t

A BRIEF ANSWER, &c.

THE feelings and motives with which I was induced to attempt a vindi. cation of the AMERICAN HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY against certain statements of the Rev. Mr. Russell, as Secretary of the BOARD OF MISSIONS, are sufficiently expressed in my "Six Letters," to which the reader is referred in the Appendix. Those feelings, I trust, have not been embittered, nor my motives changed, in the progress of that discussion, which imposes on me the much regretted necessity of making this Answer. It will be my endeavour, therefore, that whatever I shall now write may be marked with kindness and candour.

FACTS AND PRINCIPLES IN DEBATE.

The writer of the "Official Reply" relinquishes none of the positions assumed in his letter to the Committee of the Cincinnati Presbytery, [See Appendix, No. I1.] but asserts the entire correctness of the statements contained both in that letter and in the last Report of the Board of Missions, excepting one, which he assures us was a typographical error. The Secretary of the Board therefore and myself are "at issue" on all the facts and principles stated and discussed in my letters. To these have been added several new assertions and imputations, which will demand a brief consideration.

It is not my purpose, however, to answer the whole of this pamphlet in detail. Its arrangement is so involved, and the assailable points which it presents so numerous, that a full answer, in detail, could not be comprised within a reasonable compass. Most of its statements, also, have already been sufficiently considered in my letters. Others contain their own corrective, or are too unimportant to occupy the reader's time. I shall, there. fore, confine myself to such statements and remarks as, considered in connexion with my letters, may present in its true light every important fact and principle disputed or discussed in the "Official Reply."

ERRONEOUS QUOTATIONS.

In the first place, I am sorry to be under the necessity of complaining, that my letters are not fairly represented in the pamphlet before us. I will name only a few instances. In the title to the “ Reply," there is added to my name the title of "Corresponding Secretary," &c. to make it appear that my “ Siæ Letters” were to be regarded as official. Yet they were signed unofficially, and entitled, as published in the "Cincinnati Journal," simply "Mr. Peters' Reply," &c. [See Appendix No. III.]

To justify the above use of my official title, I am represented on the first page of the Reply, as having explicitly declared, in my second letter, that I wrote in accordance with the "counsel of [a number of] my esteemed associates in the Home Missionary enterprise and other valued friends of the cause," excepting that the words included in brackets are omitted in the quotation! Why was this? Are not the words, "a number of," the very words which would have spoiled the quotation for the purpose for which it was introduced!

66 some

On the same page, second paragraph, there is a cluster of quotations, which the writer attributes to my second letter, but they are, in fact, all taken from my fifth letter. Three of these quotations are short and distinct members of a single sentence in my letter, incorporated in an entirely new sentence in the Reply :-One of these short members even is perverted by an omission, which changes essentially its meaning. The expression, as it stands in my letter is, "the impropriety and inaccuracy of [some of] its statements.” Mr. R. in his quotation drops the words, of," and thus represents me as having said that I had "reflected with unmingled regret," on all the statements contained in the last Report of the Board of Missions, which is contradictory to the declaration contained in the first part of the sentence from which the above expression was quoted. The whole sentence in my letter is as follows, viz: "Some portions of the report, therefore, I read with pleasure, but such has been my deep impression of the impropriety and inaccuracy of some of its statements, that I have reflected on them with unmingled regret."

Such are the misplaced and erroneous quotations contained in the first page of the " Official Reply;" and these, the reader will find, are fair specimens of the accuracy with which my statements and reasonings are represented throughout the book, by quotations from my letters themselves. Very many instances occur, in which parts of sentences and single words and phrases are quoted and forced into connexions which estrange them rom their original meaning, and make them available, as proofs in point of the opposite. But as it is not my object to go through with a full exposure of these inaccuracies, I omit any further induction of particulars in this place, and shall hereafter notice only such instances as shall fall in my way in connexion with other topics claiming attention. I shall also, for the present, avoid any allusion to the spirit of the " Reply," or to the numerous statements and insinuations which it contains of a merely personal character, that the reader may not be detained from the consideration of those facts and principles, which seem to me to be of primary importance in this discussion.

In my fourth letter, [See Appendix,] under the head of

"UNION DESIRED IN THE WEST,"

I have questioned the correctness of the opinion, that the proposed union "would be utterly disapproved of and rejected by a large number of the Presbyteries, and a still larger number of the sessions and congregations of the west." This opinion is again asserted, [Off. Reply, p. 6.] and to prove its correctness, the writer introduces four communications from the

The first of these is anonymous, though it is said to have been "signed by twelve ministers and four elders in Ohio." This document charges the American Home Missionary Society with having made "continued efforts to coerce" the Board of Missions "into a subordinate connexion." All, how. ever, acquainted with the facts, will perceive that this is an entire mistake. No coercion has been attempted,* nor has a wish been intimated that the Board should sustain a subordinate connexion to the A. H. M. S. The

*The injustice of this charge will be still more apparent, when it is considered that the reverse of it is the fact. The exclusive friends of the Board of Missions have more than once intimated their desire that the A. H. M. S. might assume a

plan of union proposed contemplates a connexion of perfect equality. It would have been well to have accompanied this paper with the names of the signers.

We are next presented with a "resolution of the Presbytery of Steubenville, Ohio," approving of the "present organization of the Board of Missions," &c. This is very well, but it contains not the slightest allusion to any project of union whatever. It seems, therefore, to be wholly out of place in this connexion.

This formal array of testimony from the west, is closed with several resolutions of the Presbytery of Lancaster, Ohio," and of the "Presbytery of Richland, Ohio." These are in due form, and are to the point, disapproving in strong language of any union, or "amalgamation," &c.

It appears, then, that the majority of two Presbyteries in the hither part of Ohio, are opposed to the union in question. It is also apparent from these documents, that the exclusive stand taken by one of these Presbyteries, in passing the resolutions alluded to, has been the occasion of an unhappy division, three members having "entered their dissent." It should be remembered, also, that these Presbyteries are not very large; and then if it should be found that the whole or a part of the "twelve ministers and four elders," who signed the preceding anonymous document, were members of these two Presbyteries, it will reduce very much the apparent amount of testimony from the west, contained in "these formal and official documents."

To the foregoing documents I need only oppose the testimony of the Cincinnati Presbytery, as contained in their letter to the Board. [See Appendix, No. I.] It is also before the public, on the authority of the Rev. Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati, that the Pastors of the Presbyterian churches in Lexington, Kentucky, and the Rev. editor of the Western Luminary, have recently certified, that among the "evils of separate action" were "divisions of churches, divisions of sessions, disaffection among ministers, talk of dividing the Presbyterian church, much heart-burning, many suspicions, and severe censures felt and expressed against both Boards."*

The last Report of the Indiana Missionary Society, in accounting for the fact that a less amount of funds had been raised than in some previous years, states the following. "The diversity of sentiments respecting missionary operations has no doubt had its effect, and perhaps the whole amount raised in our bounds for both the missionary institutions does not equal the receipts into our Treasury for some of the former years. This shows the necessity for united effort, and we rejoice to state that measures are in train, which we hope will have a tendency to harmonize the west, and produce, to a considerable extent at least, united exertions in the missionary cause. We hope that nothing will be wanting on the part of the friends of this Society, to bring about so desirable an event."

subordinate connexion to that Board. The following is from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati-" If it be true, as some say, that the A. H. M. Society is a Presbyterian Institution, that she has the same objects in view with the General Assembly's Board, and that three fourths of her funds are derived from Presbyterians, let her independent character be laid aside,-let her become auxiliary to the Assembly's Board, and afford security for orthodoxy and order, and all will be well." [See "Four Propositions sustained against the A. H. M. S." p. 15.]

*See "Four Propositions," p. 16.

PUBLICATION OF MR. RUSSELL'S OFFICIAL LETTER.

On page 9, the Secretary denies that either he or the Board had any agency in procuring the publication of his letter to the Cincinnati Presbytery. With this denial I am satisfied, though it was unnecessary, as a reply to my inquiry on that subject, and the insinuation that I had charged them with having done so is gratuitous, as the reader will perceive by recurring to my first letter. [See Appendix, No. III.] On the ground of this denial he proceeds to speak of my letters as being "an unprovoked attack” upon the "Board, its Secretary, its Western Agents, and upon the General Assembly itself." But were my remarks unprovoked, simply because the letter to which they were intended as a reply had been published without the formal order of the Board or the Secretary? That letter was before the public, over an official signature. The fact that the injurious statements which it contains had been written and officially signed, was now publicly known; and it was known to me, moreover, that an agent of the Board, Rev. Mr. Crane, had taken much pains to circulate these statements, and had read Mr. R.'s letter publicly in the Synod of Indiana, before it was printed in the "Cincinnati Journal." The attack then had been made in the official letter of the Secretary, and a thorough exposure of its tendency rendered necessary by the injuries it had already inflicted on the common cause of the Board of Missions and the A. H. M. Society.

66

THE COMMITTEE OF THE CINCINNATI PRESBYTERY.' Under this head, [Off. Reply, p. 10.] the Secretary alludes to the brief notice in my letter, [No. 2.] of the appointment of the above Committee, and complains that I "omitted to inform the public" that I was myself present, and urged the Presbytery to make the appointment. I frankly confess that this never occurred to me as an important matter to be known. I also omitted, for the same reason, to publish that Mr. Crane, the Agent of the Board, was present, and opposed the appointment, which was unanimously made. But these facts are both named in the letter from the above Committee to the Board, and I trust they will now be regarded as sufficiently public, since the Secretary has judged it proper to insert a long extract of a letter from their Agent, describing my address to the Presbytery, and doing, I am persuaded, much more than justice to its influence on the feelings of that intelligent body of brethren.

In the next paragraph I am charged with having "travelled from NewYork to Ohio, to attend the meeting of the Presbytery of Cincinnati." This is a mistake. I was ignorant of the meeting until my arrival in Cincinnati. I am then charged with having publicly animadverted upon a private resolution of the Board; and yet that very resolution, as I then certainly knew, had been talked of by their Secretary in steam-boats and stages, had been presented to a number of the ministers in this city, and elsewhere, for their approval, and had been publicly named in the last General Assembly. How then was it private until I had occasion to allude to it in a meeting of the Cincinnati Presbytery?

CORRECTIONS.

In my third letter, [see Appendix,] the reader will find four "corrections" of as many sentences in the official letter of Mr. Russell to the Cincinna Presbytery. In reply to these he remarks in general, [Off. Reply, p

11.] that "notwithstanding the protracted reasonings and bold assertions of Mr. Peters. &c. our opinions remain unaltered, and we find no occasion to retract a single sentence." But as these declarations of the Secretary are accompanied with no argument in their support against my "protracted reasonings," &c. my letter remains a sufficient answer, excepting to the following additional suggestions in the Official Reply.

"Correction First."-In reply to my remarks under this head, respecting the constitutional power of the Assembly to conduct Missions, &c. the Secretary says, [p. 12.] "We shall take it for granted that the Assembly understand their own constitution," &c. I doubt not that the constitution is understood by many members of the Assembly from time to time, and if we allow the practice of that body to interpret its sense of the constitution, my explanation of it, in relation to missions, is sustained. If I am not wholly misinformed, the Board of Missions were not allowed, until quite recently, to pay the drafts of their missionaries, excepting by a special vote of the Assembly in session; and the extended power which has been recently allowed to the Board, has been by the Assembly's ceasing to confine them to strict constitutional limits. This, I presume, is perfectly understood by reflecting men who have turned their attention to this subject, and that the Board of Missions, in the language of my letter, "so far as constitutional authority is concerned," is regarded by such men generally, as "extra-ecclesiastical," while no one denies "that the Assembly have a right to designate a Board of Missions, and recommend them," &c.

"Correction Second."-To this no answer is attempted in the Official Reply. [See my third letter in Appendix.]

66

"Correction Third."-Under this head, [Off. Reply, p. 12.] the Secretary represents the Board of Missions as responsible to " half a million" of people, because he thinks that " probably not less than" that number are embraced in the congregations of the Presbyterian church; and then, quoting from my letter the expression that the contributors to the A. H. M. S. "are perhaps 20,000," he asks, "Did not Mr. Peters know that perhaps 20,000," is a small number in comparison with half a million ?” In reply, I need only ask how many of this half a million contribute to the funds of the Assembly's Board? It is plain, from the amount received by the Board last year, that if the average contribution of each was only 50 cents, there could not have been over about 20,000 contributors to the funds of that Board. The real number was doubtless much less. [See my letter, as above.]

My remarks on the responsibility of the Society to Churches, Presbyteries and Synods, the writer does not even attempt to answer, excepting by authority, asserting that "the Board differ entirely from Mr. P. in opinion," &c.

“Correction Fourth."-Under this head, [p. 13.] the Secretary endeavours to maintain the assertion contained in his letter, that the A. H. M. S. "proposes to conduct all its distant operations by voluntary associations and agencies, wholly disconnected with ecclesiastical judicatories. But, disre. garding the statements in my letter, by which the above assertion is disproved, he institutes a theory to establish the correctness of his position. Before an enlightened public, however, theories must yield to facts. He will not be offended, therefore, if I refer the reader to the facts in my third letter, which prove the contrary of what he has asserted.