
 which have so long beguiled us into the belief, that the Jaffna 
 Mission was one of the most successful under the care of the 
 Board. There are at this moment before us, “A brief Sketch 
 of the Ceylon Mission,” published in Jaffna, 1849; also the 
 “ Report” of the same Mission for 1852, besides some subse¬ 
 quent accounts in the “ Missionary Herald,” together with 
 numerous letters and manuscripts from Jaffna friends; and 
 throughout all these we find pictured a totally different aspect 
 of things. “ Speak we of failures !” writes Dr. Poor, somewhat 
 indignantly. “ Let us go to Christendom—beginning at An¬ 
 tioch, Corinth, Geneva, London—to New England, to Massa¬ 
 chusetts, and to Boston, that ‘rebellious city,’ both on Tea- 
 totalism and Antiteetotalism.” And again, speaking of the 
 Hindoos, he says : “ But though they are such a race, and 
 partly because they are such, we place a very high estimate 
 upon the investment we have made upon the mind and con¬ 
 science of this people, and render devout thanksgivings to God 
 that we have been permitted to such an extent to preach by 
 teaching, and to teach by preaching, the Gospel to every crea¬ 
 ture in our mission field.”* We might account for the adverse 
 representations of the Deputation, partly on the ground that 
 they had no sufficient data by which to form a correct judg¬ 
 ment of the transformation that had been going on for years. 
 They had seen nothing of the past. They could hold but little 
 intercourse with the natives. Their chief basis for estimate 
 was a few general statistics. And so far as this was the case, 
 it was natural for them to be misled. But what if numerous 
 baptisms could not be reported, and flourishing “stated congre¬ 
 gations” pointed out? Does truth always signify its progress 
 by a flourish of banners ? Does the kingdom of God come • 
 with observation, so that we can always track its advancing 
 
 * See letter to Dr. Anderson. 
 
The Deputation to India. 
 
 21 
 
 footsteps ? Are no triumphs won save such as can be jotted 
 down in figures and paraded with dclat before the churches ? 
 None will assert this. Then what value can we set upon the 
 opinions of the Deputation, formed from their cursory survey? 
 Notwithstanding all their assertions to the contrary, we have 
 abundant reason for affirming that a wonderful revolution has 
 been going on in Jaffna, silently and surely, both in the man¬ 
 ners, public sentiment, and religious belief of the people, which 
 greatly alarms the Brahmins, and clearly betokens the impend¬ 
 ing downfall of idolatry. It is a change such as the eye of 
 the casual observer detects not; but which a comprehensive 
 glance along the past forty years plainly perceives, and joy¬ 
 fully recognizes, as a steady setting of the whole mass of 
 the population towards the ultimate recognition of Christ as 
 Lord. 
 
 But on this point we have even the direct testimony of Dr. A. 
 himself. In a letter from Madras to one of the Jaffna Mission, 
 he writes: “ I find my mind tending towards this conclusion. 
 That more impression has been made by missionary labor on 
 the Jaffna people than anywhere else in all India, that has 
 fallen under our eyes. A great work has been done in Jaffna, 
 and I look in vain through this region for the bright intelligent 
 faces of the Oodooville girls.” We thank our Secretary for 
 this kind acknowledgment. It soothes some wounds. It as¬ 
 sures us that in his more candid moods, he would not have con¬ 
 sented to abandon the Jaffna Mission, even had it gone on as 
 before. But it sadly damages with its bright colors, that dark 
 back-ground which he had thrown on his canvas, in order to 
 make the changes he had introduced, stand out with more strik¬ 
 ing effect. 
 
 But we are told, that “ the Ceylon Mission has, in point of 
 fact, followed one track for the space of almost forty years 
 and this is attributed to the “ natural aversion in men of ad¬ 
 vanced life to change long cherished habits of labor.” Sur¬ 
 prise is intimated that no village churches had been organized 
 under native pastors; and even, it is said, that until of late the 
 idea of doing' this was not fully developed in the minds of our 
 missionary brethren, because forsooth, “ great practical truths 
 usually have a gradual development;” and not a little credit is 
 
22 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 taken by the Deputation, for having helped in the first act of 
 this sort, as though a great exploit had been achieved. 
 
 Furthermore, complaint is made of the smallness of the stated 
 congregations, since “in a population of one hundred and 
 thirty thousand souls, separating from the congregation the 
 pupils in the mission schools, and the persons in mission employ, 
 only one hundred and twenty-four adults remain for the whole 
 five older congregations, who are not members of the church.” 
 These statements and intimations excite our unfeigned surprise. 
 Who that knows would think of calling such missionaries as 
 Poor and Meigs, Spaulding, Winslow and Hoisington, men 
 of mere routine. Ministers more observant of the times, 
 more alert to the calls of Providence, more facile in adapting 
 themselves to occasions, we have seldom seen. Constantly have 
 they been shaping their system to occurring exigencies, and 
 the history of their w'ork is that of a steady organic develop¬ 
 ment. The idea of the village church, so far from being a 
 thing of recent date, has been before their minds from the be¬ 
 ginning. Most strange if it had not. In 1847, we read that 
 a “ Village Church building fund” was formed, at the instance 
 of Dr. Poor, “ to aid in the erection of neat, substantial stone 
 chapels throughout the Jaffna district.” On the plan proposed 
 six edifices have been erected, where catechists have held stated 
 meetings, gathering audiences, it is estimated, of about a thou¬ 
 sand persons in all. “It is our design,” says the Report for 
 1852, “to improve all favorable openings for thus establishing 
 our men in the villages, with the hope that they may gradually 
 gather around them churches and congregations of those who 
 shall ultimately themselves be ready to sustain the institutions 
 of the Gospel; and in the meantime these men are in situations 
 favorable to the acquisition of that strength and reliability of 
 Christian character, which will enable them to meet their gra¬ 
 dually increasing responsibilities.” Furthermore, a theological 
 class has for some time been in process of instruction, with ex¬ 
 press reference to becoming pastors of the churches w'hich 
 should be formed. These things certainly do not look like fol¬ 
 lowing in one beaten track, or being fettered by old fixed habits. 
 And should they not, we ask, have been accredited to the Mis¬ 
 sion in the Report ? The truth is, that the Mission was steadily 
 
The Deputation to India. 
 
 23 
 
 arriving by regular processes towards the consummation desired 
 by the Deputation, having had a fixed plan for it. And in view 
 of this fact, Dr. Poor writes: “For the Deputation to break 
 in upon us now, would be like rooting up the young corn before 
 it comes to the time of earing, because forsooth, the full ears 
 do not appear at the time —mistaken time, expected.”* 
 
 Now it is true that stated promiscuous congregations had 
 not been instituted in the form they assume in this country. 
 But what reason had the Deputation to look for such or¬ 
 ganizations thus early. Ecclesiastical history says nothing of 
 them until about the third century, and it requires no great pene¬ 
 tration to perceive that, in a structure of society like that of 
 India, unequaled for its organic unity, compacted together by 
 family and clannish ties, by caste, by traditionary occupations, 
 by national customs and modes of life, made sacred by antiquity 
 and religion, it requires the whole power of a regenerating 
 faith to detach a few from the main body, and cause them to 
 assume the name and obligations of Christianity. The people are 
 not easily prepared for such an individualism as this. Much 
 agitation and discussion must prevene, loosening old affinities, 
 and crumbling the consolidated strata of the population, ere 
 the convictions at work beneath the surface can force them¬ 
 selves into the light and take effect. Men of the world will ever 
 be governed by prevailing fashions and customs, let their private 
 belief be what it may. Especially is this the case among the 
 Hindoos, whose sense of obligation to truth seems at times to 
 have been wholly deadened. We cannot, therefore, reasonably 
 look for the formation of promiscuous congregations at this 
 stage of the mission. The thing is premature, and there is no 
 propriety in construing the absence of it into a token of the 
 utter failure of the Gospel with the people at large. The very 
 fact, that six village chapels have been successively erected, in 
 great part by native funds, is a more correct indication on this 
 point; for we are not to suppose that the missionaries would have 
 sanctioned this increase of chapels, if there had been no call for 
 preaching stations. Seeing, then, that the formation of churches 
 had long been directly aimed at and prepared for, what more 
 did the Deputation accomplish than hasten to its consummation 
 
 * 11 Memoranda,” 
 
24 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 a work already begun, pull open as it were by the band a 
 flower just blooming ? And is this to compensate us for all 
 the expense'we have incurred ? Was there any need of special 
 efforts at so great a cost for “encouraging the Brethren to 
 carry the Gospel into the villages, and in such a way that its 
 institutions may speedily take root in them,” as if the measure 
 had not been already in progress ? 
 
 But there is one measure for which the Deputation, we sup¬ 
 pose, will exact full credit, and they shall have it. They abo¬ 
 lished those schools, which had so long been hindering the 
 spread of the Gospel, and the formation of stated congrega¬ 
 tions ! We have already seen what was the character of these 
 schools which were exerting so baleful an influence. But to im¬ 
 press this thing more definitely, we will quote the following 
 description of them from the “Mission Report” for 1852. 
 “ These schools continue to be as they always have been, Bible 
 schools, and their influence upon the community is great. It 
 is not easy to determine to which class they have been the more 
 important; whether to the rising generation for the purpose of 
 imparting to them elementary and religious instruction, or to 
 the risen generation for the two-fold object of preaching to 
 them the Gospel at the school bungalow, and of visiting them 
 at their houses.” Again ; in his letter to Dr. Anderson, Dr. 
 Poor speaks of them in the following manner: “The number 
 of schools may be regarded as a fair index of the extent to 
 which preaching the Gospel to adults in the several villages 
 w T as carried.” Such are the institutions which, in the estima¬ 
 tion of the Deputation, have stood in the way of stated congre¬ 
 gations. We are tempted to ask, Is the entire structure of the 
 human mind in India so overset, that youth there is not the 
 fittest season for remembering the Creator? Or is it we that 
 have been deluding ourselves with the vain belief that religious 
 education is one of the surest means of securing the heart for 
 God ? The Angel of the Old Covenant bade farewell to the 
 world, with the announcement, that “ the hearts of the fathers 
 should be turned to the children,” by way of preparation for 
 the Messiah’s Advent. And was this preparation designed only 
 for the latitude of Europe ? To our minds nothing is more in¬ 
 explicable than the above statement in the Report. So con- 
 
The Deputation to India. 
 
 25 
 
 trary, in fact, is it to reason and experience, that the Deputa¬ 
 tion themselves seem to have forgotten it on writing the 57th 
 page, where they, with singular inconsistency affirm, “ You 
 have seen that one of the main inquiries in the Madura Mission 
 was, how to strengthen the large system of vernacular schools 
 connected with the village congregations. It was to invigorate 
 them, and through them the congregations, and thus to lead on 
 the gathering of village churches that, &c.” We would ask, 
 Was that “intervention of schools,” which had proved so disas¬ 
 trous in Ceylon, likely to prove beneficial among the same 
 class of people on the continent ? According to the Deputation, 
 the history of Jaffna “proves the insufficiency of schools as a 
 means of securing stated congregations, rather than the im¬ 
 practicability of the field.” Yea, it shows that schools “stand 
 in the way of the congregation.” Whereas, in Madura, it 
 seems the effect of schools is to invigorate. How are we to 
 reconcile this ? 
 
 The fallacy of the Deputation’s reasoning is thus exposed by 
 Mr. Spaulding: 
 
 Tbe expression “schools would seem to stand in the way of stated con¬ 
 gregations,” was the stumbling block over which the Deputation stumbled 
 and fell. A greater hoax than this was never entertained. The whole 
 hinges on the assumption, that direct preaching efforts must secure per¬ 
 manent congregations in a given time. “You can show no such congre¬ 
 gations ; therefore the failure is to be charged to the intervention of 
 schools.” The reasoning seems to be thus : “ Did you have schools ?” 
 
 “ Yes.” “ Did you have permanent congregations ?” “No.” “ Ah ! that’s 
 it. Because you had schools. But did you not get permanent congre¬ 
 gations where you had no schools?” “Never.” “Did you try to get 
 such?” “We did.” Did you not succeed?” “No.” “What, not suc¬ 
 ceed when there were no schools and when they were suspended ?” “No.” 
 “ Then without doubt your Mission must be relinquished for a more pro¬ 
 ductive field. Schools are a hinderance, yea a liinderance to the spread 
 of the Gospel. Out with them!” 
 
 We think the doctrine of the Deputation will find hut little 
 credence with the school-loving people of America. 
 
 But did not schools divert the missionaries from the great 
 work of preaching, and so operate disastrously ? This the De¬ 
 putation imply, and so many have inferred. On page 43, it is 
 
26 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 said that “the converting influence of the Mission is and has 
 been chiefly through its boarding-schools.” If by this is meant 
 that here is where the strength of the Mission has been ex¬ 
 pended, never was there a greater mistake. Not more than one 
 in seven or one in eight ever gave their time to the schools. 
 The Mission “was emphatically a preaching mission,” and the 
 main work of its members was to address congregations, visit 
 from house to house, and proclaim the Gospel wherever they 
 had opportunity. We have testimony, that in the course of four 
 years, one of these old missionaries made nearly 3500 calls, by 
 the record, among the villagers; reading the Scriptures, and 
 praying from house to house in order, holding also neighbor¬ 
 hood meetings wherever he went. And he ascribed his free 
 access to all classes, to the fact that he found the pupils of his 
 Mission in almost every family. A similar work was done by 
 others. It is a mistake, therefore, to assert that the converting 
 influence was mainly in the boarding-schools. Gospel truth 
 was diffused everywhere, and impressed alike upon old and 
 young. The Mission report for 1852 speaks of “ daily excur¬ 
 sions in the villages,” “visitations from house to house,” “fre¬ 
 quent tours into distant places with encouraging results,” and 
 “ village meetings on Sabbath afternoons, numbering from ten 
 to fifty or sixty persons.” In view of such varied labors, we 
 conceive there was some reason for a missionary, on writing of 
 the desire of the Deputation for more preaching and more visit¬ 
 ing, to inquire “what more can they ask than has been done ?” 
 It is high time that the impression which has widely gone 
 abroad, that the missionaries were a set of school teachers, 
 “taking it easy,” was corrected. Certain it is that the lack of 
 permanent^ congregations cannot be charged upon a want of 
 preaching. 
 
 But what few conversions among the pupils !—“ only thirty 
 among thirty thousand,” it is said. On what can we charge 
 this lack of converts, if it can be shown that the Gospel has 
 been faithfully dispensed? Shall we chide with God for with¬ 
 holding his grace; or shall we find fault with the toughness of 
 the material which we have to work? May we not rather ask 
 if the churches at home have not been defective in prayer for 
 the needed blessing ? 
 
27 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 But we challenge the fairness of the estimate here made. The 
 school system is one complete whole—consisting of three grades 
 of instruction, and must so be judged. The vernacular village 
 schools are at the foundation; above them are the English 
 schools; and over all are the two Seminaries at Batticotta and 
 Oodooville. The most promising youth found in the first, are 
 carried along in their course through the other two. Hence it 
 is in the latter that the fruits of the early blooms are to be looked 
 for. We commit a great wrong, therefore, when we undertake 
 to judge of the village schools separately, by the number of con¬ 
 versions which have taken place in them. The work effectually 
 begun here, matures elsewhere. Indeed, the Mission Report 
 speaks of “very many” who received their first impressions in 
 these schools, but were taken into the church after entering the 
 seminaries; of sixty-two baptized after leaving their course of 
 instruction ; of others who had given good evidence of faith in 
 Christ, but had died before professing it publicly; and of eighty 
 schoolmasters, besides the parents of children, who had been 
 led to Christ by means of the schools. In view of such facts 
 we contend that to condemn the village schools because of the 
 small number of conversions in them, would be like felling an 
 orchard because it bore no crops the first or second years. 
 
 But not to press this point. Few as have been the conversions 
 in the schools, it is proven that from them the churches have been 
 mostly recruited. Though they have cost but a small proportion 
 of labor and means, they have yielded by far the largest results. 
 A missionary writes: “The simple preaching of the Gospel 
 among the people of India, where catechisms and Scripture his¬ 
 tory are not, and have not been taught to the children, has had 
 thus far very little saving effect. So far as my knowledge goes, 
 I have not seen in this field four cases, with the exception of 
 Navaly, in thirty-five years.” If this be so, our argument is, 
 continue the schools, if you wish to have congregations—not do 
 them away—not find fault with God for not working according to 
 your theories. “ Who crossed and guided the blessing hand to the 
 head of Ephraim the younger instead of Manasseh the elder?” 
 asks a missionary. “And who has blessed most singularly our 
 seminary schools, and bestowed but a left hand gift to our 
 preaching and touring operations? Who is Joseph, that he 
 
28 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 should he displeased and lift up the blessing hand from the 
 favored head ? And who are we, that we thrust from the family 
 the younger child so long, so visibly and so wonderfully blessed, 
 and declare that the apostolic first-horn shall be the heir ? 
 When many instrumentalities are in operation in India, who 
 shows which is the chosen one ?” These, we conceive, are per¬ 
 tinent inquiries. They impel the mind along a most instructive 
 train of thought. To us it seems as if the Deputation had been 
 undertaking to act the part of God’s counsellors, and to direct 
 his Spirit. Their abrogation of the most successful instrument¬ 
 alities is nothing less than insisting that God should convert 
 souls by their own methods or not at all. It is carrying out 
 most effectually the idea we exposed in the instructions, that 
 oral preaching is the great end of missions, and not the salva¬ 
 tion of the soul. 
 
 But the fallacies in regard to the Batticotta Seminary surpass 
 all the rest. We have already seen that this institution has long 
 dwelt under the shadow of the Secretary’s frown. No favorable 
 position to thrive in, as one may readily infer. In a letter, 
 dated 1853, Dr. Poor writes : “ And if I were uttering my last 
 sayings, one of them should be 1 if the Prudential Committee 
 are not by this time prepared to patronize the Seminary by 
 adequately providing for it and giving directions accordingly, 
 it will fail probably of accomplishing the objects aimed at and 
 which I believe are within reach.’ ” Similar statements are 
 scattered through the correspondence of missionaries extending 
 through several years past. Within this period, the opposition 
 to it has occasioned a great reduction of its members. But 
 during the visit of the Deputation, it was so far remodeled and 
 contracted as to preclude its continuance on the plan proposed. 
 We are told in the Report, that “ the suspension was resolved 
 on after the Deputation left the island and was suggested by 
 one of the older missionaries.” The remarks that follow, inti¬ 
 mate that he approved the change. In a letter we have from 
 him, he thus explains his conduct in this matter. Referring to 
 the suspension he says: “ This I first proposed in discussion 
 for discussion’s sake, but really because, as I said, I would 
 rather have nothing for ten years, than to have a half-dead-and- 
 alive thing which would not be worth anything, but be a tax 
 
29 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 and a disgrace on our hands.” We perceive from this extract 
 how important it is to look at the reason of men’s doings, before 
 we venture to interpret them in our favor. 
 
 Like misrepresentations pervade the whole paragraph upon 
 the Seminary. For example, we are told that “the purely 
 vernacular studies of the three classes were only twelve, while 
 the English were thirty-five but we are not told that many 
 of the English studies occupied only half a term, while some of 
 those in Tamil were continued through two or three years—thus 
 restoring the equilibrium in point of quantity. We are told that 
 “ only eleven out of the ninety-six pupils were members of the 
 Church but we are not told that a class with seven pious 
 members had just graduated, and a new class with none at all 
 had just come in. We are told that the “ Seminary had been 
 shorn of the great religious strength it possessed in former 
 times but we are not told how the “missionary help” which 
 “ had been begged, and begged again, ever since 1847, had 
 been withheld,” and the Principal had been repeatedly laid 
 aside by illness. We are told that “ the evils of the system are 
 stated by the Mission in their Report;” but we are not told that 
 these evils are mentioned only as tendencies which are purely 
 theoretical, and never had any verification in fact. We are 
 told of the Government servants which the Seminary has fur¬ 
 nished, but we are not told of the one hundred and sixty cate¬ 
 chists and teachers which have been raised up in it; nor what 
 great help even the unconverted graduates have rendered the 
 cause of Christianity. Much is made of the “ earnestness of 
 Mr. Hastings, its excellent Principal, for these changes ;” but 
 nothing at all is said of his brief connection with the Seminary, 
 and how entirely contrary was the opinion of Dr. Poor,* and 
 Mr. Hoisington and Mr. Mills, who had for years been in 
 charge of the institution and who alone could fairly give the 
 real experiences of that office. Such omissions as these are 
 fatal to the accuracy of the Report, and show clearly on what 
 misjudgments the Seminary was condemned. We desire no 
 
 * la his letter to Dr. A., Dr. P. thus writes: “ The importance of our Semi¬ 
 nary has risen of late years, in my estimation, thirty-three and a third per 
 cent. ; if we would be as wise here, as people are in America, in aiming to 
 raise up men suited to the times.” 
 
30 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 better evidence of the overruling influence of a pre-existent 
 theory, which made against its continuance, than we have here. 
 
 One fact occurring during the discussions should here he 
 known, as casting light upon this whole subject. We here 
 quote from a reliable correspondent. “ It was proposed to the 
 Deputation, to allow the Mission to plead their own cause for 
 funds and for literary men for the Batticotta Seminary ; but 
 the answer was very summary— 4 The Board will not allow it, 
 and the American Christians will not give funds.’ The natives 
 also offered to support an American teacher, and one of them 
 came and had a long talk on the subject; but the die had al¬ 
 ready been cast and there remained only the doing of it.” In 
 view of these disclosures we ask, What becomes of the oft- 
 repeated objection against the educational system derived from 
 its too great expensiveness ? If the Seminary could command 
 the support of the natives under the general supervision of the 
 Mission, why not let it stand and thrive ? Where could be the 
 evil ? Still further. What warrant had the Deputation for 
 committing the whole Board and the churches at home against 
 so important a measure as that proposed by the missionaries or 
 the natives ? Were they certain that consent would not be 
 granted ? that funds could not be obtained ? that the whole 
 country would be unwilling to have that Seminary take root in 
 the land and become an independent source of religious light 
 and knowledge for subsequent generations ? Was there not 
 here a fair occasion for delay and reference ? Are we to take 
 this as a specimen of the Deputation’s suggestions ? Queen 
 Katharine in describing Wolsey, speaks of him as 
 
 one, that by suggestion 
 Ty’d all the kingdom.* 
 
 But in the downfall of the Seminary we have reason to appre¬ 
 hend the rise of a positive evil. Having enjoyed so great advan¬ 
 tages, the Jaffna people are now too much awake to the importance 
 of education to submit quietly to their privations. They will have 
 instruction somehow, if not from good sources then from bad. 
 The post we have neglected to occupy, will at once be occupied by 
 others; “and this power,” writes Mr. Spaulding, “ which has 
 moved the foundations of the devil’s kingdom in India, is about 
 
 * King Henry VIII., Act iv, Sc. 1. 
 
31 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 to be turned against us in the form of Bibleless and heathen 
 schools, and a pro-heathen college.” And could the Deputation 
 have been aware of this ? Let us hear further. “When this was 
 represented to the Deputation, it was replied coolly and sum¬ 
 marily, ‘ Let them have them—-what if they do ” To such sur¬ 
 prising results did the logic of theory force the Deputation. A 
 really curious thing would it be to look into their minds, and 
 witness there that strange mirage, where through some wondrous 
 illusion, the familiar forms of society appear so singularly in¬ 
 verted, and the very foundations of the social fabric are turned 
 up afloat in the air. We have been wont to suppose that Christian 
 educational institutions were fundamental to the well being and 
 evangelization of a community. But these the Deputation set 
 adrift, even after they have been established at great cost. It has 
 been commonly imagined that one of the surest methods of prose¬ 
 lyting a people was to get control of the rising generation ; but 
 these the missionaries are bidden to let alone until they are 
 grown up, and can be gathered into “permanent congrega¬ 
 tions.” We wait to see what our presidents and professors 
 and teachers think of this moral topsy-turvy. 
 
 To this exposition of the Deputation’s theory, it may be object¬ 
 ed that they have left yet standing twelve schools for heathen 
 children in Jaffna. But the question is, are these an exception 
 to the general policy conceded out of regard to the past, and 
 eventually to be done away, or are they a legitimate part of it ? 
 No one can doubt upon this point, when we are distinctly in¬ 
 formed in the Beport on the “ Governing Object of Missions,” 
 that the work of the Gospel “not only acknowledges no neces¬ 
 sity of any auxiliary means or preparatory process, but is actu¬ 
 ally retarded by a resort to such appliances.” And if farther 
 evidence were needed, we have but to remember the inquiry 
 which the Deputation was instructed to make, and which, like 
 all the rest, anticipated its own answer: “ Whether in general, 
 missionary schools should not be restricted to converts and 
 stated attendants on preaching, and their children.” Besides, 
 our interpretation is fully corroborated by letters from the 
 missionaries. 
 
 Another great change effected was the general eradication 
 of the English language from all the schools. Inasmuch as 
 
32 The Deputation to India . 
 
 very strange views have been ascribed to the older missionaries* 
 in regard to the advantages afforded by the study of English* 
 it may be well to quote at length some of their opinions on this 
 subject. One who may be taken as a fair exponent of the rest 
 thus writes: 
 
 Another curious argument was often used by Way of a question: 
 “ Are you expecting to teach all the people, English ? Is the world going 
 to be converted by English? Did the Apostles learn English V’ Now, 
 these questions are all based upon a mistake. No one ever thought of 
 teaching the masses, English. All we ever thought of was to teach a 
 select few, who should take the lead of the land, and who should be able to 
 prepare books, and to teach in the vernacular, so as to meet the demands 
 of such an education in the various departments of a Christian community. 
 We also know that the nation is Christianized through the vernacular. 
 But I have yet to learn that foreigners and foreign languages were not the 
 original moving cause, as a general thing, in the first introduction of 
 Christianity to a heathen land, and so continued to be until the power of 
 that influence had taken sufficient hold of the people, or of their leaders, 
 to carry their work through. Did not the Greeks Christianize the Jews, 
 and in this sense did not the Apostles study English ? The Greek was the 
 court language then, as English is now in India. And did not the leading 
 Jews in church, in state, in the army, from Egypt round through Baby¬ 
 lon, Assyria, Asia Minor, and even to Rome, study Greek and unite the 
 morals of the Hebrew with copious and scientific Greek ? There is no 
 doubt on this point. And it should be kept in mind that Jews were pro¬ 
 moted to the highest offices by Nebuchadnezzar, the Ptolemies and Syrian 
 Kings. Now, if the English educating power has attained sufficient 
 Christian and Christianizing stability to carry on the work in India, well 
 and good. But this is the simple question, and here the whole contro¬ 
 versy hinges. If English Christian education has attained this power 
 over India, so as to control the masses, then we may safely drop it. If 
 not, then we lose the whole, and the stone rolled up the mountain turns 
 back upon us, and the work is lost. We all agree that the masses must 
 be operated upon by the vernacular only, but we differ as to the import¬ 
 ance and strength of the moving human power at the present day in 
 India. English has taken the lead thus far here, and in every land this 
 foreign power has and must take the lead at first, and must continue (so 
 it did in the days of the Apostles) until the wild olive-branch is firmly 
 united with the stock, and becomes the vernacular tree, so as to bear fruit 
 from its own branches. 
 
 The profound ideas here advanced, show clearly the mental 
 power and great wisdom of those men whom our Prudential 
 Committee have undertaken to instruct. They fully justify 
 the course which the Mission had taken thus far, and prove how 
 
The Deputation to India. 33 
 
 fitted it was to retain the control of the whole subject still lon¬ 
 ger. There was plainly no call for the interference of the Depu¬ 
 tation. With such views governing the missionaries there was 
 little danger of their “running wild upon English.” The ob¬ 
 ject they were aiming at, was eminently in the line of their 
 mission work. It was the legitimate improvement of one of the 
 most marvelous preparations made by Providence for the evan¬ 
 gelization of Asia at the present day. In the spread of the Eng¬ 
 lish, we consider there has been furnished us one great advan¬ 
 tage over the first preachers, in their attempts to convert India; 
 and which gives us the hopes of a success which they did not 
 enjoy. To our mind, it is plain, that one great reason why the 
 Gospel failed in the East at the first, was, that the Oriental 
 languages had not been prepared, as was the Greek by the 
 Septuagint translation and the discussions of the Platonic and 
 Alexandrian schools, for taking up and properly expressing its 
 glorious truths. The words employed for Christian teaching 
 were never thoroughly redeemed from Paganism, and the old 
 meanings kept ever blending in with and corrupting the new. 
 This fact is abundantly illustrated in the history of Manicliee- 
 ism. That system was nothing but an amalgam of the Buddhist 
 and Christian religions, which readily ran together in terms 
 common to both. Indeed, so strong is the analogy between the 
 two faiths in many points, that to this day the Buddhists of 
 Ceylon claim Jesus as one of their Boodhs. The great deside¬ 
 ratum, therefore, in India at the first, and one now happily 
 provided was a mediating language , by means of which the 
 natives could clearly apprehend Christian ideas, and then work 
 them into their own literature by a natural process of adapta¬ 
 tion and explanation. For an operation like this, no missionary 
 is ever properly qualified. He must always labor under the 
 disadvantage of foreign idioms and modes of speech. If, there¬ 
 fore, a Christian literature be had, it must come as an indige¬ 
 nous product, and we can only assist toward it by impregnating 
 the minds of an educated class with Christian truths through 
 a Christianized language. And is not this the very blessing 
 indicated by the prophet, “ Then will I turn to the people a 
 pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the 
 Lord and serve him with one consent?” Such a language God 
 3 
 
34 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 is now kindly furnishing the people of India. He has awakened 
 in them an irresistible desire for its acquisition. Our wisdom 
 is rightly to perceive his goings forth and follow whither he 
 leads the way. A movement thus remarkably begun, it should 
 be our aim to conduct to noble issues, and a grievous sin were 
 it if we allowed it to be turned to the detriment of the Gospel, 
 as there is reason to fear will be the case, if we fail. “ As for 
 stopping it,” writes Dr. Poor, “it would be as impossible, as 
 permanently to eclipse the sun; and could it be effected, it 
 would he as disastrous as to eclipse the sun.” Why then should 
 we hesitate ! Why starve the cravings for knowledge which 
 we have awakened ? Why force hack the thinking and eager 
 mind upon the abominations of the Puranas and the Shasters ? 
 Why limit Christian works to the clergy alone, as though intel¬ 
 ligent and cultivated laymen were useless to the church ? Is 
 this a large and generous policy worthy of American Protes¬ 
 tants? We cannot hut feel, that the objections urged in reply 
 by the Deputation, are wholly unworthy of them. We cannot 
 perceive the danger which they apprehend from the aspirations 
 of educated natives. We cannot persuade ourselves of any dis¬ 
 astrous consequences, if goatherds and palanquin-hearers, and 
 toddy-drawers, should rise to positions of influence by means 
 of a thorough Christian education. It is a thing most to be 
 desired, and the evil accruing is small in proportion to the be¬ 
 nefit. “A score have been elevated to one being injured,” 
 writes Dr. Poor. This diffusion of knowledge and uplifting of 
 the lower classes is the natural effect of the Gospel everywhere. 
 We cannot suppress it, and the problem of the Deputation ap¬ 
 pears to us to be nothing less than that of seeking how to leaven 
 the lump without letting it rise. 
 
 We cannot hut feel, therefore, that this relentless crusade 
 against the English is wholly impolitic and unwarrantable. It 
 is a refusal to take possession of and sanctify one of the efficient 
 powers for good at work in India, and in so doing, it appears 
 to us, as if the Mission were periling its influence, and coming- 
 down from the high vantage-ground it has hitherto occupied. 
 It is surrendering into the hands of the enemy, positions which 
 it ought valiantly to maintain in command of the whole coun¬ 
 try. 
 
The Deputation to India. 
 
 35 
 
 There are several other topics which we would gladly discuss 
 had we the space; but we must hasten to glance in conclusion 
 at the changes made in the machinery of the Mission. These 
 are all characterized by one marked feature. It is that they 
 favor the more complete control of the Committee over the 
 missionaries. “Free correspondence,’’ for example, or more 
 properly, secret correspondence under the plea of securing the 
 greater independence of the individual missionary, endangers 
 the liberty of the whole body, by subjecting it to a covert espi¬ 
 onage. The declining of “ Government Grants,” contrary to the 
 policy of the other Missions, throws the missionary more exclu¬ 
 sively upon the resources which may be furnished him from the 
 Mission House. The same result accrues also from a severance 
 of the mission from all local Tract and Bible societies. But it 
 is in the dissolution of the Ecclesiastical Organization, and 
 merging the powers of this into the mission body that we detect 
 the most serious evil—for here we have a body so constituted 
 as to allow of no jurisdiction save that of the Committee, which 
 can appoint and depose its members at pleasure. Thus we 
 have the complete subordination of the missionary, under the 
 absolute control of the Mission House. The arrangement is 
 commended in the Report for its simplicity, but it is just such 
 a simplicity as is ever favorable to despotism. We must con¬ 
 fess we dislike the system. Its lauded excellence is its chief 
 evil. We would rather have'more protection against the Com¬ 
 mittee ; more liberty for the mission to derive aid where best 
 it can, and thus try expedients which the Committee may not be 
 ready to approve, and more direct connection with the ecclesias¬ 
 tical bodies at home. Already have too many complaints about 
 a stringent control reached our ears. These should not be 
 multiplied. The missionaries should not be treated as the mere 
 employes of the Board. With more justice we might regard 
 the Board as an agency emploj'ed in providing support for the 
 missionaries as they go forth under a divine call to execute the 
 behests of their master. The missionaries stand on a par with 
 the clergy at home—no higher—no lower—and we cannot con¬ 
 sent to have our Prudential Committee exalted into an Episco¬ 
 pate over them, however benevolent may be their intentions. 
 Pemberton Square is not the Zion from whence the law was to 
 
 i 
 
 f 
 
36 
 
 The Deputation to India. 
 
 proceed. Let it be so regarded and the glory of our Board 
 departs. Men of manly self-respect will cease to enlist under 
 our charge. It was the remark of Reuben Tinker when asked 
 why he left the service of the Board—“ God made me a man, 
 and I felt that I must be one.” That class, of which he is a 
 representative, is happily not extinct in our land. 
 
 A few facts here deserve to be noticed : 
 
 1. The new theory inaugurated is directly contrary to all the 
 arguments and solicitations heretofore presented by the Mis¬ 
 sions in India to the Mission-House, and is therefore opposed 
 to all their hitherto declared experiences. This is a point which 
 will not be questioned. 
 
 2. The new system obtained sanction from the Missions con¬ 
 fessedly either by the power of persuasion or of authority, and 
 therefore, rests mainly upon the wisdom of those who originated 
 it at home. 
 
 3. Those older missionaries who were to the last most op¬ 
 posed to the new measures, were such as have ever been most 
 distinguished for their zeal in preaching and visiting among the 
 people, and have been the most successful in wanning souls. 
 
 4. The new system has operated largely to alienate and drive 
 off to other missions, many of our most intelligent catechists 
 and converts, and has thus bereft our missionaries of a large 
 portion of their strength. 
 
 5. No evidences of superior actual success from the new mea¬ 
 sures proposed, have been as yet adduced by the Deputation in 
 support of their proceedings. With them it has been solely 
 theory versus experience. 
 
 6. There is not a single returned missionary from Ceylon in 
 this country—and there are nine of them—that does not deplore 
 the changes we have criticised as hurtful to the mission cause. 
 
 Enough has been said to show the ex parte character of the 
 Report. If w r e mistake not it has been shown, that the Depu¬ 
 tation went out charged with a theory which it w’as their deter¬ 
 mination to carry out as far as practicable in all the Missions. 
 It has been shown that their investigations w r ent to provide sup¬ 
 port for this theory; that many of the facts they have gather¬ 
 ed are erroneously interpreted; that some of the testimony 
 they have adduced in their favor is fallacious; that the represen- 
 
The Deputation to India. 
 
 37 
 
 tations of failure in the Mission demanding a new policy, are 
 strenuously denied by the missionaries ; that the changes were 
 carried out against the counsel of the older and part of the 
 younger brethren ; and, finally, that by means of these changes 
 the powers of control at the Mission-House have been greatly 
 increased. That advantages have been gained by the visit of 
 the Deputation, we will not pretend to deny. They have un¬ 
 doubtedly helped forward some portions of the mission enter¬ 
 prise in the right direction. All they have done to promote 
 village church organizations, we are disposed to approve. The 
 question is, whether seeing that the Missions were already aim¬ 
 ing at and steadily making for this same result, the assistance 
 they have rendered in this way will compensate for the expense 
 they have incurred, and will counterbalance the evil they have 
 done. Our deliberate conviction is, that Deputations have no 
 more claim to be trusted in the matter of their judgment, or of 
 their missionary zeal, than the missionaries themselves, and 
 nothing but a clear case of superiority in mental or moral quali¬ 
 fications or a manifest necessity of some sort can justify the 
 one in undertaking to give directions to the other. Certainly 
 a measure so delicate and difficult of right execution ought at 
 the beginning, to have received the full sanction of the Board. 
 In not securing this sanction, we cannot but feel that the Pru¬ 
 dential Committee have greatly erred. Herein they have been 
 guilty of a gross assumption of power, which it is to be hoped 
 will be thoroughly guarded against in the future. An apology 
 may be found for it in the fact, that hitherto they have enjoyed 
 an almost unlimited sway, and have had their proceedings sub¬ 
 ject to no review and control, being most implicitly trusted and 
 habitually lauded. And lest the woe actually come of which we 
 have been so often reminded, the woe that follows when all men 
 speak well of us, it may be well that the Board, taking warn¬ 
 ing, in season, should prevent so disastrous a result by improv¬ 
 ing at least a portion of its annual meetings to the strict ex¬ 
 amination of its administrative affairs, and devote less time 
 to a general glorification. No well-managed body will ever 
 allow such instructions as those detailed in the Report, to pro¬ 
 ceed from any of its officers annually elected, without being in¬ 
 formed thereof, before the end of the third year, as would have 
 
38 The Deputation to India. 
 
 been the case now, had not the special meeting at Albany been 
 called. 
 
 We shall conclude this already too long Article, by quoting 
 the following extract from a private letter which it has been our 
 privilege to peruse, coming from a distinguished and judicious 
 missionary, in altogether another field, and sincerely friendly 
 to the Deputation. It carries so much sound sense, and evinces 
 so excellent a spirit, that we know we shall be pardoned for 
 making use of it without his sanction or name: 
 
 On reflection I do not know why I was so much surprised at the de¬ 
 bate regarding the doings of the Deputation to India. I think the Com¬ 
 mittee fell into a mistake in authorizing the inauguration (that is the word 
 now, I believe,) of great changes in the mode of conducting Missions, 
 without consulting the Board. This I think the Committee should at once 
 frankly acknowledge. Nor will it hurt their reputation to make such an 
 acknowledgment. No reasonable man will demand perfection in any 
 body of missionary directors, “ To err is human.” Then again, I think 
 it is equally human to swing over to extremes. That for many years the 
 extreme of missionary tactics was in favor of gradual literary enlighten¬ 
 ment by the press and by schools, rather than of efforts for immediate 
 conversion through the preaching of the word, I have never had any 
 doubt.. But now again, there is so strong a re-action, that there is almost 
 a dead certainty that the press and education will be put too far in the 
 back-ground. We cannot dispense with either one or the other, nor 
 should the standard of education be depressed too low. And above all 
 things, any tendency to get up a patent-right machinery for making Chris¬ 
 tians which all must work just so in all places, without reference to cir¬ 
 cumstances ; this, every missionary and every friend of Missions should 
 sternly resist. The missionary in the main, must be the best judge of the 
 field he is cultivating, and of the changes which the actual progress of 
 his work requires to be made from time to time, and he must be in a great 
 degree free in his action. Without endorsing in any way the course of 
 Mr. P., I know that there can be the “ experience of a, pressure” too strong 
 for the free expression of individual opinion. And this will always react 
 unhappily Avhen the pressure departs. 
 
 These suggestions clearly indicate the nature of the evil to be 
 removed and the remedy to be applied. What we plead for is 
 that the missionaries be allowed, and have secured to them, a 
 larger liberty in the prosecution of their work, the liberty they 
 were wont to enjoy in the times of Evarts and Wisner. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 M 
 
 The following Articles, ably discussing two important branches of the 
 general subject considered in the foregoing Review, are taken from the 
 editorial columns of the “ New York Evangelist,” and recommended to 
 readers for their attentive perusal. 
 
 THE AMERICAN BOARD. 
 
 The Ecclesiastical Question. 
 
 Among the subjects referred to the Committee of thirteen by the Ame¬ 
 rican Board at its late meeting in Albany, is an alleged “ total change in 
 the ecclesiastical constitution of the mission” in Ceylon. This point, 
 stated as above in the Report of the Committee on that mission, which 
 was the occasion of the special meeting, did not come up for discussion 
 during the sessions of that meeting, except incidentally. But it is doubt¬ 
 less one concerning which much dissatisfaction and anxiety is felt; espe¬ 
 cially in the Presbyterian section of the patrons and members of the 
 Board. • 
 
 It is not with a desire to aggravate the discontent, which we hope may 
 be entirely removed in the expected adjustment of the affairs at issue, but 
 to assist in directing attention to the points requiring special considera¬ 
 tion, that we offer a few remarks upon the subject at the present time. 
 Most deeply do we feel that the only true way to secure harmony and 
 confidence in the affairs of this institution, especially at the present junc¬ 
 ture, is to encourage the freest discussion of all points concerning which 
 dissatisfaction has arisen. This course we shall deem it our duty to pur¬ 
 sue, not, we trust, in a captious spirit, but with a sincere desire to secure 
 the best interests of a most sacred cause. 
 
 In the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, it will 
 be borne in mind, three distinct denominations of professed Christians are 
 united. They have their distinct ecclesiastical organizations, their distinct 
 organic interests, and their distinct peculiarities of ecclesiastical polity. 
 But they have been disposed to unite rather than pursue three sepa¬ 
 rate and independent courses of action, because they have looked upon 
 each other as sister denominations, engaged in the propagation of the 
 same faith, and founded upon the same general principles of ecclesiasti¬ 
 cal organization and government. 
 
 In the administration of the affairs of such a Board, it is fair to expect 
 two things : first, that the principles held in common by the three deno¬ 
 minations will never, without the most obvious reasons and the fullest un¬ 
 derstanding, be departed from ; and, second, that in regard to the princi- 
 ciples on which they differ—how far those held by one party shall be 
 
40 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 allowed to predominate, and how far those of another—the utmost Chris¬ 
 tian impartiality will be exercised. Such, we believe, has ever been the 
 understanding of all parties. And it marks the fraternal confidence which 
 the denominations thus united entertain for each other, that at this mo¬ 
 ment all the members of the Prudential Committee, and all the Secretaries 
 with two exceptions are from a single denomination. May the day be 
 far distant when the necessity shall be felt for any nice balancing of forces 
 in this particular. 
 
 In this discussion we shall assume the two positions just stated as fun¬ 
 damental rules, and bring the action of the Deputation, so far as it relates 
 to questions of ecclesiastical polity, to that test. 
 
 If we have not mistaken the facts, there are certain broad general prin¬ 
 ciples on this point, held in common by all the three denominations, held 
 as Scriptural—as indispensable to the right constitution of a church. For 
 example, they are all agreed as to the elements of which a church must 
 be composed; as to a distinction, broadly marked, between things eccle¬ 
 siastical and things secular ; and as to a distribution of rights and duties 
 between the brotherhood at large and special officers or representatives of 
 the Church. They are agreed in the positions that ministers are but the 
 servants or officers of the Church under its Divine Head; that all minis¬ 
 terial authority is conveyed through the Church ; that there is an essen¬ 
 tial parity among all ministers duly ordained ; that neither ministers nor 
 lay officers can exercise any authority over the Church except as officers 
 or representatives of the same, and that all officers, whether ordained or 
 unordained, as well as private members, are subject to the discipline of 
 the Church in its organic capacity, and entitled to its protection. They 
 differ, among other things, as to the classes of officers to be appointed 
 over the Church,—whether there should be ruling elders or only pastors 
 and deacons ; as to the degree and mode of organization between indivi¬ 
 dual congregations and ministers ; and as to the methods in which the 
 voice of the Church ought to express itself. 
 
 Now, in all candor, we are compelled to say, the recent action of the 
 Deputation does not in our estimation stand the test of the above stated 
 rules. It is, if we understand it, the inauguration of a peculiar system of 
 ecclesiastical polity, long purposed, and for which the way has long been 
 preparing, but at variance in many particulars with the fundamental 
 principles of all three of our denominations ; and in respect to which nei¬ 
 ther the denominations nor the Board have been properly consulted. 
 
 In the report of the Deputation presented at Albany, on pages 54 and 
 55 we find in a memorandum of the Senior Secretary, the substance, as 
 we are told, of the “ suggestions” made by the Deputation to the missions 
 previous to the discussions held under their auspices. These suggestions 
 embody the principal grounds on which the new system is to be sup¬ 
 ported. 
 
 We would call attention in the first place to the position which this 
 system assigns to the missionary, and the authority with which he is 
 clothed by it. There is a fallacy, if we are not mistaken, couched under 
 the apparent truisms of the first section of the suggestions. “ A mission¬ 
 ary,” it is said, “ is a minister of the gospel, sent to heathen or unevange¬ 
 lized people, under the command of Christ, to preach the gospel. lie 
 does not derive his authority from the Board, nor from the ordaining body, 
 nor from any earthly source. The ordaining body merely recognize it. 
 They attend to the proofs of the divine call, and pronounce a judgment 
 upon it.” If this means simply that what is true of all ministers, is true 
 also of missionaries, as ministers, that they derive and hold their commis¬ 
 sion from God, and not from men, we have no objection to make. But 
 
Appendix. 41 
 
 it will then afford no ground for placing the missionary in any different 
 relations to the Church from those of other ministers. If other ministers 
 cannot exercise their functions in an orderly manner apart from their 
 commission received through the Church, and under a responsibility to 
 it, neither can he. In the Presbyterian Church a minister is connected 
 with the Church through his Presbytery, and he is responsible to them 
 and holds their commission, or he is no minister. In the Congregational 
 Church, he has been ordained by a Council of Churches, and is responsi¬ 
 ble more or less directly to the body of churches of which that Council is 
 the representative, or he is no minister. In both cases the authority 
 emanates from the Church, and through the Church from the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, who is the Church’s head. So, too, the missionary, as such, is the 
 Church’s missionary, sent forth to do her work. Providentially, he may 
 be said to be called of God to be a missionary, just as the Secretary is 
 is called of God to be a Secretary. But as to official authority, he is no 
 more independent of his employers than is the Secretary himself. He 
 holds no office, ministerial or otherwise, more directly from Christ or more 
 independently of the Church and her regulations, than does the clerical 
 editor of a religious journal. 
 
 But let us look at the next step taken by the suggestions. “ The mis¬ 
 sionary’s work and office are in some respects extraordinary. lie is not a 
 pastor of a church but the founder of churches, and may have the care 
 and superintendence of many churches. He is a minister of the gospel, 
 and he is something more. What he is, is best indicated by the word 
 missionary, which is an extraordinary office for an extraordinary work.” 
 The italics are those of the Deputation. In another place they say: “The 
 missionary vocation includes the ministerial and is something more. It 
 includes all the powers needful to teach and disciple all nations which it 
 derives from the Lord Jesus.” We do not deny that the work of a mis¬ 
 sionary is in some respects extraordinary. So is every individual minis¬ 
 ter’s. It is a particular direction given to the proper functions of a Chris¬ 
 tian minister. But we do deny that the work of the missionary is in any 
 respect so extraordinary, as to require or constitute any distinct office in 
 the Church. We deny that the great Head of the Church ever instituted 
 or authorized us to institute any such office. The ministry we believe to 
 be an office of divine appointment. The missionary, if he is an ordained 
 missionary, is by office a minister. He may perform all the functions 
 proper to the ministerial office. But his position as a missionary does not 
 clothe him with any new ecclesiastical powers. Nor does it authorise 
 him to exert its powers except upon the broad basis of his ministerial 
 character. 
 
 To preach the gospel is one mode of exercising those powers; to baptize 
 and administer the Lords’ Supper is another ; to take the pastoral over¬ 
 sight of a particular congregation of believers is another; to ordain min¬ 
 isters is another. But they are all included in one and the same office. 
 A home missionary or evangelist is a minister of the gospel, exercising 
 the powers conferred upon him by his ordination in one particular set of 
 circumstances, and for the accomplishment of a particular work. And, 
 in the same sense, and no other, is a foreign missionary a minister of the 
 gospel, exercising the powers of the same office in different circumstances, 
 and for a somewhat different result. The work of each is but a particular 
 part of what all Christian ministers may, when the occasion calls, under¬ 
 take and perform. It is the broad, comprehensive office of a Christian 
 bishop or presbyter narrowed down for the time being to a speciality. 
 
 But the Secretary asserts, “the missionary vocation includes the minis¬ 
 terial, and is something more.” What more, we ask? Congregational- 
 
42 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 ists, Dutch Reformed, and Presbyterian churches all insist that there is 
 no higher office in the Church than that of bishop or presbyter,—that is, 
 of minister of the gospel. A minister may hold other offices, secular or 
 religious, provided they are not incompatible with this. But then, their 
 functions are distinct. Would the Secretary claim for his own office, that 
 “ it includes the ministerial, and is something more?” Would he say the 
 same of that of a member of the Prudential Committee? We trust not. 
 We understand him as asserting for the missionary, not merely the right 
 and duty to exercise other offices—financial, educational,'editorial, as well 
 as the ministerial—but that he holds an office higher than all these, and 
 inclusive of them all; in virtue of which he has peculiar powers, and a 
 peculiar position in the Church. By this peculiar and extraordinary 
 office, derived directly from the Lord Jesus, and responsible to no man, 
 except through pecuniary obligations to the American Board, he is in¬ 
 vested with authority which no minister of the gospel in any church in 
 Christendom claims or w t ou1<3 dare to exercise. He need not belong to any 
 ecclesiastical body. That which had existed in Ceylon from the beginning 
 was dissolved during the vifit of the Deputation as an incumbrance. There 
 is no propriety in his keeping up a distinction between his secular and 
 ecclesiastical business. The natives must not be allowed to suppose that 
 he distributes the funds entrusted to him, by a commission less divine 
 than he preaches the gospel. In his sole right as missionary, he has the 
 authority to gather churches; to ordain ministers; to exercise ecclesiasti¬ 
 cal control over churches so formed and ministers so ordained; to discipline 
 both when he deems them worthy of it, and, by his simple decree, cut 
 them off from the body of Christ by excommunication. 
 
 If any doubt the truth of this representation, let us call their attention 
 to an extract from a report elicited from one of the missions, and expli¬ 
 citly sanctioned by the Deputation in the name of the Prudential Com¬ 
 mittee. It will be found in the proceedings of the Madura mission, as 
 printed for the use of that Committee : we hope ere long it will be printed 
 also, with the other important documents bearing on the questions now at 
 issue, for the use of the Board. The Report asserts as follows: “But the 
 mission has over these churches and pastors, not only a pecuniary but an 
 ecclesiastical and moral control. It has ecclesiastical control in that it 
 should, being composed of evangelists sent forth for the purpose, organize 
 the churches and ordain the pastors ; and as it can organize and ordain, 
 so it can, if necessity require, separate the sound part of a church from a 
 corrupt part, and depose from the pastoral office an unworthy Demas, Hy- 
 meneus, or Philetus.” To this the Deputation rejoin : “ Missionaries are 
 properly evangelists, such as Timothy and Titus were, and their relations 
 to native pastors are well described in your report.” “ The command to 
 publish the gospel of course involves and gives the necessary powers for 
 doing the thing commanded, for executing the commission. When native 
 churches are to be organized, and native pastors ordained, who is authori¬ 
 zed to perform those services if the missionary and bodies of missionaries 
 are not ?” “ The powers of the mission to interpose authoritatively in case 
 of unsoundness in the native churches and pastors, are stated in your 
 report. No improvement can be made on the simplicity and the efficacy 
 of the New Testament plan for propagating the gospel among the hea¬ 
 then.” Turn next to the printed proceedings of the mission at Ceylon. 
 In response to the missionaries there, after the act above referred to, the 
 Deputation say as follows : “ The dissolving of your ecclesiastical body 
 by a unanimous vote, freed you from an inconvenient and needless per¬ 
 plexity. Your mission as such has all the power to organize churches 
 and ordain pastors, which any other body can ever derive from God’s 
 
Appendix. 43 
 
 word ; and the proper distinction between the duties of the mission and 
 those of the other body, composed of the same persons and operating on 
 the same ground, can never be so drawn as to make the working of the 
 two bodies otherwise than extremely inconvenient. The mission can 
 more easily do the whole work than a part; and you certainly did well 
 in simplifying your machinery. If missionaries distinguish between their 
 own ministerial and missionary functions, then the natives will do the 
 same for them. The missionary vocation includes the ministerial, and is 
 something more.' It includes all the powers needful to teach and disciple 
 all nations, which it derives from the Lord -Jesus ” Abundance of matter 
 to the same effect may be found all over the documents. 
 
 Now let us look at the position assigned by the same system to the na¬ 
 tive pastors and churches. It is a prominent, and we are happy to say, 
 a most excellent feature of the plan of the Deputation to organize native 
 churches and ordain native pastors over them as fast as practicable, and 
 to throw upon them as much of the responsibility of managing their own 
 affairs as expediency will permit. But how are these churches to be or¬ 
 ganized, and what relations are they and their pastors to sustain to each 
 other and the missionaries ? 
 
 In the first place, these churches are all to be organized internally on 
 the Congregational plan. To this we have no objection to make, except 
 its exclusive feature. We do not believe it right for the Deputation to 
 prescribe Congregationalism to the native churches as the New Testament 
 plan, to the exclusion of the views held by other denominations in the 
 Board. This they do in effect, when they use such language as the fol¬ 
 lowing. We quote from their reply to a report from the Madura Mission; 
 “ Mission churches obviously require the utmost simplicity of structure, 
 and all that is good for them, may be learned from the New Testament. 
 A local church is God 1 s institution. So is the pastoral office. So are dea¬ 
 cons to do work from ichich pastors should be relieved. And a church 
 thus organized on heathen ground, in the New Testament simplicity of 
 structure, is, as all the New Testament churches were, a Missionary 
 church,” &c. 
 
 As to the relations of native churches and pastors to each other, they 
 are to be formed on the basis of the most unqualified independency. We 
 look in vain for either the Classis of the Dutch Reformed Church, the 
 Presbytery of the Presbyterian, the Consociation of Connecticut and Rhode 
 Island, the Conference of Maine, or the Council which is the bond of ec¬ 
 clesiastical fellowship, supervision and responsibility in all the Congre¬ 
 gational churches of New England. Whether any such bodies are to be 
 formed is a question of remote contingencies. So long as the Board con¬ 
 tinues its relation to them, we understand there are to be none. Two 
 churches standing side by side have no ecclesiastical connection with each 
 other. The pastor of the one cannot even take part in the ordination of 
 the pastor of another, except as he may with propriety be invited to do 
 so under the authority of the mission, or a committee of the mission, just 
 as the Deputation were invited, when they happened to be present at an 
 ordination. 
 
 But let us look at their external relations. It is assumed as a fixed 
 principle of missionary policy that no organic connection is to be estab¬ 
 lished between native churches and any of the ecclesiastical bodies in this 
 country. Nor are they to be connected with the missionaries in any eccle¬ 
 siastical bodies, similar to those in this country. In such bodies, 
 the native pastors could claim the right to an equal vote, and that would 
 be dangerous. “ Associated with the missionaries in ecclesiastical bodies, 
 on a parity as to voice and right, which after all cannot exist in effect,” 
 
44 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 say the Deputation, “the native ministry will be in danger of becoming 
 ambitious, envious, jealous, and addicted to cliques and cabals for carry¬ 
 ing their points against missionaries and the mission.” So there must be 
 literally no ecclesiastical bodies in whose deliberations and decisions they 
 can have a voice. 
 
 But are they practically independent ? No, by no means ; at least not 
 so long as we have any concern with them. The missionary is there ; and 
 he, either singly or with others, where there is an organized mission, has 
 authority, in virtue of his plenipotentiary office, derived from Christ and 
 not from the Church, to interfere in all their concerns. He can enter 
 their communion to decide who are true and sound, and who are unsound 
 members of the Church ; he can excommunicate those whom he judges 
 unsound ; he can depose their pastor from his office, he can cast the 
 church itself out from the communion of churches. In virtue of his one 
 great office involving all secular as well as what we have been wont to 
 distinguish as ecclesiastical affairs, he can by one act stop their pecuniary 
 supplies and cast them down from their position as churches. The mis¬ 
 sionary located at the station may be a single young man, just graduated 
 from the theological seminary, and no other missionary may be found 
 within a distance of forty miles ; and the native pastor, if the mission be 
 one of the older ones—that of Ceylon for example—may be a man of years, 
 of learning, of thorough training in the Scriptures, of ripe experience as 
 a catechist, an intimate acquaintance with the native character. And yet 
 the young man is practically the pastor’s bishop. A more complete sys¬ 
 tem of subjection to an authority wholly out of themselves, could hardly 
 be devised. It may be exercised wisely and generously. We have great 
 confidence in most of our missionaries. But it may be exercised ill too. 
 
 Let i^s look now at the responsibilities of the missionary. Who is to 
 call him to account if he proves himself unworthy of his high functions ? 
 According to all the principles recognized in our ecclesiastical platforms, 
 no man living has the authority to do it. He has no connection with ec¬ 
 clesiastical bodies in this country. It is a part of the plan that he shall 
 be united with his brethren in no such bodies on missionary ground. 
 There may or may not be a missionary church at the station ; and if there 
 be, he may be connected with it as pastor or as one of the brotherhood. But 
 it is a single church, and in no capacity for exercising discipline over a 
 gospel minister. Who shall call him to account, who shall judge him, 
 admonish him or subject him to Christian discipline in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus? If he is slandered or the subject of untrue suspicions, who 
 shall vindicate him and hold him up, in the same holy name ? 
 
 There is a body who according to the views of the Deputation, may 
 claim to act in such exigencies. It is the mission. Ih speaking of the 
 inherent powers of the missionary, we have hitherto regarded him chiefly 
 as standing alone. But in point of fact it is not expected that he will ordi¬ 
 narily stand alone. Where there are more missionaries than one in the same 
 field, it is expected they will unite themselves into a single body. The 
 mission and not the missionary will then be the controlling authority. 
 Whatever the individual missionary may do, ecclesiastically or otherwise, 
 that the mission may do by the votes of its majority. And of what mate¬ 
 rials is the mission composed ? Not of pastors of churches. Not of el¬ 
 ders and delegates of churches ; butof an aggregate of ministers and lay¬ 
 men—physicians, printers, teachers, of different grades, brought together 
 and made members of the body with an equal vote, by no other authority 
 whatever than an appointment from the Prudential Committee. With 
 this body, so constituted, is lodged plenipotentiary power, both ecclesias¬ 
 tical and pecuniary, over missionaries, mission churches and native pas- 
 
Appendix. 
 
 45 
 
 tors. This body we presume would be thought competent to discipline 
 the missionary. And this is what is called, in the language of the Depu¬ 
 tation, “simplifying the machinery.” This, it is assumed, over and over, 
 is, “ the simple New Testament plan” for conducting missions. 
 
 But now there is another question: Has the mission, with all its high 
 powers, no superior to whom it must hold itself amenable? Yes, it has. 
 And here we reach the summit, where all this simplifying of powers 
 gathers itself up to a single point. It is the Prudential Committee. It is 
 not assumed that their power is ecclesiastical; though why it should not 
 be, on the principles of the scheme, we are at a loss to see. But as, in 
 virtue of their appointment, the missionary became such as he is, so in 
 virtue of their recall or stoppage of supplies, he must descend from his 
 high position and return to that of simple minister or layman. And the 
 mission, considered as an organized body, must, at the word of the same 
 authority, absolutely cease to exist. 
 
 We think the Prudential Committee, unconsciously wo presume, are in 
 th e exercise of functions eminently ecclesiastical. To them, with and 
 through the Deputation acting in their name, and clothed with their au¬ 
 thority, belongs the responsible authorship of the entire scheme which we 
 have been describing. They have found themselves—this little band of 
 seven laymen, and two ministers of the gospel, in the city of Boston, (sit¬ 
 ting side by side, as it were, with such venerable bodies as the Synods 
 that composed the Cambridge and Saybrook platforms, or the Assembly 
 of Divines at Westminster,) charged with the duty of devising a new 
 scheme of Church organization, which they may recommend as the only 
 true New Testament plan for a class of infant churches, to be formed in 
 circumstances and of materials the most various, and destined as they hope, 
 to encompass the entire unevangelized world. No man, we think, can 
 doubt that the exercise of such powers by a body constituted as this is, is 
 a novelty in ecclesiastical history. And so is the scheme itself, devised 
 and recommended by them, and by the Deputation acting under their 
 commission. As a whole, certainly, this Missionary platform is a perfect 
 novelty, totally unknown to any of the denominations associated in this 
 Missionary Board. 
 
 It will be claimed we know by the Deputation, that this feature of it is 
 an excellence. It shows it to be unsectarian. “It is strictly missionary” 
 they say “ and not at all sectarian. None of the denominations can claim 
 exclusive affinity to the simple organization they have adopted. No other 
 characteristic is appropriate for it, than the apostolical or the missionary.” 
 We doubt, of course, its apostolical character. But as to its being unsec¬ 
 tarian, we, for our part, can assure the Deputation, it is no comfort to us, 
 when we are made to assist in propagating a system from which every 
 distinguishing feature of Presbyterianism seems studiously excluded ; to 
 be told that it violates equally some of the best principles of our Congre¬ 
 gational brethren. There are features of the Congregational system which 
 we like much. Many of us were brought up Congregationalists ourselves ; 
 and though we prefer the Presbyterian system as the most reliable, there 
 is no other we would choose in preference to that, if we must give up our 
 own. Scarcely a man of us, we presume, would hesitate to say: “If I 
 were not a Presbyterian, I would be a Congregationalist.” Could it then 
 be a relief to us, to be assured that the most conservative and liberal fea¬ 
 tures of Congregationalism, as it was when we first learned to love it, the 
 points, on which that system most resembles our own ; its parity in the 
 ministry ; its reservation of ecclesiastical authority exclusively for eccle¬ 
 siastical bodies ; its inseparable connection of the right of representation 
 with the duty of submission to authority ; its system of “ fellowship” by 
 
46 Appendix. 
 
 which individual churches become responsible members of an organic 
 whole, are Avholly discarded ? We think the Deputation have entirely 
 mistaken the nature of what is unsectarian. Nor have they a juster view 
 of the grounds on which these three sister denominations came together 
 in the American Board. It was by no means on the ground of mutually 
 excluding, but of mutually respecting, and by all fair and fraternal adjust¬ 
 ments, avoiding to interfere with each others peculiarities. For ourselves, 
 much as we love our own Presbyterianism—sectarian as perhaps the De¬ 
 putation would think us; much rather would we give over the whole 
 ground to genuine Congregationalism, than take our share, though it were 
 much greater than it is, of this incongruous mixture of some of the worst 
 elements of the Episcopacy, with that rank Brownism which the Old Fa¬ 
 thers of New England repudiated. If this be the alternative for our infant 
 missionary churches, we would say unhesitatingly, with reference to either 
 of our sister denominations associated with us, “ Give her the living child, 
 and in no wise slay it.” 
 
 But we must here say a few words with reference to our second rule 
 laid down at the beginning. In regard to points on which our three de¬ 
 nominations differ, we are not quite satisfied that there has been as much 
 impartiality manifested in the conduct of our missions, as might have 
 been expected. The Deputation claim, indeed, that the ecclesiastical sys¬ 
 tem they have adopted, “is the primary form of the three grand ecclesi¬ 
 astical orders of Protestant Christendom; Congregational, Presbyterian, 
 and Episcopalian.” The Episcopal element we suppose, is that bench of 
 supervisors called the Mission. The Congregational finds its shadow at 
 least, in the internal constitution of individual churches. But we' look in 
 vain for a single feature of Presbyterianism, considered as distinct from 
 other denominations. The General Assembly, it is well known, has had 
 a wish, in cases where it may he found practicable, to bring the Presby¬ 
 terian missionaries, who are either now, or may hereafter be on heathen 
 ground, into organic connection with itself, so as through them to try at 
 least the experiment of establishing what it regards as its own excellent 
 ecclesiastical system, on some small portion of the missionary field. The 
 Dutch Church has such an experiment in the Mission at Arcot. The 
 Presbyterian Church almost had, at one time, in the Missions of Madras 
 and Ceylon. In the latter, there was organized from the beginning, an 
 ecclesiastical body called the “ Consociation or Presbytery of Jaffna.” 
 About ten years ago that body dropped its -congregational name, and be¬ 
 came the “ Presbytery of Jaffna.” It would have been an easy thing, 
 doubtless, had that tendency been encouraged, to have strengthened the 
 bonds of affection between the Presbyterian Church and the Board, by 
 allowing that mission to become distinctively a Presbyterian Mission. But 
 if we are rightly informed, no sooner was the change referred to reported 
 in this country, than the missionaries were informed from head quarters, 
 that their action would not be sustained in this country, and they deemed 
 it prudent to recede. Now, under the influence of the Deputation during 
 their late visit, and with the very puerile excuse that the clerk happened 
 to forget to bring the minutes, that body is abolished ; and in their address 
 to one of the missions in India, the Deputation distinctly declare, “it is in 
 vain to expect the direct propagation of either of the religious sects of 
 Christendom as such in heathen lands.” And again, “ we rejoice in your 
 determination to content yourselves with the broad missionary relation 
 you at present sustain to the native churches and pastors, unembarrassed 
 by dependent relations to foreign ecclesiastical bodies.” So then, as far 
 as the power of the Deputation goes, and as far as the future action of the 
 Board shall sustain the acts of the Deputation, this question may be con- 
 
Appendix. 47 
 
 sidered as set at rest. It is in vain to think of propagating Presbyte¬ 
 rianism among the heathen, it is in vain for the General Assembly of the 
 Presbyterian Church, however much she may contribute, however nume¬ 
 rous the missionaries she furnishes from among her sons, however liberal 
 she may show herself in allowing free scope to the preferences of her sis¬ 
 ter churches associated with her in the great enterprise, ever to think of 
 having so much as a single Presbytery connected with her under the pa¬ 
 tronage of the American Board. 
 
 We have spoken freely in regard to these matters, not from any want 
 of attachment to the American Board, but from just the opposite. We 
 respect the Prudential Committee. We are grateful to them for their 
 eminently faithful and laborious services. We do not think they intend to 
 usurp power. The ability, the fidelity, the long experience, the eminent 
 wisdom of the Senior Secretary, we have been accustomed to regard with a 
 respect bordering upon reverence. But we find them, with and through 
 the concurrence of missionaries obtained under their influence, inaugu¬ 
 rating a new and novel system of ecclesiastical organization and govern¬ 
 ment, to be put in operation as fast as prudence will allow, over the 
 entire missionary field. And unhappily we have no confidence in it. We 
 know that some of our oldest and most experienced missionaries have no 
 confidence in it. We feel, in relation to the whole subject, a deep sad¬ 
 ness. 
 
 What is to be the condition of churches thus formed while the mission 
 retains its relations to them ? That of complete dependence. The mis¬ 
 sionaries, it is said, are their fathers—they the children; and, for aught 
 we can see, they must remain, while under the mission, mere children. 
 And what will be their condition when the mission withdraws ? They are 
 of complete disintegration. And can they bear it—these mere “ babes, 
 children, youth, and not mea?” We say in words borrowed from the 
 proceedings of the Madura Mission, though with a different inference: “If 
 the strong minded, intelligent, and independent men of Europe and Ame¬ 
 rica require a church organization, and leaders to enable them to with¬ 
 stand the assault of spiritual foes, and to lead them onward in their path 
 to heaven, how much more does the fearful, clinging, Tamulian need it.” 
 And yet for this same “ fearful, clinging Tamulian,” is chosen the loosest 
 possible organization; and, for his village church, a position of as com¬ 
 plete separation as could be given to the most isolated church in Chris¬ 
 tendom. What can he be expected to do—an individual, native pastor, 
 with his little handful of native villages, surrounded by the strong roaring 
 lions of heathendom, and no Christian fortress or larger Christian band 
 to fall back upon? We have no confidence in the stability and perma¬ 
 nence of such churches. True, they may form organizations, among 
 themselves if they choose ; but having never been trained Avith reference 
 to this ; having never seen, never been accustomed to take part in a pro¬ 
 perly ecclesiastical body—council, consociation, classis or presbytery, how 
 can they be expected to do it wisely ? 
 
 And what then are to be their relations to the mission ? The local 
 church as koon as possible will be made to depend pecuniarily upon itself. 
 Then, according to the plan, the mission will have no longer any control 
 over it. But church after church may become thus emancipated; and 
 still the mission may be operating not far distant from them for a gene¬ 
 ration to come. Will no serious embarrassment arise from the action of 
 such independent bodies—the product of the mission, and looked upon by 
 the heathen as its representatives and yet, perhaps, becoming more or 
 less corrupt—possibly assuming to maintain caste or even polygamy as a 
 scriptural institution, and no body of Christians there or elsewhere having 
 
48 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 authority to call the erring member to account. We foresee evils of no 
 trivial character likely to arise out of such complete independency. The 
 Deputation will say perhaps : Do not distrust providence. They will tell 
 us in their own language to the Madura mission, that “adverse theories 
 on this subject before a bold and confiding experiment has been made 
 under favorable circumstances, are not entitled to any weight.” But un¬ 
 fortunately, we lack the favorable judgment necessary to a confiding ex¬ 
 periment. And strongly persuaded as we are that the system is in many 
 features, against reason and Scripture, for us to make the experiment, or 
 allow it to be made in our name, without remonstrance, would be to take 
 a course quite too bold to be justifiable. 
 
 We earnestly hope the Committee of thirteen will not pass over this 
 part of their trust without the most mature and thorough investigation. 
 They are among our most trusted men. The confidence of many, at this 
 critical juncture, hangs on them to see what results they will reach. 
 The special prayers of the Church of Christ ought to attend them. We 
 fondly hope some plan will be devised to remove a class of evils which we 
 know are creating great uneasiness in many minds, both at home and 
 among the missionaries, and that tlm end will be not only the removal of 
 former confidence now unhappily impaired, but a large increase both of 
 confidence and attachment for this noblest, or among the noblest, of 
 American institutions. 
 
 THE AMERICAN BOARD. 
 
 Governing Object in Missions to the Heathen. 
 
 In undertaking any important enterprise, the first step is to obtain 
 clear and definite views of the object to be aimed at. We approve hearti¬ 
 ly of the endeavor of the Deputation in their late visit to the Missions in 
 the East, to fix, both in their own minds and those of the missionaries, 
 the governing object to be pursued in missionary efforts. Nor are we 
 disposed to question the soundness of the conclusion at which they arrived, 
 taken as a free and popular expression. The conversion of sinners is 
 unquestionably one of the chief objects, perhaps the very chief, to be pur¬ 
 sued, whether by the missionary or the pastor, the minister of the gospel 
 or the Christian elder, deacon or church member. When we consider it 
 by itself, and let our minds be filled with it, we can scarcely conceive that 
 any dther can, in any circumstance, claim to stand by its side. It seems 
 so vast, so urgent, that the Christian heart, without pausing to reflect for 
 a moment, feels constrained to rush forward, that it may pluck the 
 burning brand out of the fire. And yet it may happen, and we 
 believe sometimes does, that a too eager and exclusive regard for the 
 immediate conversion of one or a few, may hinder the ultimate con¬ 
 version and highest Christian sanctification of great numbers. While, 
 therefore, we would agree heartily with the Deputation in making 
 this a governing object of the missionary work, we cannot agree with 
 them in giving it that exclusive and all controlling position which 
 they are disposed to assign to it. They make it, if we have rightly 
 interpreted them, with the addition of two other objects merely sub¬ 
 ordinate, the one grand end, with reference to whose immediate ac¬ 
 complishment all our missionary plans and efforts are to be shaped. 
 
 I 
 
Appendix. 49 
 
 And to this position, thus exclusively set up, we arc constrained to demur. 
 That we have not mistaken their true meaning, we conclude both from 
 their report rendered at Albany, and from the proceedings of the Missions 
 in which they took part, especially of the Mission at Ceylon. From the 
 report of the proceedings of that Mission, which now lies before us, we 
 learn that at the opening of the meeting, “ Mr. Thompson read a list of 
 subjects, which the Deputation wished to bring before the Mission for dis¬ 
 cussion, as follows: 1 . The governing object of missions to the heathen. 
 Should it be the conversion of sinners, the gathering of those converts 
 into churches, and the ordaining of native pastors over those churches V’ 
 This we perceive is in the form of a question, intended simply as a basis 
 for discussion. But it is manifestly a leadihg question, conveying in ad¬ 
 vance the opinion which the Deputation themselves had already reached. 
 After discussion, the subject was referred to a committee, who brought in 
 a report embodying, as we are informed, the results reached. This report 
 affirms the position presented by the Deputation. “ It is only,” it main¬ 
 tains, “ as the salvation of lost souls is kept distinctly and prominently in 
 view, as the single all-absorbing object, that these missions can retain the 
 life and vigor necessary to their existence and success.” And in what 
 senseis this object to be single and all-absorbing? Why to the exclu¬ 
 sion, as will appear presently, of all auxiliary means or preparatory pro¬ 
 cesses ; as the one object always to be aimed at directly and immediately. 
 So the report states distinctly. After observing, very justly, that “this 
 work is one designed to make a large demand upon faith,” and “ to mani¬ 
 fest the greatness and power of God and the weakness of man,” that we 
 must depend upon the Divine Spirit, feel our own littleness, &c., it pro¬ 
 ceeds thus: “ Th is work acknowledges no necessity of any auxiliary means 
 or preparatory process. Not only the men of the world, but often the de¬ 
 voted, self-denying missionary, whose sole object is the conversion of 
 souls, is so repulsed by the degradation and debasement of those for whom 
 he labors, and so defeated in all his efforts to get a hearing for the truth 
 in a mind pre-occupied by all that is false, vile and blasphemous, that he 
 feels the necessity of some preparatory work to lit the mind for the recep¬ 
 tion of the truth. This has given rise to the various plans of education 
 and civilization which have sometimes been brought forward with con¬ 
 siderable prominence. And there is an appearance of reasonableness in 
 the plea that the young mind should be pre-occupied with the seeds of 
 truth, and the public mind elevated by diffusion of the light of science and 
 the elevating and refining influences of civilization. But whether we look 
 at the terms of our commission, or to the example of Him who gave it, or 
 of those who first received and acted upon it, or at the work as one of 
 faith and a work of God, we find no authority for these auxiliary means, 
 or for any preparatory process.” Here we perceive a very singular con¬ 
 founding of things that differ. We are little disposed to defend those, if 
 any such there be, who have hoped to accomplish the work of missions by 
 plans of civilization, or as it is again expressed, “by the diffusion of the 
 light of science and the elevating and refining influences of civilization.” 
 These, we apprehend, none of our own missionaries have ever made more 
 than subordinate and incidental objects. But what propriety is there in 
 classing with these, in the same sentence, the preparatory work designed 
 “ to fit the mind for the reception of the truth,” the pre-occupying of “ the 
 young mind with the seeds of truth” and education, without distinction of 
 kind, even though it be carried forward on the basis, and with the most 
 constant use of the Word of God? This latter method of preparation, we 
 confidently affirm, is not against the terms of our commission, not against 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 the example of Him who gave it, nor inconsistent with the nature of the 
 work itself, as a work of faith and a work of God. These preparations, 
 properly used, are among the legitimate means of grace. All our churches 
 at home so regard them, and so use them ; and all experience is in favor 
 of their utility. As to the Divine example, we cannot overlook the fact 
 that God did pursue preparatory processes through a period of five thou¬ 
 sand years, before He offered the benefits of a completed gospel to a single 
 heathen nation. We must think, therefore, that the assertion is altogether 
 too sweeping to be true, that “we find no authority for these auxiliary 
 means, nor for any preparatory process.” 
 
 But if the assertion itself is strange and unwarrantable, what shall we 
 say of the reasoning employed to support it? “We cannot fora mo¬ 
 ment,” says the report, “ defend the position that God is at all dependent 
 upon human instrumentality for the salvation of the world.” “ In this 
 view of the subject we must admit, that it is as easy for the Divine Spirit 
 to clear away the rubbish of false opinions and heathen superstitions, as 
 to renew the mind not thus pre-occupied. Even though these notions and 
 superstitions may have become incorporated with the daily life, and are 
 a part and parcel of the very language of a people, we cannot limit the 
 power of the Divine Spirit. And we believe all will admit that such views 
 of God and heaven, of sin and salvation, as the Spirit alone can give , are 
 better than any that can be given by any preparatory process of teach¬ 
 ing.” A very singular specimen of reasoning certainly is this. We were 
 hardly prepared to meet it under the sanction of men of known wisdom 
 and theological education. Truly, we cannot limit the Spirit of God. 
 But has lie not limited Himself, as to His ordinary methods? Does He 
 not choose to sanctify men through the truth ? And does He, in ordinary 
 cases, convey that truth to men’s minds by His own direct agency, inde¬ 
 pendently of the outward word and the human instrument? Is preach¬ 
 ing, which the report insists ought to be used, a sort of magical process, 
 in connection with which the Spirit works, irrespective of the ordinary 
 laws of the human mind? Is nothing required of us but to preach the 
 word, no matter whether men’s minds are in a condition to understand it 
 or not? And will the Spirit do all the rest, making the unintelligible 
 sound a means of conversion ? We can hardly believe the authors of the 
 paragraph above quoted, would go this length. And yet, such is but the 
 legitimate application of their own reasoning. And this is what they 
 would have us understand, by regarding the work as “ a work of faith and 
 a Avork of God.” Rather would we denominate it, when thus presented, 
 a work of presumption, and a work dispensing with the plainest princi¬ 
 ples of the oracles of God. 
 
 But we have not reached the end of the matter yet. As if this was not 
 sufficiently thorough work, the report goes on to say further, “ This work 
 not only acknowledges no necessity of any auxiliary means or prepara¬ 
 tory process ; but is actually retarded by any such appliances.” Any attempt 
 to pre-occupy the young mind with the seeds of truth, “ any preparatory 
 work” designed to fit the mind for the reception of truth, “any plans of 
 education” with a vieAV to future results, is not only of no advantage, but 
 actually retards the accomplishment of the single and immediate object of 
 the missionary work! 
 
 Let us look at some of the reasons for this singular assertion. First, it 
 is said, “ there is danger that the means thus used become in themselves 
 an end.” But we ask, is not this the case Avith all the means of grace ? 
 And are all means then to be shunned in our efforts to propagate the 
 gospel; or should wo not rather use them, guarding sedulously against the 
 abuse? Secondly, the report proceeds ; “Even when these appliances keep 
 
9 
 
 51 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 their place simply as means, there is danger of our trusting in them to such 
 an extent as to prevent the exercise of that faith in the Divine power so 
 necessary to the successful prosecution of the work.” And here we make 
 the same reply as before. There is no more danger in the use of Chris¬ 
 tian education, than in any other means. There is no more danger in 
 the endeavor to pre-occupy the young mind with the seeds of truth, than 
 in laboring in any way ever employed by man, for even the immediate 
 conversion of the soul. Thirdly, “ The introduction of those means tends 
 to turn the attention of the missionary to the elevation of the masses, by 
 bringing them in contact with elevating influences, instead of laboring 
 directly for the conversion of individual souls.” We see not how the 
 method referred to tends to the former result, instead of the latter. 
 Rather we should suppose, in the hands of a devout Christian missionary 
 it would tend to the former, as far as it tended to it at all, for the sake, of 
 the latter. The leavening of the masses in a community with Christian 
 sentiments and Christian knowledge, we have been accustomed to regard 
 as a most useful auxilliary to the ultimate conversion of the largest num¬ 
 ber of souls in that community, in a continued series of gracious harvests 
 to be gathered in from generation to generation. It is this which makes 
 the work of the gospel in a Christian land, more hopeful than among 
 pagans and barbarians. But the report proceeds : “ Intimately connected 
 with this, is the tendency to limit, in effect, the power of God, by putting 
 off to a distant period the salvation of these masses, instead of laboring in 
 hope and expectation of immediate results.” The reasoning if we under¬ 
 stand it is this. To labor for remote results, is to hinder the successful 
 effort for immediate results. But immediate results must always be in¬ 
 sisted on as the only token of success. Therefore, whatsoever has in view 
 results to be brought about at some future day, is to be condemned and 
 avoided. And is it so ? Is this reasoning sound ? Must the Christian 
 pastor abandon all processes of preparatory or auxiliary training ; must 
 he make no effort to indoctrinate his people yet unconverted ; must he 
 take no means to bring the children into the Sabbath-school, or soften the 
 prejudices of hostile parents, so that they may interpose no obstacle to 
 their coming into the Sabbath school; is the teaching of Christian 
 hymns, catechisms, and portions of the sacred word to be abandoned, not 
 only as having no tendency to secure ultimately their conversion and sal¬ 
 vation, but even as a hindrance to it, because in nine cases out of ten, 
 those whom we thus instruct are not converted immediately? Certainly 
 we have not so read the history of the Church, or the instructions and ex¬ 
 amples of the sacred oracles. What Christian pastor does not know, that 
 the sowing of to-day often springs up and bears a crop years afterwards ; 
 yea, that “ one soweth and another reapeth,”—one labors, and another, 
 years afterwards, perhaps after he is in the grave, enters into his labors? 
 And why should the missionary insist always and exclusively, upon im¬ 
 mediate results ? Why should he be taught to reckon his success exactly 
 according to the number of converts actually made under his ministry ? 
 
 The three next following reasons have reference, obviously, to processes 
 of a more secular character ; processes of civilization and improvement in 
 arts and sciences, social habits, &c. Yet even here we think the censure 
 is quite too sweeping. It is said firstly, “ This course perverts the Divine 
 order of things, by introducing prematurely those things which are the 
 results of Cristianity, and are designed to follow r and be controlled by 
 Christian principle. It has been remarked, that ‘ probably the reason 
 why the recent discoveries in art and sciences were kept hidden so long 
 was because the world was not good enough to render it safe to give such 
 power to man.’ And it is worthy of notice, that this mighty power has 
 
 9 
 
52 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 come as a result of the progress of Christianity, and is directed and con¬ 
 trolled by Christian principle, acting upon the public sentiment of Chris¬ 
 tian nations, to an extent which cannot but lead us to acknowledge a 
 Divine providence.” There seems to us a strange overlooking of obvious 
 facts in these statements. Has God never given to heathen people those 
 arts of civilization in which are involved the elements of power ? Did he 
 withhold them from the Roman Empire ? And even in our own day, are 
 the modern discoveries which have been made within the boundaries of 
 Christendom, confined to those nations, or those parts of the population of 
 nations, which are under the controlling influence of the Christian spirit? 
 Witness the semi-Papal, semi-infidel, nation of France. Is the electrie 
 telegraph, is the steam engine, is the press, exclusively, or even generally 
 take the world through, “ directed and controlled by Christian principle 
 acting upon the public sentiment of Christian nations?” We cannot 
 think this opinion will be persisted in, after a moment’s reflection. But 
 look at the conclusion based upon these erroneous premises. “ If then, 
 we give this power to a heathen people in advance of the Christian prin¬ 
 ciple necessary to regulate it, we pervert the order of nature, and set in 
 motion powerful influences which are likely to work against us.” We 
 certainly have no disposition to expend much missionary strength, in or¬ 
 dinary cases, in efforts for mere civilization. And yet we cannot accept this 
 reasoning, because, if admitted, it would carry us quite beyond the 
 bounds of Christian discretion. Shall the missionary wish to exclude the 
 heathen from those truths which may serve to loosen the grasp of his su¬ 
 perstitions, lest in giving up these, he should become an infidel? Shall he 
 avoid whatever may elevate the habits and sentiments of the brutal savage 
 or rude barbarian, lest that elevation should give him an advantage 
 against the missionary ? We think not. Those improvements in civiliza¬ 
 tion and the arts of life, which are the proper product of Christianity, we 
 believe should go along with it, wherever it goes; and become the privi¬ 
 lege, and if possible, the accepted privilege of each community, as soon as 
 it conies in contact with Christianity. Do we deny our children the 
 benefits of education, of a knowledge of the arts and sciences, of secular 
 literature, of the refined social manners peculiar to Christendom, till they 
 become converted? Not at all. Yet the argument is equally conclusive 
 here. These benefits, in their best forms, are the “ results of Christianity 
 If then this power is given to an unconverted child in advance of the 
 Christian principle necessary to control and regulate it we pervert the 
 order of nature and set in motion powerful influences which are likely to 
 work against us. And the remark that follows might be applied, 
 mutatis mutandis, with equal force to communities and individuals in 
 Christendom, as to those in pagan lands. “ Many there are who are 
 so far elevated and enlightened as to break loose from the supersti¬ 
 tions and restraints of heathenism”—(substitute for this: the limita¬ 
 tions of power and influence that belong to ignorance and rudeness) 
 “ while they are not brought under the influence of the higher restraints 
 of Christian love and Christian principle, and form a class infidel in 
 religion and reckless in conduct.” If the principle is applicable to the 
 missionary, it is applicable also to the Christian pastor at home, and the 
 Christian parent; and taken in its full breadth would sweep away a large 
 part of our methods of training, and our most approved institutions. 
 
 The last reason in the series, viz., the seventh, reverts to the still 
 broader ground assumed in the first three. “ There is danger,” says the 
 report, “ of those who become Christians, becoming so from conviction of 
 the understanding, instead of genuine conversion of the heart by the in¬ 
 fluences of the Spirit: and as their faith stands in the wisdom of men, in- 
 
» 
 
 Appendix. 53 
 
 'stead of the power of God, in time of trouble or persecution they fall away 
 Well aware are we that this is among the dangers to which all efforts for 
 men’s salvation are liable. We have to guard against it everywhere in 
 ■Christian lands, and we have no doubt missionaries should do so among 
 the heathen. But surely, till now, we had never learned that this was 
 any reason for abstaining from processes of education, and from endeavors 
 to preoccupy the young mind with the seeds of truth. The understanding 
 we have always supposed to be our only avenue to the heart. And what¬ 
 ever dangers there may be, lest the heart should not be affected after the 
 understanding is convinced, we have supposed ourselves shut up to thi^ 
 method, of endeavoring, first of all, to convince the understanding ; while 
 we pray always that the power of the Spirit would make the truth lodged 
 there effectual to the renewing of the whole inner man. 
 
 The report from which the above extracts have been made, is the pro¬ 
 duct of one of the younger missionaries, and bears the traces of a mind 
 ardently engaged in his great work, and disposed to rely with great con¬ 
 fidence on the promised power of the Divine Spirit. And could we re¬ 
 ceive it only as such, we would not be inclined to deal with it in any 
 critical way. It was. doubtless, written in a somewhat hasty manner, 
 and adopted by the Mission after a long discussion, in which the vast im¬ 
 portance of the immediate conversion of sinners was the absorbing topic. 
 But we are compelled to look upon it under a different aspect. It was 
 elicited in answer to the question from the Prudential Committee’s Depu¬ 
 tation, already recited. It bears upon the whole face of it the stamp of 
 their leading influence. It was sanctioned by them, in explicit terms, 
 after it was adopted by the Mission. It was intended to be the basis of a 
 new mission policy, which was materially to change the whole procedure 
 of our missions. “ The Board and its patrons,” says the Deputation, 
 “ will be under great obligations to you for the thoroughness with which 
 you have, in your report, discussed the governing object in missions to 
 the heathen. It was our first subject in the meeting, and effectively con¬ 
 nected itself with all that followed. The first great principles of the work 
 are there embodied. You describe it in impressive language as a work of 
 faith—God’s work—acknowledging no necessity of auxiliary means or 
 preparatory process, and too often actually retarded by a resort to such 
 appliances.” It did, undoubtedly, “ effectively connect itself with all that 
 followed.” The changes which were made in what the Deputation call 
 “the working system,” the disbanding of the Batticotta Seminary, the 
 reduction of that at Oodooville, the abandonment of English studies, the 
 erection of oral preaching into an almost exclusive instrumentality, the 
 confinement of teaching in schools chiefly to converts and their families, 
 and the peculiar ecclesiastical system which we considered in a former 
 number of this paper, all grew out of the peculiar views adopted on this 
 subject of the governing object. 
 
 What is that governing object? It is the conversion of sinners-—the 
 gathering of the converts into churches, ancl the putting over them of native 
 pastors. The platform, we are constrained to say, is altogether too nar¬ 
 row for so vast and complicated a work as the salvation of a lost world 
 through the gospel. Objects not at all included under this, are to Ire kept 
 in view, in this great work. The sanctification of the soul is hardly less 
 important than its conversion. Considered in its relation to the ultimate 
 conversion of the greatest number, it may for the present,-be far more-so. 
 The missionary who can reckon, to-day, twenty converts, may not have 
 done as great a work as he who has prepared one burning and shining 
 light to stand for a generation in the golden candlestick. To aim exclu¬ 
 sively at immediate conversions, to reckon success in the missionary work 
 
54 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 by the number of such conversions actually made, is to incur the danger 
 of many spurious conversions. It is, moreover, to defeat the very object 
 which it professes to aim at. Those are not, ordinarily, the most succes- 
 ful in the conversion of souls, who expect to do the work by a stroke 
 without the use of any preparatory means. In this, as in all other opera¬ 
 tions, whether in the natural or the moral world, patient and far-reaching 
 perseverance accomplishes far more, ordinarily, than momentary efforts. 
 
 The governing object of missions is, we think, like that of all other 
 Christian works, the glory of God. The next subordinate object, 
 through which the missionary is to aim at this, is the propagation of the 
 gospel. He goes forth among the heathen to instruct them in, and by the 
 g ace of God, bring them into the way of salvation. Even if none should 
 be converted, still he must instruct them fully. The offer is to be made, 
 even though he could know that the individual would reject it. If there 
 are obstacles in the way of making himself understood, he is to endeavor 
 by every wise measure to remove those obstacles. Preaching is not 
 merely the utterance of a set of sounds : it is the conveying of knowledge. 
 This the missionary must take care to accomplish, by whatever means he 
 finds needful for tlie end. When converts are made, he is not to regard 
 his work as done. To gather them into churches and put native pastors 
 over them, is not enough, unless those pastors are found fully competent 
 to their complete training in the gospel. By “ warning every man and 
 teaching every man,” he must endeavor “to present every man perfect in 
 Christ Jesus.” Nor is he to content himself with present results. Chris¬ 
 tianity must he made if possible, to take a deep and permanent hold on the 
 entire community. It must be finally rooted among the people, so as to 
 live and grow of itself. To convert if it were practicable, the entire pre¬ 
 sent population of India, and leave them just there, would by no means be 
 the accomplishment of an entire missionary work. They might be 
 gathered into churches and have native pastors over them. But what 
 then? The entire work might not last beyond the present generation. 
 Witness the work now going on among the Armenians and other nominal 
 Christians, where the Board have been spending for many years their best 
 strength. Is there no need of guarding against a similar degeneracy 
 among the new churches to be formed now among pagan people ? He who 
 labors only for conversions, may perhaps gather so many souls, more or 
 less into heaven ; and that is doubtless a grand result. But he that plants 
 Christionity as a permanent power in a community, may, when the final 
 reckoning comes, find tenfold more in number, as well as brightness of 
 polish, as seals of his ministry. 
 
 It is for these reasons and others that might be named, that we think 
 the governing object of our missionary work ought to he a broader one than 
 that which is assumed as such by the Deputation. We yield to none in our 
 conception of the importance of genuine conversions. One immortal soul 
 won to Christ, and so saved, is worth more than all the riches and splen¬ 
 dor, all the cultivation and refinement, and intellectual exaltation of the 
 most cultivated and prosperous nations. But even this object, important 
 as it is, should not blind us to the fact that it is not God’s last end in 
 giving us the gospel; neither should it be ours. Other objects, both ac¬ 
 cessory and ulterior are of importance too. And since a narrow basis leads 
 to a narrow superstructure, we hope a careful revision of this fundamen¬ 
 tal point will guard our future work against that cramped and precarious 
 character which we think now it is in danger of assuming. Broader and 
 more far-reaching aims we think are needful to put in operation all the 
 array of means offered us by God’s providence, by which at length this 
 whole fallen world shall be filled with the glory of God. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 ■> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 ’ . 1 .. 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 ’ 
 
 i .! 
 
 
 
 • <- 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 _ 
 

 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vV 
 
 ? V 
 
 V 
 
 M/