A DEFENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 MISSIONARY ORGANIZATIONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BAPTIST DENOMINATION. 
 
 BEING A REVIEW OF A PAMPHLET ENTITLED 
 
 “THOUGHTS ON THE MISSIONARY ORGANIZATIONS OF THE 
 BAPTIST DENOMINATION, BY FRANCIS.. MTAYLANDJ.’. 
 
 4 ^ » 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 JOHN M. HEAVES, 81 CORNHILL. 
 
 1 8 5 9 . 
 
. C. llAHD & Aveey, Prjnters, 3 Coekiiire, Postoht. 
 
 Geo 
 
A DEFENCE 
 
 OP THE 
 
 MISSIONARY ORGANIZATIONS 
 
 OP THE 
 
 BAPTIST DENOMINATION. 
 
 This review is necessarily anonymous. Few men 
 have a reputation which would justify them in op¬ 
 posing Dr. Wayland’s views on that ground, or that 
 would screen them from apparent ostentation in so 
 doing. The author believes his positions sound, and 
 asks for them only the consideration to which they 
 are entitled on that account. 
 
 I heard with pleasure, in common with many 
 others, that Dr. Wayland would publish his views upon 
 the question of our benevolent organizations. I 
 knew he sympathized, generally, with the movement 
 against them, and supposed that he, if any man, 
 could show cause for it. Yery well, I said, let us have 
 the worst of it; then we shall be prepared either to 
 give them up or to defend them. I read and re-read 
 the pamphlet, but my convictions in favor of the 
 societies were confirmed. It is only true that they 
 
4 
 
 f 
 
 / 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 are imperfect, which is equally true of all human in¬ 
 stitutions. Dr. Wayland’s substitute, if, indeed, he 
 means seriously to put it forth as such, namely, “ Bap¬ 
 tist Associations,” is liable to the same objections. 
 
 One fact, already obvious everywhere in the oppo¬ 
 sition to the societies, is rendered still more so by the 
 pamphlet, namely, that there is no harmony between 
 their opponents. “Confusion worse confounded” was 
 the strongest feeling I had after comparing the ideas 
 of the pamphlet with those of the press for the last 
 few months. Dr. Wayland does not advocate “ con¬ 
 solidation,” at all events; and his pamphlet is as much 
 opposed to the popular movement against them, as to 
 the societies themselves. He says:— 
 
 “ I remark, then, in the first place, that centralizing organiza¬ 
 tions are certainly not in strict accordance with the principles 
 made known by our Lord.” 
 
 After referring to the project of “consolidation,” 
 he continues: — 
 
 “ The evils of centralization would, however, seem in this 
 manner to be increased rather than diminished. Can we not 
 find something better adapted to our purpose ? ” 
 
 It would seem that if there were anything feasible 
 in the opposition to the societies, its friends would by 
 this time have attained to some harmony. We have 
 been told of the dangers of centralization, before the 
 pamphlet appeared, and then, by the same parties, we 
 have been advised to greater centralization, by putting 
 our four societies into one or two, instead. We have 
 
been referred to the Methodist and the Presbyterian 
 systems of benevolence as worthy of our imitation, by 
 those who in other connections warn us against their 
 example; and now we name Dr. Wayland’s system 
 ignoring all these, and giving us one u better still,” 
 namely, the u Baptist Associations.” More of this last 
 plan by and by. I only wish, now, to say, that this 
 extreme diversity of views, where there should be 
 some harmony, does not augur well for the cause of 
 the opponents of the societies. As the pamphlet re¬ 
 marks of another matter, it might well remark of this, 
 “ we are drifting to the leeward, we hardly know 
 whither.” I may be permitted to commend to those 
 concerned, the advice of the editor of the Western 
 Watchman on this subject: “We beg to suggest to 
 our friend of the Examiner the propriety of taking a 
 lunar observation and of examining its reckoning.” 
 
 Not only is the pamphlet opposed to consolidation, 
 but it shows that this scheme has been tried; so that 
 its friends have suggested nothing new, and may find 
 in our history how their plan has worked. Deferring 
 to the old Triennial Convention, it remarks: — 
 
 “ Soon the attempt was made to render the Convention the 
 agent for all our benevolent operations. Home Missions, a Tract 
 Society, a General Education Society, together with the Colum¬ 
 bian College, were consolidated under its management, and in 
 fact one common treasury was to be used for them all. The 
 Board in the mean time had been removed from Philadelphia to 
 Washington, which was henceforth to be the centre of all these 
 great undertakings. The result may easily be imagined. Con¬ 
 fidence in the wisdom of the Board was shaken, the means for 
 1 # 
 
6 
 
 carrying on its schemes were withheld, and everything seemed on 
 the verge of destruction. The denomination came to the res¬ 
 cue. These various objects of benevolence were separated from 
 the missionary department,” etc. 
 
 Permit me here to suggest a plan. The present 
 heaven-provided societies, the result of experience 
 under the guiding hand of divine Providence — ex¬ 
 cepting the imperfections incident to a fallen state — 
 are just the thing. With a few modifications they 
 will answer the demands of all parties. This plan 
 will not only answer all practical purposes, but save 
 us the mortification of demolishing the work of nearly 
 half of a century, and inaugurating new and doubt¬ 
 ful schemes. 
 
 We should all rejoice in real progress, but 
 strongly object to change where there is no gain. The 
 extremes to be guarded against by all true con¬ 
 servatives are in these directions. It is on such 
 grounds that I beg to protest against the revolution 
 some are contemplating in our benevolent organiza¬ 
 tion. By great effort and expense we have just 
 elevated them to a useful position, and it is the 
 caprice of children now to destroy them. 
 
 THE AMERICAN BAPTIST MISSIONARY UNION. 
 
 With this society, Dr. Wayland deals more at 
 length, and with greater severity, than with any 
 other. We object entirely to his theory here. 
 The providence of God has as evidently manifested 
 itself in originating and conducting this institution 
 
as in any other way in the history of the world. 
 
 It seems like casting doubt upon every thing—like 
 demolishing all hopes of any permanency or good 
 in human efforts. Without the most extreme ne¬ 
 cessity, the position against the Union should not 
 have been taken. That no such necessity exists, 
 we hope -to be able to show. 
 
 A large portion of the pamphlet is devoted to 
 repeating and detailing our trials in Foreign Mission 
 operations at home and abroad. What object can 
 be gained by this course ? Are we not all painfully 
 familiar with the facts, without the necessity of 
 printing the most of a pamphlet upon the subject? 
 It were hardly possible to give greater notoriety 
 to the facts, and it certainly was not desirable. 
 
 Not content with repeating present familiar trials, 
 we are carried back through the entire history of 
 our Foreign Missions, and assured that the fathers 
 were no better or wiser than we: 
 
 “ Nor is this state of things a novelty. It existed under 
 the former Triennial Convention as distinctly as under the 
 present Missionary Union.” 
 
 I ask again, What advantage is to be gained by 
 repeating our trials and imperfections, either of the 
 present or the past ? To be sure, we are imperfect, 
 morally and intellectually; and we can hardly hope 
 our fathers were otherwise. But the remedy for all 
 this is not in dwelling upon our mistakes, and cer¬ 
 tainly not in exaggerating them. We commend to 
 all concerned, as a better way, the familiar lines: 
 
8 
 
 ct Arise, let us no more revile or blame each other, 
 Blamed enough elsewhere ; 
 
 But strive in offices of love, * 
 
 How we may lighten each others’ burden.” 
 
 Not only does it seem to me wrong to dwell 
 upon, and repeat, and detail these trials, but that 
 the result to which the pamphlet comes by them is 
 at once unsound, and contrary to the facts: 
 
 “If such be the case”—the result from these trials to 
 which the pamphlet comes — “ it naturally leads us to inquire 
 whether it be in our power to carry on successfully any general 
 and centralizing organizations. It is of no avail to say that 
 other denominations have done it, and are doing it. This is 
 granted; but it only shows that their experience differs from 
 ours — where they have succeeded, we have failed. We have 
 failed twice under different organizations; for steady decrease 
 of efforts for a succession of years may certainly be considered 
 a failure.” 
 
 And is it so ? Have we failed “ twice under 
 different organizations” already? In other words, 
 have all our Foreign Missionary operations been a 
 failure ? for this is meant by u twice ”—once under 
 the Triennial Convention, where the work com¬ 
 menced, and was continued for years, and once 
 under the present Missionary Union. We answer, 
 emphatically, No, to this query. If wide difference 
 of opinion—if contention, including even a bad spirit 
 —if anything of this kind, claimed by the pamphlet, 
 constitutes a failure, then this world is replete with 
 failures, for everything great and grand has had all 
 
these to contend with. On any such theory Brown 
 University is a failure; the First Baptist church 
 in Providence is a failure; the Warren’s Association is 
 a failure. But no, no, no ; these conflicts are rather 
 the evidence of success, for all success is attended 
 with them. The devil is by no means conquered, 
 and will still dispute every inch of our progress. 
 What he cannot do abroad, he will do at home. 
 In the idea of an eloquent man, all this conflict 
 may be but the tuning of the numerous instruments 
 of a large orchestra, preparatory to the full burst of 
 harmony. And Mr. Carlyle says : 
 
 “ Temptations in the wilderness, choices of Hercules, and 
 the like, in succinct or loose forms, are appointed for every 
 man that will assert a soul in him, and be a man. Let 
 Oliver take comfort in his dark sorrows and melancholies. 
 The quantity of sorrow he has, does it not, withal, mean the 
 quantity of sympathy he has, the quantity of faculty and 
 victory he shall yet have ? Our sorrow is the inverted image 
 of our nobleness. The depth of our despair measures what 
 capability and height of claim we have to hope. Black smoke 
 as of Tophet, filling all your universe, it can yet, by true heart 
 energy, become flame and brilliancy of heaven—courage ! ” 
 
 In some such direction as this let us look to ac¬ 
 count for our conflicts, and not pronounce them 
 evidence of failure. 
 
 The pamphlet admits that other denominations 
 have succeeded in the use of societies, but claims that 
 in this “ their experience differs from ours.” Not very 
 much, either, I answer. We may have had more trouble, 
 
10 
 
 but they have all had enough to constitute them fail¬ 
 ures on any such principle. The American Board of 
 Commissioners, for instance, have had troubles enough 
 to have discouraged men without faith. Debates, 
 differences of opinion, debts, etc., are found all through 
 its history, If we have had more, it is only because 
 we are still freer than they —and we must expect to 
 pay the penalty of freedom. Having no man or men 
 to govern us, we must try and govern ourselves. This 
 leads to debate, and debate to difference of opinion, 
 and this, sad to say, to strife; and in regard to better 
 men than we, these things have before now resulted 
 in “ contention so sharp, that they departed asunder, 
 one from the other.” As in their case this sharp con¬ 
 tention resulted in the furtherance of the gospel, so it 
 may in ours. At all events, as Paul and Barnabas 
 were not deemed impracticable on account of this 
 “ passage at arms,” and as, on account of it, their 
 efforts were not deemed a failure, so we need not take 
 so sombre a view of our similar trials. Possibly it 
 were better for us, if our savans had a more control¬ 
 ling influence, and if a word from them could at any 
 time restore peace to the troubled waters; and yet 
 we are not likely to make the experiment. Whilst it 
 remains true that “ one is our Master, and all we are 
 brethren,” we must expect to differ; and such things 
 do not prove that our system has failed, but only that 
 it is free as the winds that blow. 
 
 I must also beg to dissent from the conclusions of 
 the pamphlet in regard to this “failure,” not only as 
 far as the philosophy of it is concerned, but the facts. 
 
The facts, after all, though they have dark shades, are 
 brilliant with encouragement. And here, singular 
 enough, the pamphlet refutes itself. 
 
 “ Xn tho foreign field our case is yet more to he deplored. 
 
 Such is the proposition, and proof of it immedi¬ 
 ately follows, thus : 
 
 « God gave us at the beginning missionaries whose praise is 
 in all the churches. We sent them to a most inviting field of 
 labor, and gave them souls for their hire in a great measure. In 
 no portion of the missionary ground has the word of God been 
 attended with a richer blessing. This manifestation of divine 
 grace has continued in Burmah from the close of the war with 
 England to the present day.” 
 
 This remark is essentially true of all our missions in 
 Asia, and certainly of the German mission in Europe, 
 and these cover most of our ground. The friends of 
 missions of other denominations harmonize in this 
 view of the eminent success of Baptist Foreign Mis¬ 
 sions. This success abroad implies success at home. 
 With some, or, if you please, with much difference of 
 opinion at home as to measures, we have still been 
 sufficiently harmonious, and generally wise to raise 
 the very large sums of money necessary, and other¬ 
 wise to conduct the missions to the successful issue 
 which none fail to recognize. 
 
 But says the pamphlet — 
 
 a y\r e have failed twice under different organizations ; for 
 steady decrease of efforts for a succession of years may certainly 
 be considered a failure.” 
 
12 
 
 By no fair process of reasoning, however, can it 
 be shown that there has been a u steady decrease of 
 efforts for a succession of years.” It is rather true 
 that, with ordinary fluctuations, such as are incident 
 to churches in revivals and declensions, to commerce 
 in seasons of prosperity and panic, our missionary 
 course has been onward from the commencement. If 
 the receipts are any criterion, and I suppose by 
 “ efforts” particular reference is had to these, then my 
 position is the correct one. Let me here subjoin the 
 receipts for the last fourteen years, which comprise 
 those of the Missionary Union entire. The previous 
 receipts of the Triennial Convention will show a simi¬ 
 lar fluctuation. There has been no diminution on the 
 whole, but an increase. 
 
 1845-46 
 
 $105,736 46 
 
 1852-53 
 
 $108,186 
 
 55 
 
 1846-47 
 
 85,093 42 
 
 1853-54 
 
 114,847 42 
 
 1847-48 
 
 85,894 42 
 
 1854-55 
 
 102,164 
 
 58 
 
 1848-49 
 
 88,902 99 
 
 1855-56 
 
 118,134 
 
 81 
 
 1849-50 
 
 86,853 00 
 
 1856-57 
 
 98,812 
 
 28 
 
 1850-51 
 
 95,776 35 
 
 1857-58 
 
 85,850 
 
 14 
 
 1851-52 
 
 98,814 69 
 
 1858-59 
 
 say 90,000 
 
 00 
 
 The highest point reached at all was in 1855-6, 
 only four years ago. No one can predict what the 
 next four years may develop. There is no substan¬ 
 tial season why they should not exceed any previous 
 four years of our history, and they are as likely to as 
 anything else. 
 
 If it is said that the increase should have been 
 greater than it has, to keep pace with the increase of 
 
13 
 
 the population and prosperity of the country, let it 
 be borne in mind that since we commenced our For¬ 
 eign Mission work in 1814, there have sprung into be¬ 
 ing the Publication Society, in 1824; Home Mission 
 Society, in 1832; American and Foreign Bible Soci¬ 
 ety, in 1838; and the Southern Baptist Convention, in 
 1845. All these societies, to say nothing of numer¬ 
 ous others which have sprung up in the necessities of 
 the cause, have made large drafts upon the benevolence 
 of the churches, and still the Foreign Mission has 
 gone steadily onward. Under these circumstances 
 we are justified in exclaiming, “ Behold what God hath 
 wrought.” They utterly forbid the unworthy doubts 
 of the pamphlet. Beyond all question, the true pol¬ 
 icy for the denomination is to rally around the Mis¬ 
 sionary Union; “ come to the rescue,” as the pamphlet 
 assures us they have done before in circumstances 
 quite as desperate. This will undoubtedly be the 
 result. Probably it were an improvement so to amend 
 the Constitution as to admit of church representation 
 without the interposition of any sum of money. This 
 need not interfere with the present system of life 
 membership representation. It weie only adding 
 another and harmonious method of representation, 
 
 [ and were a suitable and harmless concession to the 
 democratic tendencies incident to us. 
 
 Probably the former Secretaries and the “Deputa¬ 
 tion ” made the mistake of attempting an extreme 
 government of the missionaries. In this way they 
 became unpopular. If this was the principal difficulty 
 
 the evil will gradually pass away with the policy 
 
 2 
 

 14 
 
 which created it. The present Secretary is deservedly 
 popular at home and abroad, and has qualities emi¬ 
 nently adapted to heal the breach. Give him and his 
 coadjutors time, and we shall see what the result will 
 be. We owe it to all concerned, to make an earnest, 
 honest effort in this direction before we give utter¬ 
 ance to another note of discord. 
 
 THE AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY. 
 
 But a small space in the pamphlet is devoted to 
 this Society. Pages 8th and 11th inclusive contain all 
 that is said directly, and even these are only partly 
 devoted to this topic. It is obvious, however, that 
 the objections brought to this society pretty much 
 cover the ground, and if there is force in them, it 
 hardly has any apology for its existence. I take up 
 these objections in the order in which they occur in 
 the pamphlet. 
 
 We have first Colportage. 
 
 tf The Publication Society employs itself in colporteur labor, 
 jind makes this the strong ground of its solicitations.” 
 
 This the pamphlet deems an infringement of the 
 work of the Home Mission Society, and evidence that 
 the societies are u complicated and interfering with 
 each other.” I have been familiar with the Publica¬ 
 tion Society a long time, and was not aware that it 
 makes colportage u the strong ground of its solicita¬ 
 tions.” A very little knowledge of the society is 
 sufficient to show that colportage is but one of its 
 objects, and by nq means the most important one. It 
 
15 
 
 
 is also the only Tract Society and the only Sunday 
 School Society of the denomination, and I am unable 
 to discover that they are not made equally u strong 
 grounds of solicitation.” 
 
 But suppose the charge were true. The Home 
 Mission Society has no colporteurs. Long after Home 
 Missions were inaugurated, the idea was conceived of 
 employing good men, who might or might not be cler¬ 
 gymen, to visit from house to house and circulate 
 good books, conversing and praying with the people 
 in the mean time. Where these men are ministers it 
 is true they preach and do any thing else it is suitable 
 for a minister to do; but their prime work relates to 
 the circulation of publications and visiting from house 
 to house. By common consent, this kind of work 
 was commenced and conducted by Tract Societies, as 
 our own and the American Society. It is obvious 
 that the circulation of books properly belongs to book 
 making societies. I perceive that the intelligent edi¬ 
 tor of the New York Chronicle takes this view of the 
 necessary relation between book-making and circula¬ 
 ting societies. Any practical man, who knows any 
 thing about it, must do the same. It does not follow 
 that the work of the home missionary and the colpor¬ 
 teur are the same because they have points of resem¬ 
 blance, for they have more points of difference. 
 
 The circulation of books is as incompatible with 
 the work of the regular missionary as with that of 
 the pastor, and is sufficiently so with each to prevent 
 their doing any considerable amount of it. Every 
 inducement has been held out to pastors and mission- 
 
16 
 
 aries to circulate books, by societies and private pub¬ 
 lishers, but without success. In the providence of 
 God there has been added to the missionary pi opei, 
 the colporteur, to do what he never did and never can. 
 
 Not only is the colporteur different from the mis¬ 
 sionary proper, but the society to sustain him, sup¬ 
 plying him with books to sell and donate, is a very 
 different affair from a Home Mission Society proper, 
 for the reason that books constitute so large an ele¬ 
 ment of it. It is of course true that the Home Mis¬ 
 sion Society might be made also a colporteur society, 
 but it is only as you may change one society into 
 another and entirely different one. Colportage sprang 
 out of the Publication Society as naturally as a limb 
 from a tree. It commenced the work of colportage 
 in this country in advance of every society,* and has 
 carried it on with great economy and general success, 
 and there is no excuse whatever for claiming its work 
 here as an infringement upon any society. 
 
 The Publication Society has offended in another par¬ 
 ticular : 
 
 « The Publication Society has some colporteurs in the North 
 of Europe, the very same work that the Union is carrying on 
 in Germany. It appeals to the public for aid on the ground of 
 its labors in foreign missions.” 
 
 If it is meant by this that no parties ought to do 
 anything for the destitute abroad but the Foreign 
 Mission Society, then we must dissent from the conclu¬ 
 sion; and we know of no better illustration of the 
 
 ♦See History of the Am. Bap. Pub. Soc., pages 124,125. 
 
17 
 
 correctness of our dissent than the very fact com¬ 
 plained of. It had pleased God to cause a very 
 remarkable awakening in the North of Europe. A 
 learned and excellent clergyman of the Lutheran 
 Church in Sweden, a subject of this awakening, comes 
 to this country, and supplicates his Baptist brethren 
 (for he had become a Baptist by reading a book of the 
 Publication Society) to do something for Sweden, 
 where there was no Baptist mission, or any evangeli¬ 
 cal mission, excepting a small Methodist one. Is such 
 a Macedonian cry as this to be disregarded ? And 
 yet disregarded it apparently must have been but for 
 the Publication Society. The Missionary Union, first 
 of all urged to undertake this mission, was obliged 
 formally to decline it. This it did before the Publi¬ 
 cation Society was induced to entertain it. We have 
 been repeatedly assured that the Publication Society 
 commenced this work only because it had failed to 
 find friends elsewhere. 
 
 And yet there was a peculiar fitness in this work 
 for the Publication Society. In Sweden, preaching 
 out of the established church, (the Lutheran,) was 
 prohibited by law; but the press was free, and 
 colporteurs were at liberty to go with books any¬ 
 where. This circumstance shows the work to be em¬ 
 inently a colporteur work. Such it has been from 
 ths commencement, and must continue to be for the 
 present. The result has been glorious. In two years’ 
 time there has resulted, we are informed, from this 
 Swedish colporteur mission, a Baptist Association, 
 with some fifty churches and three thousand members; 
 
18 
 
 and the expense has been but a tithe of the ordinary 
 expense of sending out and sustaining foreign mission¬ 
 aries proper. To my mind, to object, on any ground, 
 to this marvellous work, is downright ingratitude, and 
 an impeachment of the providence of God. 
 
 But what becomes of the pamphlet’s doctrine of 
 individuality and the independence of the churches, if it 
 constitutes an offence, or even a mistake, for any par¬ 
 ties who feel it their duty, to undertake a mission 
 abroad outside of the Missionary Union ? And espe¬ 
 cially, with what consistency does the pamphlet object 
 to this mission, whilst it advocates foreign missions, 
 conducted not only by individual churches, but by 
 individual men outside of any society ? 
 
 Besides all this, the Publication Society is a Foreign 
 as well as Home Society. In its peculiar sphere it 
 ever has worked abroad as well as at home. It has 
 done less work abroad than it ought to have had the 
 means of doing, or than it has been urged by foreign 
 missionaries to do, but has, nevertheless, for many 
 years done something, as its history shows. It has, 
 therefore, only done its appropriate work in Sweden. 
 God grant it a still greater work abroad as well as at 
 
 home. 
 
 As long ago as 1832, when the missionary receipts 
 of the Publication Society were yet very small, it had 
 sent “ in one year $245 to Burmah, to aid Mr. Judson 
 in printing and distributing tracts in Burman, be¬ 
 sides 55,000 pages of tracts for circulation among 
 the English in that country. A small appropriation 
 had been made to colored brethren in Liberia.” At 
 
19 
 
 the same time Mr. Oncken had begun to receive aid 
 from this society, in Germany, of which he writes in 
 the highest terms, urging a continuance and increase 
 of its efforts for u infidel Germany.” The facts in this 
 direction quite justify the following paragraph from 
 the history of the society: 
 
 “ Thus began, in 1832, by the influence of some of our hum¬ 
 blest tracts, under the mighty hand of God, the great work of 
 Baptist evangelization in Germany, from which such glorious 
 results,are now seen; which has penetrated into Switzerland, 
 Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and even Austria ; which has 
 already planted Baptist churches in all the principal cities and 
 capitals of Protestant Europe, revolutionized the opinions of 
 senates and kings on the subject of religious liberty, and stirred 
 up a godly jealousy of active emulation among the best men of 
 the state churches, as is apparent in the organization of the Ger¬ 
 man “ Church Diet,” and the “ Inner Mission.” 
 
 But the pamphlet doubts — 
 
 “ Whether we should go into this work (of colportage) at 
 all,” 
 
 and assures us — 
 
 “ That it is by no means certain that it is a very efficient or 
 very economical mode of evangelization.” 
 
 The very numerous friends and patrons of colport¬ 
 age will be not a little astonished at this novel sug¬ 
 gestion. We do not suppose, however, that there is 
 any ground whatever for it. It is hardly possible that 
 after an experience of eighteen years by the Publica¬ 
 tion Society, (since 1840-1,) and of the American Tract 
 Society for nearly the same time, (to say nothing of 
 
20 
 
 other societies,) that so unanimous a conviction that 
 it is a particularly u efficient,” and especially u econom- 
 cal ” work, can be a mistaken one. Observe, however, 
 the principal reason on which the doubt is founded. 
 
 “ A church is the natural light for the region round about it, 
 and if we establish churches of the right sort, we might from 
 their own members raise up laborers in every destitute region.” 
 
 Whilst colportage is a pioneer work, and does much 
 which is only indirectly establishing churches, sowing 
 the seed and preparing the way, it nevertheless does 
 establish churches directly. We find among the re¬ 
 sults of the labors of the colporteurs of the Publication 
 Society, as an important item, so many “churches 
 constituted.” Here are the results of five years’ col¬ 
 porteur work of this society, as taken from the Annual 
 Report: 
 
 « The labors and immediate results of the society’s colportage 
 for the last five years is as follows : 7,735 weeks’ service ; 
 135,766 volumes sold ; 13,400 volumes given away ; 1,190,000 
 pages of tracts distributed ; 14,140 sermons preached; 8,233 
 prayer meetings held ; 240,000 families visited ; 2,849 persons 
 baptized (the baptized being but a small portion of the number 
 converted through their instrumentality) ; 165 Sunday schools 
 formed ; and 74 churches constituted ; and all this for an out¬ 
 lay by the society of not over $41,000.” 
 
 I presume that most persons will concur in the fol¬ 
 lowing remark of the society appended to this result: 
 
 “ It is doubtful whether our denomination performs, in any 
 way whatever, a more economical mission work than that shown 
 by these figures.” 
 
21 
 
 I am unable to say how this number <*f churches 
 constituted compares with the number of the Home 
 Mission Society, but we are informed by a recent 
 circular of the Publication Society, that its col¬ 
 porteurs, 11 during the last three years have reported 
 over 700 more baptisms than have even the mis¬ 
 sionaries of our great and good Home Mission So¬ 
 ciety.” 
 
 But even on the mistaken supposition that col¬ 
 porteurs do not form churches, either directly or 
 indirectly, there seems little force in the doubts of 
 the pamphlet as to their necessity. If churches are 
 all that is necessary, how happens it that there is 
 so much work for colporteurs where churches do most 
 abound ? A little book, entitled the u Harvest and 
 the Reapers,” gives us facts carefully collated from 
 reliable sources, of which some of us were aware 
 before, showing that, taking our whole country to¬ 
 gether, u not more than one-sixth of the population 
 are regular attendants upon public worship.” It 
 also appears, u that even in the four States of Mas¬ 
 sachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont, 
 about one-half of the inhabitants do not attend the 
 sanctuary at all.” It is easy to say, in answer to 
 these fearful facts, that the churches are not “of the 
 right sort.” What prospect, however, have we that 
 those we may yet establish will be any better ? How 
 long will it take to establish churches whose mem¬ 
 bers shall, by their zeal, render unnecessary the 
 labors of colporteurs ? And what, in the mean time, 
 is to become of the millions in “ the streets and 
 
22 
 
 lanes of the cities/’ and “highways and hedges of 
 the country/’ unreached by either private church 
 members or home missionaries proper ? How can 
 any man say— 
 
 “ It is a very grave question whether we should go into the 
 work at all ? ” 
 
 Second, besides these objections to the colporteur 
 work of the Publication Society, it has two general 
 objections to its publication operations. 
 
 “ Have we not publishing houses who would pledge them¬ 
 selves to do all that the society does, without the expense of a 
 dollar to the denomination ? ” 
 
 Possibly we have those who would assume this 
 responsibility; but if so, they, I apprehend, would do 
 it with very little appreciation of what they had 
 undertaken, and very little prospect of its accom¬ 
 plishment. 
 
 The question here raised is no new one. As far 
 back as I have taken any interest in such matters 
 (more than a quarter of a century), I have seen, from 
 time to time, in the papers, objections to publishing 
 societies on precisely this ground. Some publishers 
 have, from the' commencement, objected to societies 
 for such purposes; and, at their instigation, and per¬ 
 haps without, the ground has been gone over, and 
 the public shown, that private publishers not only 
 can do the work, but can do it better than societies. 
 In the mean time have grown up the American Bap¬ 
 tist Society, the Methodist Book Concern, the Ameri¬ 
 can Tract Society, the American Sunday School 
 Union, the Presbyterian Board of Publication, more 
 
23 
 
 than one Episcopal Prayer-Book Society, the New 
 England Sunday School Union, the Massachusetts 
 Sunday School Society, &c., all of which goes to 
 show how dull the people are, or else how feeble 
 the arguments against societies. And now, strange 
 to tell, the old objection is revived, and we are 
 asked to go over the ground again. 
 
 Here are the grounds on which the pamphlet relies 
 for its position in favor of private publishers in the 
 order in which they occur. First, 
 
 “If a book will be read, it will pay for itself; if it will not 
 be read, there is no object in publishing it.” 
 
 The answer to this is, that while no society 
 should or does think of publishing books that 
 will not u be read,” all experience shows, that in 
 order to the progress of truth, not understood 
 and not appreciated, you cannot rely upon suffi¬ 
 cient sales to compensate the publisher, whose 
 chief object is the profits of his business. It is 
 doing private publishers no injustice to say, that 
 they are engaged in the business with reference to 
 its profits. It is their business, and they should and 
 must make it pay, not only expenses, but a remunera¬ 
 tive profit. Publishing societies exist with much less 
 reference to the pecuniary profits of the business, and 
 much more reference to the necessities of the cause 
 they would promote. If any profit accrues to the 
 society, it makes no man rich in this world’s goods, 
 though, as these profits are devoted to the further¬ 
 ance of the cause, they make many rich in the truth. 
 In these circumstances, societies are under no temp- 
 
24 
 
 tations in the direction of profits, and may, as they 
 should and do, publish with reference to the good of 
 the cause. Occasionally, they issue books that pri¬ 
 vate publishers would be glad to have. But it is 
 obvious that many are necessary, and are being con¬ 
 stantly issued, that can only be brought out by 
 benevolent societies. Perhaps they are able works, 
 written by authors who have not yet achieved a 
 reputation; or they may relate to unpopular topics, 
 none the less important for that. The tract enter¬ 
 prise, for instance, is not pecuniarily remunerative, 
 and, consequently, the societies have a monopoly of 
 it. It is notorious with publishers, that there is very 
 little money in suitable Sabbath School books, and 
 the societies, hence, have almost a monopoly of 
 these. Especially is there no money in denomina¬ 
 tional Sabbath School books, and hence the societies 
 have an entire monopoly of them. Sheldon & Co., 
 an excellent Baptist firm in New York, have recently 
 advertised “ a Baptist Sunday School librarybut 
 it is only an experiment, which they will be glad to 
 abandon, if there is anything to be learned from the 
 past experience of publishers; and even in regard to 
 their first series of books, they are obliged so to 
 construct it that it has no denominational value, and 
 to advertise it as “ suitable for any denomination of 
 Christians.” Indeed, I am informed that a majority 
 of the books of their “ Baptist library” to be “pub* 
 lished under the sanction of a committee of Baptist 
 pastors,” are bought in sheets of the Methodist Book 
 Concern, and are the same books, word for word, 
 with Sheldon & Co.’s imprint, and that some of 
 
25 
 
 tliem cost us more than if bought of the Methodist 
 Book Concern. 
 
 An intelligent article in the New York Examiner , 
 of Jan. 20, 1859, shows that as far back as books 
 can be traced, beyond the art of printing, particu¬ 
 larly religious books, have had to be furnished to a 
 great extent “ on the plan of cheap publications, the 
 expense being met by interested men.” Often, the 
 entire expense is met thus, to enable some parties to 
 freely donate them, and others to purchase them, and 
 to furnish to others still, an inducement in very 
 cheap publications, to buy what they otherwise, in 
 their want of interest, would not. 
 
 But even in regard to the very last and most popu¬ 
 lar books, there is fallacy in the remark— 
 
 “ If a hook will be read, it will pay for itself; if it will not 
 be read, there is no object in publishing it.” 
 
 Take as an illustration, u The Moral Dignity of 
 the Missionary Enterprise,” originally published by 
 Lincoln & Edmands, in pamphlet form, for twenty- 
 five cents, as low as it would be published by a 
 private house now. The Publication Society, the 
 American Tract Society, etc., early put it into their 
 series of tracts. In the Publication Society’s series, 
 it has twenty-eight pages, which, at fifteen pages for 
 one cent, makes it cost less than two cents. The 
 circulation of this work by private publishers bears 
 no comparison whatever with that of societies; nor 
 can any one presume, that if the societies had not 
 
 3 
 
26 
 
 existed, private publishers would have done greatly 
 better by it. 
 
 But proceeds the pamphlet: 
 
 “ It may be said that hooks in this way are sold at a less 
 price. The fact is widely disputed; but grant it, it is only a 
 delusion. The society cannot manufacture a booh at a less 
 cost than a publisher. If the book is sold below the cost, then 
 we pay a part of the cost when we purchase the book, and the 
 remainder in a subscription or endowment. ” 
 
 u The fact is widely disputed,” I remark, only by 
 those who have given little attention to the subject. 
 The price on a single book may be so little less as to 
 attract but slight attention, and at the same time the 
 aggregate gain to the public be very large. Besides, 
 the comparison may have been made in books of a 
 very different character, as it regards the cost of 
 manufacture and extent of sale. In this way conclu¬ 
 sions may be reached which are by no means correct. 
 The book for which you pay most may be the cheaper 
 when you take into account all the facts. It is ob¬ 
 vious that a society having no rents to pay, no prin¬ 
 cipal or partners to enrich, and whose profits, if any 
 do accrue, are added to their facilities of business, 
 ought to make cheap books, and the facts in the case 
 are ample evidence that they do. 
 
 Does it follow, I ask, that because 11 a society can¬ 
 not manufacture a book at less cost than a publisher,” 
 that it cannot legitimately sell for less ? It can still 
 sell them cheaper to the same extent that it charges 
 less for an item of some importance in the book busi- 
 
27 
 
 ness outside of the manufacture, namely, the profit 
 which is to enrich the private publisher. 
 
 And then the society has the advantage of the pri¬ 
 vate publisher in the endowment, and its cheapness 
 here is no “ delusion,” after all. The object of an 
 endowment is, obviously, not chiefly to make cheap 
 books for those who have paid it, else it were, indeed, 
 a remarkable “ delusion.” No man would be simple¬ 
 ton enough to give five thousand dollars to a society 
 that he might buy one hundred dollars’ worth of its 
 books (perhaps all or more than he will ever buy of it), 
 at a low figure. But his five thousand dollars may ena¬ 
 ble and induce five thousand men, who never gave a 
 penny and never may, through poverty or indifference, 
 to buy cheap books. An endowment is simply a 
 benevolent donation to the cause of cheap publications. 
 
 But it is added: 
 
 “bio society can have as good facilities for circulating books 
 as a good publisher who has his correspondents in every city 
 and town throughout the country.” 
 
 What is there to prevent a society from having pre¬ 
 cisely the same thing? Obviously, nothing. And 
 then the society has facilities that no private publisher 
 can have, in its colporteurs, and in the pastors and 
 members of the churches whose society it is, and 
 in whose profits (usefulness) they have an equal 
 interest. 
 
 Supposing that private publishers could do all these 
 things as well as societies (which I think it is seen is 
 by no means true), there remains one thing they will 
 
28 
 
 not u undertake,” namely, the gratuitous distributions 
 of societies. They will no more undertake to collect 
 from the benevolent the means of doing this, than to 
 give it themselves. I do not say this to reproach 
 them,—the thing is simply impossible. 
 
 As there appears to be some necessity for publica¬ 
 tion societies, so there is that they be moderately en¬ 
 dowed, the only remaining objection that the pam¬ 
 phlet suggests to the Publication Society: 
 
 “ It has already received pretty large investments, and now 
 asks of ns one hundred thousand dollars in addition. This is 
 certainly a very large demand. Now, setting aside this fact 
 which all experience teaches, that no benevolent association 
 should ever hold large endowments, and thus be exempted from 
 the control of the denomination, we may properly ask, Could 
 not this work be done more economically ? ” 
 
 After attempting to show that it can be so done 
 by private publishers, with what success we have seen, 
 it is remarked: 
 
 “ At any rate, before we go into so expensive an undertaking, 
 all the facts should be collected and a wise and deliberate de¬ 
 cision formed, from a careful examination of them all. We have 
 no money to throw away, and none to invest in doubtful exper¬ 
 iments.” 
 
 On what grounds, I beg to ask, is this last saga¬ 
 cious suggestion made ? The movement to raise 
 $100,000 additional capital had its incipiency (as its 
 oft-repeated history assures us) with business men of 
 much more than ordinary ability, as long ago as A. D. 
 
29 
 
 1853. The plan first was to raise only $30,000 addi¬ 
 tional capital, but at the solicitation of the same class 
 of men in New York and Philadelphia, it was decided 
 to increase the sum to $100,000, of which not 
 more than $30,000 should be devoted to a building 
 fund. After contributing largely, at different peri¬ 
 ods, to the permanent funds already secured, the 
 members of the Board stand pledged to this endow¬ 
 ment to the amount of $30,000, or more than one 
 fourth of the whole sum proposed, one of them giv¬ 
 ing “ $8,500,” one u $6,000,” and one u $5,000.” For 
 several years this movement has been under consid¬ 
 eration in the Board of the society and in the socie¬ 
 ty’s annual meetings, and in neither of these places 
 has it met with any opposition. We were recently 
 informed officially that the subscriptions to this fund 
 have reached $70,000, and are so far advanced that 
 some of the subscribers to it have paid $10,000 on it, 
 when they were only held on condition that the whole 
 sum was secured. Is it a suitable recognition of 
 either the benevolence or wisdom of the brethren 
 who have done all this, at this late day to suggest 
 that before this u doubtful experiment is made ” there 
 should be a “ careful examination of the facts, be¬ 
 cause we have, no money to throw away, and none to 
 invest in doubtful experiments.” Does it follow that all 
 that is here advised has not been done, and u that facts 
 have not been collected,” that some men never dreamed 
 of, because they have not been sufficiently interested, 
 to know what others are perfectly familiar with! 
 
 3 * 
 
30 
 
 Just prior to this movement, when the society had 
 existed as a “ necessity of the denomination ” for 
 thirty years, the whole amount of its capital, and this 
 locked up in its building, stereotj^pe plates and books, 
 amounted to just $69,095.50 ;* and this Dr. Wayland 
 calls “ pretty large investments.” I cannot imagine 
 how he comes to any such conclusion; it surely is not 
 reached by comparing it with the endowments of 
 Brown University, or any of the endowed publication 
 societies of the land. To say nothing of the American 
 Tract Society, etc., our Congregational friends have 
 invested, in two local denominational societies in 
 Boston, namely, the Congregational Board of Publi¬ 
 cation and the Massachusetts Sunday School Society, 
 $87,000. The fact is, that sum was entirely unworthy 
 of our great and growing denomination. But of the 
 proposition to raise $100,000 it is claimed — “ This is 
 certainly a very large demand.” Not at all, I answer, 
 if it is compared with other endowments for the same 
 or no more important objects, and particularly if it is 
 compared with the necessities of the denomination 
 and the world. 
 
 But suppose it were large, it is no u demand ” upon 
 any man. If brethren think it is no larger than they can 
 afford, and no larger a sum than they ought to conse¬ 
 crate to this object, and if it promises a tithe of the 
 usefulness they anticipate, who shall object and dimin¬ 
 ish their prospects of usefulness by unfounded and 
 unnecessary doubts ? But we are gravely reminded 
 of the fact: 
 
 # See History of the Am. Bap. Bub. Soc., page 243. 
 
31 
 
 “ Which all experience teaches, that no benevolent association 
 should ever hold large endowments and thus be exempted from 
 the control of the denomination.” 
 
 I beg to suggest that this does not seem a case of 
 that kind at all. The proposition is not so to endow 
 this institution as to put it into any such dangerous 
 position, but merely to furnish it with working capital, 
 not one dollar of it to be in the nature of an endow¬ 
 ment which can in any way make the society dan¬ 
 gerous. 
 
 Very much has been said, of late, of societies “ ex¬ 
 empted from the control of the denomination,” Was 
 there ever a Baptist society of that description ? I 
 have looked in vain into our history, “from John 
 the Baptist until now,” for the evidence that we are 
 in any danger in this direction. Certain I am that 
 we have no society at the present time that could live 
 long enough to do any harm, if forsaken by the de¬ 
 nomination. The Publication Society, at all events, 
 need not be suspected in this direction.* Any church 
 may send as many delegates to its annual meetings as 
 it pleases; for, besides members made in other ways^ 
 “ Any person may become a member of this society 
 by paying annually the sum of two dollars or more.” 
 “ Auxiliary societies shall be allowed and are re¬ 
 quested to send one delegate to this society to repre¬ 
 sent them, who shall have the privilege of a member.” 
 “ A majority of the Board shall be laymen.” “ The 
 meetings of the Board of Managers are open to any 
 brethren at all times.” 
 
 * See the Society’s Constitution. 
 
32 
 
 It is strangely inconsistent in Dr. Wayland to take 
 the view he does of the American Baptist Publication 
 Society ; when for years he has been so warmly inter¬ 
 ested in the American Tract Society, for the former 
 differs from the latter only in that it is a Baptist 
 society. All the arguments of the pamphlet apply 
 with equal force to either society, and, to be consis¬ 
 tent, Dr. Wayland should as much object to the one 
 as the other. It is true that he has fallen out with 
 the Tract Society of New York, but it is on account 
 of slavery, and not on any of the grounds upon which 
 he objects to the Publication Society. He appears 
 still in connection with the American Tract Society, 
 Boston, as President of an auxiliary society. Why 
 is not a Baptist Publication Society as desirable and 
 unobjectionable as any other ? 
 
 THE AMERICAN BAPTIST HOME MISSION SOCIETY, AND 
 THE AMERICAN AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 A review of Dr. Wayland’s pamphlet requires but 
 little in relation to either of these societies. It is 
 suitable, however, to remark that his results in re¬ 
 gard to the Home Mission Society, as compared with 
 other societies, do not appear to be logical. It is 
 not obvious just what he wishes here; nor does 
 there seem any reason for the preference he ap¬ 
 parently gives this society. 
 
 I must not be understood to object to the good 
 things said of it. I could honestly say much more. 
 But there seems no reason, in Dr. Wayland’s theory, 
 for any preference for it over other societies. 
 
33 
 
 “ Our Home Mission Society has done a noble work.” 
 
 It is granted; but it is equally true of the other 
 societies. Beyond all question, the Foreign Mission 
 Society has as great claims in this manner as any 
 other. 
 
 \ ( 
 
 “ Our regular and established organization for the promotion 
 of this work (Home Missions) is our Home Mission Society.” 
 
 This is by no means obvious. The Publication 
 Society is older, and better endowed, and just as 
 much a regular societ} 7- , and has been eminently use¬ 
 ful at home as well as abroad. 
 
 « The Home Mission has stood the test of time better by far 
 than any of our organizations.” 
 
 We look in vain in the pamphlet and elsewhere for 
 any evidence of this proposition. Two of the so¬ 
 cieties are older—the Foreign Missionary Society 
 by eighteen years, and the Publication Society by 
 eight years, and they still survive. The latter of 
 them is now more prosperous than ever before. As 
 far as difficulties, misunderstandings, differences of 
 opinion, are concerned, the Home Mission Society has 
 enjoyed no exemption, to say the least, which gives 
 it any preference over others. 
 
 “ Here (in Home Missions) we seem to need some central 
 arrangement that shall be a medium of intercourse between the 
 parties. We need some office to which our brethren in the 
 new states can apply for aid, to which can be sent the contribu¬ 
 tions of the churches, and from which also brethren desiring to 
 
34 
 
 settle in the West may seek for information. Something of this 
 kind in our present condition may be indispensable. We may 
 need some man or men who shall be always familiar with the 
 ever-changing character of the West, so as to disburse our aid to 
 the best advantage, and only where it is needed.” 
 
 Here we have a concession of all we claim, and a 
 refutation of most of the pamphlet. Pray what is 
 our Home Mission Society but this ? It needs no 
 “ radical reformer ” to be just what it is here con¬ 
 ceded we must have. But the most remarkable part 
 of this position is, that we only need this for Home 
 Missions. Why not just as much—aye, why not 
 more for Foreign Missions? Can anyone tell? It 
 were easy to show that if Home Missions need this, 
 Foreign Missions do as much more, as they are farther 
 away, and attended, in numerous ways, with more 
 difficulty. 
 
 We come now to Hr. Wayland’s substitute for 
 the societies. 
 
 What advantages has it over them, even though 
 they have worked as badly as he claims ? It should 
 have very decided advantages to justify its sub¬ 
 stitution, for it involves a large amount of dif¬ 
 ficulties, seen and unseen, to make so thorough a 
 revolution as it contemplates. It is not proposed to 
 bring all the objection possible to the substitute, but 
 merely to show that it has no advantages over the 
 societies, as far as the imperfections are concerned, 
 which, it is claimed, are incident to them. 
 
 Here is the substitute: 
 
35 
 
 In reflecting upon this subject, it naturally occurs to us 
 that we possess one form of organization which appears per¬ 
 fectly adapted to our character and principles. It is the ordi¬ 
 nary Baptist Association.” 
 
 First, the Baptist Association has no advantage 
 over the Baptist Society as to any divine origin or 
 apostolic precedent. Suppose we concede: 
 
 “ That there were no missionary boards, and no central 
 organizations in the times of the apostles.” 
 
 It is equally true that .there were no “Baptist 
 associations.” If there is any force in the query of 
 the pamphlet: 
 
 “ Why should we need such organizations now? ” 
 
 as it relates to the societies, why not as it relates 
 to the associations ? If it has pleased the Head of 
 the Church to leave such matters to the churches, and 
 they deem it best to have both societies and associa¬ 
 tions, why is not one as legitimate as the other ? 
 
 I am unable to see either how associations are 
 any more “ natural,” even to Baptists, than societies. 
 It is said all regular Baptist churches have, as a rule, 
 associations; so they all have societies. Baptist 
 churches are under no special necessity to join asso¬ 
 ciations any more than societies. They are equally 
 free in regard to each and all such provisions for 
 their happiness and usefulness. 
 
 It does not matter which is the oldest provision of 
 Baptists, nor are we able to say. The age of any 
 . principle proves nothing which is binding, unless it 
 
36 
 
 furnishes apostolic precedent. And what is an 
 association, after all, but a society ? 
 
 Suppose the pamphlet’s plan carried out, and our 
 societies, so called, abolished, and their work turned 
 over to the different associations. We have only 
 destroyed a small number of societies for a large 
 number; or, if you please, converted the associations 
 into societies, if, indeed, they were not just as much 
 societies before the change. 
 
 Consequently the only real question here is, Has a 
 large number of small societies any advantage over a 
 small number of large ones ? or, in other words, Have 
 some forty societies, called associations, any advan¬ 
 tages for missionary purposes, over four societies, so 
 called, for the same purpose ? This would seem to 
 add to the “ complication ” so much objected to, im¬ 
 measurably. It would also add to the “ expense ” in 
 the same way. 
 
 One very important point the pamphlet desires to 
 gain is — 
 
 “ To bring the benefactor and the recipient into the closest 
 possible contact.” 
 
 We concede the desirableness of this, and are glad 
 that attention is turned to it. It is right that the 
 societies be the servants of the churches, and not the 
 reverse of this. The church is the legitimate mission¬ 
 ary organization, and should suffer nothing to over¬ 
 ride her in this work. Not only should churches feel 
 this responsibility, but individual members. They can 
 
37 
 
 no more merge their responsibility in the church, than 
 the church in the society. Let this position become 
 more and more popular with us, for it is a sound one. 
 
 We are, however, unable to see how the Baptist 
 Association is any improvement upon the Baptist 
 Society in this respect, or how any considerable 
 change in the societies is necessary to this object. 
 If we mistake not, the societies are u more sinned 
 against than sinning ” in regard to this matter. They 
 were designed to be, and really are, what they only can 
 legitimately be, namely, the church’s own provision 
 to aid her in her missionary work; to furnish her 
 facilities of doing what she can best do in this way t 
 They are part and parcel of the church, and so con¬ 
 sidered by their friends. But unfortunately some 
 parties have come to look upon them in another light, 
 as extraneous to the church. But the societies, in 
 their constitutions, in their history, in their work, take 
 another view of the matter. The Publication Society, 
 for instance, has successfully “ labored to bring the 
 benefactor and recipient into the closest possible 
 contact; ” and how any organization can do more 
 than it has in this way, I am unable to see. It has, 
 among other similar arrangements, a plan by which any 
 individual or company, by providing the salary of a 
 colporteur, may have one assigned them, or one ap¬ 
 pointed of their own nomination, with whom they may 
 be in correspondence. They may have his services 
 where they please, and have his reports, detailing his 
 work, his trials and success. 
 
 4 
 
38 
 
 The same is true, to a greater or less extent, of the 
 other societies. The Missionary Union has recently 
 sent out in this way Dr. Binney, who is understood to 
 be not only their missionary, but that of the three 
 brethren who have guaranteed to pay his salary and 
 expenses. There is nothing more desirable than this 
 for those who cannot be missionaries themselves, 
 who of course are the masses everywhere. 
 
 But says the pamphlet: 
 
 “ Now, a central organization is at variance with these princi¬ 
 ples. It keeps the two parties as far apart as possible, by 
 placing between them a vast number of intermediate agencies. 
 We employ a succession of paid almoners, instead of being al¬ 
 moners ourselves,” &c. 
 
 It is an exaggeration of the evil to say, “ there is a 
 vast number of intermediate agencies.” But if it were 
 not, the association has no advantage over the society 
 in this respect, or at least, not enough to affect the 
 principle involved; nor can you devise any thing short 
 of sending every person direct to the heathen or the 
 home field, which is of course an impossibility. As 
 far as all this is concerned, the association is a cen¬ 
 tra! organization, differing from the national one only 
 in that it is smaller and sectional. 
 
 But says the pamphlet, persistently following up 
 this favorite theory: 
 
 ■“ If this could be accomplished, we should be at once relieved 
 of all the machinery of boards, committees, secretaries, and 
 agents, inasmuch as every church or cluster of churches would 
 be all this to itself.” 
 
39 
 
 The author does not inform us how u every church 
 or cluster of churches would be all this to itself,” and 
 it seems absurd to claim it. The pamphlet goes on 
 to say: 
 
 “ Some of these duties might he required in the affairs of 
 each individual organization, but the labor would be so light, 
 that probably in every case it would be performed gratuitously.” 
 
 But where is the evidence that li the labor would be 
 so light that it would probably in every case be done 
 gratuitously ? ” Suppose this condition of the new 
 scheme were not realized; suppose the money must 
 be raised by agents — a very probable contingency, 
 for I see nothing in the scheme likely to put an end 
 to selfishness, and I presume our brethren would 
 remain very much such men as they are now,* and 
 suppose there should be a large amount of work to 
 be done u in each church or cluster of churches,” 
 requiring all of some brother’s time, who would 
 be under the necessity of being paid for his labor, — 
 and these are by far the most probable things in the 
 case — would one secretary or agent in each of forty 
 associations be any better than forty secretaries or 
 agents in four societies ? 
 
 But, persists the pamphlet: 
 
 “ Should a true and earnest missionary spirit be awakened 
 among us, every one would rejoice in an opportunity to serve 
 the cause as far as he was able, without remuneration,” etc. 
 
40 
 
 But suppose this sudden elevation of human nature, 
 or of divine grace in the heart, did not result from 
 this new plan,—then what ? If men were angels, then 
 any system of benevolence would answer; though 
 even then, I presume some effort and wisdom would 
 be necessary. But there is not the least probability 
 of any such change as is thus supposed, and hence it 
 is idle to found plans upon it. It is worse than build¬ 
 ing upon sand —- it is building upon nothing. 
 
 There is an excellent opportunity now , in connec¬ 
 tion with the present societies, for gratuitous labor for 
 missions. A large amount of it is done by members 
 of Boards, and Treasurers and Recording Secretaries. 
 But it is found necessary to have, besides, Secretaries 
 and Agents devoting all their time to a laborious, 
 thankless task. Somehow, these brethren are gen¬ 
 erally poor, and must receive from these sources a 
 subsistence. Suppose some of our good brethren who 
 have the means of living without a salary, should take 
 these secretaryships and agencies gratuitously ? They 
 certainly would be doing a good work. If they were 
 agents, and obliged to raise the money for missions 
 from church to church, they would probably get more 
 correct ideas of the difficulties in this work. 
 
 But the pamphlet not only makes too much of asso¬ 
 ciations as it expects them to become in its new plan, 
 but as they are and ever have been. It claims that: 
 
 “ Here (in associations) we have no collisions, for there is noth¬ 
 ing to strive about; ” and that here we are “ always success¬ 
 ful” 
 
41 
 
 These are certainly singular claims. Why should 
 the same persons be less liable to misunderstand each 
 other and fall out by the way in an association than 
 in a society? Obviously only as they have fewer and 
 less difficult questions in the one case than in the 
 other. But in transferring to associations missionary 
 operations, you transfer the questions incident to 
 missions. Still it would be just as true: 
 
 “ That some of us believe the kingdom of Christ may be most 
 successfully promoted by means of schools,” 
 
 and that all other similar questions would come up 
 and lead to the same results. These questions would 
 still have to be settled by u majorities,” and “ minori¬ 
 ties ” would have to submit. 
 
 Nor is this difficulty avoided by confining the work 
 to “individual churches A church may have in it the 
 representatives of all the shades of belief possible to 
 any society. It is no unheard-of thing for churches 
 or associations to have warm, protracted contests 
 which must be finally settled by the vote of the ma¬ 
 jority. Carry out the plan of the pamphlet and abol¬ 
 ish societies, and confine missionary operations to 
 either associations or churches, and still it will be true 
 as now: 
 
 “ that while every disciple desires to serve his Master, no one likes 
 to be controlled by his brethren as to the manner in which he 
 shall do it.” 
 
 There is no plan of missions which will answer the 
 purpose of men “ who do not like to be controlled by 
 
 4 * 
 
42 
 
 majorities,” except the unnatural, impracticable one 
 suggested by the pamphlet in the remark: 
 
 “Nay, individual members are able to support missionaries.” 
 
 To this all must come 11 who do not like to be con¬ 
 trolled by majorities,” for if they associate any num¬ 
 ber of persons with them, there is a chance for 
 difference of opinion which must be settled by vote. 
 
 But must it be conceded that there is no bond of 
 union among Baptists: 
 
 11 That under their conditions it must be difficult, if not impos¬ 
 sible, to carry on a centralizing organization of any extent, for 
 any considerable length of time, efficiently ? ” 
 
 If so, then farewell to our grand schemes of the 
 world’s conversion by the use of means; for solitary, 
 individual effort, however important its mission, is not 
 adapted to grand enterprises. 
 
 In another connection 1 have shown how we should 
 regard the conflicts among us, of which the pamphlet 
 makes so much, and so much more than the facts call 
 for. Our entire history in the past shows, as it 
 will show in the future, that we are not the impracti¬ 
 cable people of the pamphlet. 
 
 Not only are the claims set up for associations over 
 societies singular in the particulars just noticed, but in 
 the claim that they are “ always successful .” We are 
 all familiar with the “ success ” of “ associations ” in 
 promoting missions within their own limits. How 
 
43 
 
 often has the Home Mission Society been informed by 
 the vote of some association that it mnst not extend 
 its operations into their field, as they design to pro¬ 
 vide for it and can do no more. By the notorious facts 
 of this kind we are not left to conjecture how “ suc¬ 
 cessful ” associations would be in carrying on Foreign 
 Missions. Take, as an illustration, the Warren Asso¬ 
 ciation in Rhode Island, to which the author of the 
 pamphlet belongs, and it is more than a fair represen¬ 
 tation of similar bodies throughout the land. It has 
 done something for Rhode Island, but has it done 
 what it ought, or what some of its members have de¬ 
 sired, or what holds out any considerable promise 
 that it would do much for the heathen if left to itself? 
 Has it had no difficulties in doing what it has done for 
 Rhode Island, so that it may, safely to the cause, cut 
 loose from the denomination, and not only undertake 
 to provide for its own territory, but for missions in 
 the West and in heathen lands? With as excellent 
 associations to provide for it as the Warren and the 
 Providence, and as long as it has enjoyed the care of 
 the former of these, Rhode Island is to-day in sad 
 need of the sympathy of some Home Mission Society. 
 The same is true of every State in the Union, not ex¬ 
 cepting even Massachusetts. 
 
 But, according to the pamphlet, we do not need 
 even associations to support missionaries: 
 
 “ Many of our wealthy churches might support a single 
 mission ; others, and there are hundreds of them — nay, indi 
 vidual members, who are able to support a single missionary.” 
 
44 
 
 All of this is undoubtedly true; but does it follow 
 that it would be safe, on account of this fact, to 
 u abandon all centralizing organizations ? ” If 
 churches and individuals are able to support single 
 missions without a missionary society, so they are 
 with one. There is nothing to prevent any church 
 or individual from doing this now through the Mis- 
 sionary Union, and much in its existence to aid and 
 induce them. The number of churches, and particu¬ 
 larly individuals, who contribute enough to sustain a 
 single missionary, with all the inducements held out 
 by the Missionary Union, is very small. Take away 
 the Union, and you greatly increase the expense to 
 the church or individual, and augment the difficulties, 
 in ways too numerous and obvious to mention, beyond 
 measure. It is a notorious fact, that a great ma¬ 
 jority of the churches do not provide a comfortable 
 support for their own pastor; and that many of those 
 that do, raise the money with great difficulty. As a mat¬ 
 ter of fact, the state of things at home is sad to the 
 last degree, as it regards the support of pastors; 
 and now to suppose that on account of the ability of 
 churches and individuals to sustain missionaries, we 
 may safety turn this whole work over to them, is 
 simply ridiculous. 
 
 Who would go on a mission to the heathen to be 
 dependent upon one church of a thousand for his sup¬ 
 port, or upon any one individual ? If a missionary has 
 the means of living himself, or if he has sufficient faith to 
 go forth unprovided for, it is very well for him to go 
 independently of all men; but if he is like ordinary 
 
45 
 
 missionaries, he will demand some certain support 
 before he starts. To any church, or individual, pro¬ 
 posing to sustain him, he will be likely to say: Are 
 you aware of what is involved in the support of a 
 missionary to the heathen? The salary is a small 
 thing comparatively. The outfit, the expense of 
 getting to the field, of returning from time to time, the 
 providing for the children and widow in case of 
 death, the difficulty and expense of remittances, etc., 
 are difficulties in comparison with which the salary 
 is as nothing. The support is sufficiently precarious 
 when it is pledged by a society having credit abroad 
 to secure exchanges, and a denomination at home 
 pledged to its support, and officers to see to its 
 funds. The pastorate and membership of the church 
 are ever changing. Individuals are rich to-day, and 
 pjoor to-morrow; are members to-day, and excluded 
 to-morrow; are alive to-day, and dead to-morrow. 
 
 The arrangement under which Dr. Binney. has 
 lately gone abroad would seem to be all which is 
 necessary to any church or individual, and as little 
 security as any missionary should be asked to accept. 
 Three brethren in Philadelphia have assumed the 
 responsibility of his support (I am told) through the 
 Missionary Union. It would be much more difficult 
 for them to do this good work without the Union; 
 and Mr. Binney has now the Union to look to in case 
 of any disaster to them. 
 
 THE AGENCIES OF BENEVOLENT SOCIETIES. 
 
 I have purposely reserved this topic, several*times 
 
46 
 
 incidentally introduced into Dr. Wayland’s pamphlet, 
 for a separate consideration, because of its prime 
 importance. The following remark of the pamphlet 
 is as good a text as any other: 
 
 As the interest in them all (the societies) declines, more 
 agents become necessary. Thus the Ibss there is to he col¬ 
 lected, the greater the expense of collection; until at present, 
 if unrefuted statements are to he believed, the amount which 
 we pay for agencies has become too great to be tolerated, and 
 must be diminished, or we shall soon come to a standstill 
 altogether.” 
 
 If there is any foundation for this extremely un¬ 
 favorable view, it is incredible that the managers 
 of the societies, and the agents themselves, should 
 persist in their course. But, I beg to ask, who are 
 the managers and the agents, that they should be 
 charged with either the stupidity of not understand¬ 
 ing, or the wickedness of persisting in such a pro¬ 
 cedure as is here described ? Knowing some of these 
 brethren, I have looked with suspicion upon the 
 charges of this description, and suppose the following 
 considerations a refutation of them. 
 
 First, the history of the missionary spirit among us 
 is evidence that, so far from its being true that the 
 “ decline of interest in the societies ” increases the 
 agents, they have been essential to it from the com¬ 
 mencement. 
 
 The pamphlet refers to the successful labors of 
 “ Mr. Bice, the general agent.” The men are still 
 living who remember in what apathy the denomina- 
 
47 
 
 tion was found, clergy and laity, in regard to mis¬ 
 sions, by the providence of God, when Judson and 
 Eice were converted to our sentiments, and the latter 
 came home to perform the first agency work of this 
 kind among us. From that time to the present, the 
 annals of our foreign mission operations are replete 
 with evidence of the absolute necessity of agents to 
 their success. When there were no other societies, 
 and no other agents, the Foreign Mission cause found 
 most difficulty in carrying on its work, and not as is 
 claimed since the societies became so numerous. The 
 fact is, that agents have increased on precisely op¬ 
 posite grounds to those claimed by the extract I have 
 quoted, namely, as the interest in the societies has 
 increased, and demanded more money. 
 
 The annals of all our societies, as well as the 
 Foreign Mission, are replete with evidence that 
 agents have been materially connected with their 
 origin as well as progress. As Eice and Bennett are 
 well known names as agents for Foreign Missions, 
 so we have Going, and Crawford, and Peck, as agents 
 for Home Missions. 
 
 One would suppose, as he listens to the objections 
 to agencies, that they are some new scheme, foisted 
 upon the denomination, when the fact is, that they 
 have been, from the commencement, an absolute ne¬ 
 cessity of the cause, an integral part, indeed, of it. 
 It is difficult to conceive of greater injustice than 
 that implied in the attacks upon agencies; and those 
 who are responsible for it should look into the history 
 of them. 
 
48 
 
 The denomination meet in Convention, and decide 
 on certain measures for different missionary purposes. 
 They choose a board of managers to carry out their 
 plans, and adjourn; missionaries are sent out; money 
 is demanded to pay the expenses; the denomination 
 is appealed to through the press; circulars are sent 
 to the pastors and leading brethren; the money does 
 not come. The managers, who do their work gra¬ 
 tuitously, have given more than any other class of 
 men, and have loaned their credit to borrow money 
 to pay the missionaries, all of which they make known, 
 but still the money does not come. What shall they 
 do ? There is but one thing they can do, and it has 
 always been a last resort. They get the best 
 brethren to be had, on the best terms possible, to 
 canvass the churches. This brings the money, when 
 nothing else will; and this is the simple history of 
 all our agencies. 
 
 What if it were true that agents are not really ne¬ 
 cessary ; that they are expensive; that it is annoying 
 to have so many of them circulating among the 
 churches ? If they have been indispensable in our 
 case—if the greatest possible economy has been 
 used in procuring them—and if they make as little 
 trouble as possible in performing their work, it is all 
 that can be asked; and all this is eminently true, as 
 any page of our history is evidence. Similar ob¬ 
 jections to agencies have been made from the com¬ 
 mencement. In the annual meetings of the societies, 
 and in the monthly meetings of the managers, this 
 subject has been discussed, and the whole ground 
 
49 
 
 gone over in every possible phase of it, in every case 
 to be decided unanimously in favor of the agencies, 
 and an increase, rather than a diminution, of them, 
 as, with all its evils, the only alternative. The 
 managers of our societies, who have the money to 
 raise, and who know, as no others can, what is neces¬ 
 sary, have been from the commencement, and are 
 now, unanimous in favor of the agency system, as the 
 only way of raising the necessary funds. 
 
 The same is true of all denominations until quite 
 recently. To do without agents is, with any society, a 
 new and untried theory, and time only can prove how 
 it will work in any case. An experiment of a few 
 months, like that of the American Sunday School 
 Union, is no evidence of “ success.” It would be 
 singular, indeed, if so popular an institution, and one 
 that has from the commencement had so many agents, 
 has not thus received momentum enough to go on 
 fairly for a time without them. A few years at least 
 are necessary to fairly test the question; and before 
 they transpire, if any thing is to be learned from ex¬ 
 perience in either sacred or secular affairs, we shall be 
 informed, that for its benevolent purposes, the Ameri¬ 
 can Sunday School Union has been obliged to return 
 to the agency system. 
 
 I am aware that it is claimed that both the Presby¬ 
 terian and the Methodist denominations are evidence 
 that missions may be successfully conducted without 
 agents. But what are the facts ? Neither of them 
 has dispensed with special agents, so called, for a 
 
 sufficient length of time to fairly test the question in 
 
 & 
 
50 
 
 their cases. But besides, and more important than 
 this, they still have agents, only by a different name. 
 The Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions, with 
 but a comparatively small number of wealthy churches 
 to influence, in a small geographical field, with author¬ 
 itative Synods and Presbyteries, still has three Cor¬ 
 responding Secretaries, who are, to all intents and 
 purposes, special agents. The Methodists, with a 
 “discipline” of unbounded influence, providing for the 
 missionary institutions of the denomination, has, be¬ 
 sides, seven bishops and some four hundred presiding 
 ciders, all of whom are general superintendents of all 
 the affairs of the denomination. What they can need 
 of other agents does not appear. We could well dis¬ 
 pense with special agents, if we had all this force of 
 general superintendents. 
 
 The societies that most fairly compare with ours 
 are those of the Congregational Church; and they have 
 the advantage of us, in that they have more wealth in 
 a smaller geographical circle; both of which circum¬ 
 stances diminish the necessity and expense of agen¬ 
 cies. The American Board of Commissioners for 
 Foreign Missions has never hesitated about the abso¬ 
 lute necessity of agents. They now style their agents 
 «District Secretaries,” and one has only to examine 
 their report to be aware how thoroughly they canvass 
 their field. The author of this review has several 
 times conversed with the senior Secretary of the 
 American Board, Bev. Dr. Anderson, on this subject, 
 who assured him that in their case, special agents are, 
 and ever have been, indispensable. 
 
51 
 
 With such a history as the agencies of benevolent 
 societies have, it seems idle to complain of them, ruin¬ 
 ous to undermine them by injurious statements, and 
 unjust and ungenerous to reflect either upon the man¬ 
 agers who appoint them, or the agents themselves. 
 The agents, at all events, deserve a better recompense 
 than censure. No class of men have done so much 
 disagreeable work for missions for so small a consid¬ 
 eration. Let us not forget the adage, u Speak well 
 of the bridge that has carried you safely over.” 
 
 Second, there are other considerations adapted to 
 reconcile us to what experience shows is in our case a 
 necessity. 
 
 1. We ha xe apostolic precedent for agents for benevolent 
 •purposes. If this is true, we surely need not be aston¬ 
 ished at our dependence upon them, or expect to be 
 able to do without them. Money was needed for the 
 purposes of the church in its early history, and breth¬ 
 ren were sent to solicit it. This is substantially the 
 agency system of the present day. We have in 1 Cor., 
 9 — not to name other passages — as obvious a recog¬ 
 nition of this system as is necessary, and in this case 
 agents are sent to a very liberal church. See par¬ 
 ticularly the third and fifth verses: 
 
 “ Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should 
 be in vain in this behalf, that, as I said, ye may be ready.” 
 
 « Therefore, I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren 
 that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand 
 your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might 
 be ready, as a matter of bounty and not of covetousness.” 
 
52 
 
 If it is said that these were not paid agents, I 
 answer that this is no truer of the u brethren sent ” 
 in this case than of the apostle who sent them. Hence, 
 whether it is true or not that they were not paid for 
 their services, it is of no more force in the one case 
 than in the other. Unpaid agents of apostolic times 
 are as good a precedent for paid ones of our times as 
 unpaid pastors. We presume both were paid ; but it 
 is not necessary to argue this point, for whatever the 
 fact is, it is of the same force in both cases. 
 
 2. Agents are evangelists. In becoming agents they 
 do not cease to be Christian ministers. Those who 
 are suitable for agents, do sufficient besides their 
 special work to justify no inconsiderable part of their 
 expense. If the church to which they belong have not 
 mistaken their Christian character; if the council of 
 ordination was not deceived in their call to the min¬ 
 istry ; if their numerous acquaintances do not entirely 
 overvalue them, then they are u doing the work of an 
 evangelist,” in addition to their special agency. In¬ 
 deed, is it not probable that their more important 
 and prior office, namely, that of Christian ministers, 
 is worth more to the cause than their special agency ? 
 To be sure, they are thrown in contact with churches 
 that do not particularly need them, but so they are 
 with many more in very different circumstances. The 
 witnesses of their ministry are all over the land, 
 in grateful pastors, mature Christians, and young con¬ 
 verts. Just how important travelling ministers are, in 
 the general plan of the world’s conversion, it is not 
 necessary to show, when it is true, that the Master as 
 
53 
 
 much u gave some evangelists ” “ for the perfecting of 
 the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edify¬ 
 ing of the body of Christ,” “as some apostles, and 
 some prophets, and some pastors and teachers.” 
 
 3. If special agents are expensive , and if there are 
 many other inconveniences attaching to them in religious 
 matters , it is no new thing under the sun. You look 
 in vain for any secular enterprise , as well as sacred , 
 where you do not discover precisely the same thing. The 
 law of special agency is universal, and everything pro¬ 
 ceeds on this law, regardless of any necessary cost or 
 annoyance. Clerks and police and constables and 
 teachers and rulers, etc., cost money, and are often 
 annoying, especially to evil doers. Undoubtedly 
 agencies for benevolent societies must come under 
 the same general laws. If every person would do as 
 well as he knows how, and hence might do and ought, 
 it would be a great saving in numerous ways; but 
 alas, men are not angels, and we have not yet fallen 
 upon millennial days, as it respects any enterprise. 
 What is not done perfectly, which is always the best 
 way, must be done in the next best way, and we must 
 pay the price of the extra friction. 
 
 It is easy to say that churches should be intelligent 
 and benevolent, unsolicited; and that pastors should do 
 the preaching and collecting necessary to all benevo¬ 
 lent societies, and that if they would do thus and 
 thus, special agents would be unnecessary. But then 
 what ? If they will not do this very reasonable thing, 
 as they never did, and especially as nothing is done in 
 this imperfect world just as it might be and ought to 
 
54 
 
 be, then, in the exercise of all the wisdom and purity 
 we can command, we must do the best we can. 
 
 4. It is obviously unjust to estimate the value of an 
 agent for benevolent objects by the amount of money which 
 passes through his hands. This is the ordinary way 
 of doing it. But I have already shown that he does 
 enough else to justify a part of the expense, and 
 how large a part no one can tell. The great day may 
 reveal facts in this direction which no one antici¬ 
 pated, and is as likely to in the case of a faithful 
 agent as pastor. Not only so, but besides the money 
 which passes through his hands, he may be opening 
 channels which will flow on forever. The legacies 
 which he may influence may result in a greatly larger 
 sum than all his other receipts. An agent of the Mis¬ 
 sionary Union once visited a brother who had .never 
 given the Board a dollar, and who had no known pur¬ 
 pose of any special benevolence in any direction. 
 There is as much evidence as of anything else, that 
 the purpose which afterwards appeared, was formed 
 by the grace of Glod during and by means of that visit. 
 He gave the agent a five dollar note on parting 
 with him, and an indefinite pledge that ere long the 
 Secretary at Boston should hear from him. In the 
 course of a few months the Magazine acknowledged 
 a very large sum from the brother, which was contin¬ 
 ued through his life, amounting in all to several thou¬ 
 sand dollars. 
 
 5. Whatever necessity there is for agents , the churches 
 and pastors are responsible for , and not the managers of 
 the societies , or the agents themselves. There has un- 
 
doubtedly grown up in some quarters an unfriendly 
 feeling on this subject, and agents are sometimes 
 personally sufferers on account of it. Nothing is 
 more unjust than this. The churches and pas¬ 
 tors are the only parties who can remedy this evil. 
 The societies only ask for the money necessary to 
 perform the work committed to them by the denomi¬ 
 nation. If the pastor can do the work, why does he 
 not do it ? No agent will then trouble him. The 
 visit of an agent is jprima facie evidence that the work 
 has not been done; for the society has no motive to 
 increase either the odium or expense of sending an 
 agent without absolute necessity. 
 
 It is said, in reply, whilst agents are appointed, 
 pastors will avail themselves of them, on the ground, 
 that it the expense is to be incurred, they might as 
 well have the advantage of it as others; and that the 
 true way to test the question of doing without agents, 
 is to cut them off at once. There are several fallacies 
 in this theory. It is not, certainly, a very elevated 
 motive for receiving agents. Besides, it proceeds on 
 the mistaken supposition that there are agents enough 
 to entirely canvass the field. But no society has such 
 a number of agents; and hence, if those who can do 
 the work themselves will do it, the agents may go to 
 those who will not. Consequently all done without 
 agents, is a clear gain to the societies. With all the 
 complaint of the number of agents, a very large num¬ 
 ber of churches do little or nothing for any object, 
 because the societies have not a sufficient number of 
 agents to reach them. But still more important is 
 
56 
 
 
 the fact ; that this theory asks of the managers and 
 agents what they know ; by repeated experiments, to 
 be impossible. We must pay our missionaries, they 
 reply to it. We have tried all methods, and are still 
 trying them, as far as it is safe. You are asking us 
 to do what you alone can do. Give us the means of 
 sustaining our missionaries, and our agents shall not 
 visit you. Until you do this, we have no alternative 
 but to rely mainly upon good agents. We will get 
 the best men on the best possible terms. We can do 
 
 no more. 
 
rW&M 
 
 :» 
 
 ■ $ 
 
 SgSS 
 
 7 y .« 
 
 S8 
 
 Vs