Page images
PDF
EPUB

Missions for the year 1831, and I find, that of the 171 persons named on the same, 99 were members of the board for the year 1830, and 72 were not members. These 99 were Dr. Green's 'few of the existing board that were not displaced;' and they prove to be 'most of the persons who are now members of the board.' If this state

ment is denied, or doubted, the names of the whole nomination shall be printed in the Philadelphian.”

As the numbers given by the Moderator and Clerk are the same, we suppose they have communicated on this subject; or perhaps the Moderator took a copy for his own use. At any rate, they, we believe, are the only depositories of the precious document in question; and hitherto they have chosen to keep it to themselves, although a publick demand has been made on the Stated Clerk to give it publicity. We know not how many have "doubted or deBied" the accuracy of his statement; but we are satisfied, that not a few have not merely doubted, but believed, that if the whole document were fairly published, a use would be made of it which the Stated Clerk wishes should not be made; and that this is the reason for its being withheld. We have looked for its publication, ever since it was demanded; and we were prepared to acknowledge our inaccuracy, if it should appear, by an authentick document, that we really were chargeable with it. We did think it most probable that we had committed a verbal error; and such, on the whole, is our present impression. But we still maintain, and think we shall show, to the satisfaction of every candid reader, that the free admission of this error, does not affect the substance of our statement. The case is this-The entire Board of Missions, consisting, say of 171 members, is formed of some taken from every Synod within the bounds of the General Assembly. This is done out of respect to the several Synods, and

in hope that the influential members who are thus placed on the Board, will, as they have opportunity, favour its plans and operations. But of this nominated Board, not a fourth part ever have been, or are ever likely to be, present at any one meeting of the Board. Such of them as happen to be members of the General Assembly, for the current year, attend, if they choose, those meetings of the Board which occur while the Assembly is sitting; and they generally attend the meeting which takes place at the rising of the Assembly, when the officers of the board for the ensuing year, with the executive committee, and the Corresponding Secretary and General Agent, receive their appointments. But only those members of the board who reside in the city of Philadelphia and its vicinity, constitute the active board through the year, after the dispersion of the members of the Assembly. This limited board has monthly meetings, at which the minutes of the Executive Committee for the past month are read throughout, for the approval or correction of the board. The board also gives advice and direction to the Executive Committee, in important concerns-In a word, the Committee is under the direction and control of this board; and we do not recollect since the reorganization in 1828, more than about half a dozen members, beyond the limits of Philadelphia and its vicinity, who, at different times, have attended the board at its monthly or special meetings. Now as the whole real efficiency of the Board of Missions, after the members of the Assembly leave the city, rests with this board, we confess it engrossed our attention, when we said that "a few, and but a few of the members of the existing board were not displaced;" and such we now fully believe would appear to be the fact, if the report of the nomina

ting committee were fairly and fully before the publick. We have little doubt that in reference to the whole nominated board, there were more than a few, who were not displaced; probably because the most of them were such as the nominating Committee knew had opinions and feelings like their own— One excellent man, however, in the western country, was ejected, and one less excellent put in his place; and this drew from a member from Kentucky, who knew the parties, a very earnest and pointed remonstrance. But we still believe, that in regard to the efficient active board through the year, "a few, and but a few of the members were not displeased." Till, then, the Stated Clerk shall publish the report of the Nominating Committee, we shall believe that the amount of our error is this-that our language, when applied to the nominal board is erroneous; but when, applied to the board which is permanently efficient, it is correct. Now, on this inadvertence, in not distinguishing the nominal from the efficient board-for such, and nothing more, it was the Moderator and Stated Clerk have endeavoured to convict us of falsehood-with a pretty broad intimation that it was wilful falsehood. May the God of truth, and an impartial publick, judge between us!

If this report of the Committee of nomination had been published, as we wished and expected it to be, in November last, and it had appeared that we were erroneous, even in regard to the effective annual board, we would immediately have confessed and corrected our error-And if the report shall yet be published, and it shall appear that more than a few of the effective board were not displaced meaning by more than a few, such a number as not to leave them, in all probable occurrences, a decided minority-then we now admit, that we have, in this instance, been in

error. But even with this admission, the substance of our statement remains perfectly true; and it has been the usual course of our opponents-and it always indicates a bad cause-to fix on some circumstance, or some verbal error, and by dwelling with apparent triumph on this, to endeavour to hide the real merits of the case entirely from the reader.*

What is the substance of our statement? Let any one attentively read our quotation, and he will see it to be this, that the Nominating Committee "actually did report a nomination of a new board, most decidedly friendly to the American Home Missionary Society, and hostile to the exist ing board of the General Assem

* We think the foregoing statement may be useful to the publick, by being given in a more condensed form, as follows.

The General Assembly's Board of Missions may be considered as in fact three fold-(1) The entire board, composed of members from every Synod-(2) The board which is formed at the meeting of the Assembly-by some members from a distance, with those of the city and vici nity-(3) The permanent active board, composed of members resident in and near board, viewed under the first of these the city. It may be truly said, that the aspects, never acts; that is, it never acts by a majority, or even a fourth part of its numbers-Viewed under the second aspect, the board acts once a year, at the meeting of the General Assembly, when the officers of the board, the Executive Committee for the year, and the General Agent and Corresponding Secretary, are appointed-Viewed under the third aspect, the board is efficient through the year-meets monthly-and directs and controls the Executive Committee. It was the manifest purpose of the New finding they had a majority, to change the School members in the last Assembly, character of the board in the second and third of these aspects, where the whole of ficiency of the board does, in fact, reside

-As to the board, viewed under the first this capacity they knew the board never aspect, they had little solicitude; for in did and never could act; and, therefore, although the Nominating Committee changed a few individuals, here they could still leave 99 untouched, without af fecting the efficiency of the board in any degree whatever.

bly;" and that those who were left on the board, (meaning the efficient board of members residing in Philadelphia and its vicinity,) "would voluntarily resign-when they should see the complexion of the board entirely changed, and rendered subservient to the Home Missionary Society;" and that we had "not a doubt, that this was expected by the Nominating Committee and their friends." We certainly knew the state of our own mind, that we had not a doubt as to the expectation mentioned; and we spoke what we well knew to be the fact, when we affirmed that the result we mentioned would have taken place-We knew that the members of the old board who were retained, would never have consented to hold a standing in a board whose measures they disliked, for no other purpose but the unworthy one of embarrassing the majority, by incessant objections, and abortive attempts at counteraction. As to the former part of what we have shown was the substance of our statement, its verity is vouched by the well known facts of the case. The whole design of the appointment of the nominating Committee was, to change the existing board, and the nomination did change it most effectually That the new board, as nominated, was so constituted, that of the members who could be present to vote, in organizing the annual efficient board at the rising of the Assembly, there should be a decided majority "friendly to the H. M. S., and hostile to the existing board of the General Assembly," was the very exciting cause of the confusion which ensued. The Moderator has tried to gainsay our declaration, that "this report was so flagrantly at war with all equity and propriety, that it produced criminations and recriminations, which issued in a complete disregard of the Moderator, and of all order." But deny it whoever may,

such was the notorious fact. We have already referred to one instance, mentioned by a member from Kentucky, in which "war was made on all equity and propriety." We will mention one more, and it is one which we stated in the Assembly, at the time of the controversy. A member of the old board, the minister of a large and wealthy congregation, that had then contributed, and is still contributing, very liberally, both to the A. H. M. S., and to the American Board of Education, but had never contributed any thing, as a congregation, and not more than three or four small donations, from perhaps the same number of its individual members, to the Missionary Board of the Assembly

this minister was retained in the new nomination, and on what we have called the efficient board: And another member of the old board, the minister of a congregation in Philadelphia, that had, according to its means, contributed more liberally, both to the Missionary and Education Boards of the Assembly, than any other congregation within its whole bounds-this minister was, in the new nomination, displaced and left out of the board altogether. Now, if, in this contrast of cases, there was not "a war made on all equity and propriety," we wish the Moderator would tell us how such a war can be waged. The truth is, the real friends of the ecclesiastical order and institutions of the Presbyterian church, felt that they were called to contend FOR EXISTENCE, with those who seemed determined to sacrifice them all to voluntary associations, and congregational attachments: and under the blessing of heaven they contended successfully.

We had said in our second number, in a note, that "The Moderator once requested to be allowed to leave the chair and speak to a subject under debate. The re

not only of one, but of two deliberating members; for such a question as he affirms he proposed, can never receive the attention of the house, till it has been moved by one member, and seconded by another. Thus the Moderator, in order to fix on us the charge of falsehood, in saying that he asked for an indulgence-which he certainly had a right to ask-maintains that he did what he had clearly no right to do-maintains that, without leave or license, he assumed, in the Moderator's chair, the exclusive privilege of two members on the floor of the house -For he insists that it was a question in thesi, that he proposed; or, to use his own words, "he requested the Assembly to give an opinion respecting the right of the Moderator; that is, [mark it] the right of ANY Moderator, in the premises stated." We really think that our unerring Moderator would better have left this matter on the footing on which we placed it, than to have reiterated the declaration-"it is not true; it is not true." Which is the greater error

quest was opposed, and he withdrew it." In each of these sentences, the Moderator asserts, roundly and repeatedly, that we have said what "is not true." His proof of the falsehood of our first sentence is this-" The Moderator requested the Assembly to answer the following question, " Is it proper for the MODERATOR to take any part in the discussions of this house, by occupying the floor, and placing another person in the chair?" This question, he says, he reduced to writing, showed it to several members, and has the original still in his possession: And in coming over this point, in the 29th article of his summary, he says, "The editor has represented the Moderator as asking an "indulgence" of the Assembly, when he only requested the Assembly to give an expression of opinion, respecting the right of the Moderator; that is, the right of ANY Moderator, in the premises stated." Our first remark here is, that the Moderator, in order to brand our statement with falsehood, makes one of his own, which represents him as acting in a far more exception--to ask a personal indulgence, or, able manner, than if he had admitted that he did, precisely what we said he did. That it is orderly for a Moderator, at any time, to ask for himself an indulgence of the house, we believe no one ever denied. But for a Moderator, in his seat, to bring forward and propose for the discussion and decision of the house, an important question in thesi, is to usurp the exclusive privilege of the members on the floor. If he wishes such a question to be discussed, he has the common privilege of proposing it to the Committee of Overtures; and if they overture it to the house, it will receive a proper attention. But for the Moderator to bring forward such a question from the chair, is in fact to exercise a power, the lawful exercise of which requires the action,

without any asking at all, to usurp the rights of two members on the floor, while sitting in the Moderator's chair? Had the Moderator done so much of this already, that he thought little of doing it on this occasion, or was it done without recollecting what he did?

But the question still returns, was our statement really true or not? We can only say, if our word will stand for any thing, that when we wrote, we did honestly think that what we said was strictly true; and had not so much as a suspicion, till we saw the Moderator's denial, that any mortal living would, or could, question its truth; and we know that a considerable number of others, of whom we have inquired, understood him as asking a personal indulgence; nor have we heard of an indivi

dual, except the Moderator himself, who understood him otherwise. Nor does the question which he says he wrote and proposed, require any other construction-It was fair to understand it as only a courteous manner of proposing a personal concern; for it will be observed that the question, as it relates to "the right of -ANY Moderator," is the Doctor's exposition of his meaning, when he wrote his vindication, and makes no part of the question which, by his own showing, he proposed to the Assembly. Besides, it is in the recollection of several eye and ear witnesses, that during the short space that this question was before the Assembly, the Doctor did say, "that he thought if he was on the floor, he could throw some important light on the subject under discussion." It was therefore perfectly natural to consider the inquiry as personal to himself. We pretend not to say that the Moderator's views in proposing this subject were not such as he states them to have been Such they might have been, for aught we know. But we do say, and insist, that we put no forced construction on his words, when led by them to think, as we assuredly did, that he asked a personal indulgence; and hence, that in stating this, we stated no more than what we believed to be sacredly true. But the Moderator also says, that what we have called his request, was "not opposed." We certainly thought it was: and if Mr. Robert Breckinridge, of Kentucky, will say that he did not oppose it, and very decidedly too, we will confess that, in this particular, we were in error. Till then, we shall place the Moderator's positive assertion on this subject, among his other aberrations.

But Dr. Beman, not content with vindicating his conduct as Moderator, goes on to censure that of the editor, when he had the ho

nourably painful office of sitting in the Moderator's chair. It is admitted, in the note already referred to, that the editor, when Moderator, did leave his seat, on one occasion, and speak on the floor of the house; and he will now add that he did so, because this had been A USAGE-for there is nothing in the constitution either allowing or prohibiting it-a usage of Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies, from the time that he had been a member of any of these ecclesiastical courts, till the time in which he performed the act which the late Moderator thinks was so objectionable. It is admitted, however, that this usage has, of late years, in the General Assembly especially, been gradually becoming obsolete; and the editor well recollects, that although he truly thought at the time, that he was doing nothing objectionable, yet he was surprised and mortified by some remarks that were made on the supposed impropriety of this act, and determined that, by him, it should never be repeated. He had indeed entirely forgotten to whom he was indebted for these remarks; but the publi cation of Dr. Beman leads him to suppose, that it was from the last Moderator, then on the floor of the house, that he received the favour. We wish to say here, that our ecclesiastical constitution appears to us to be really defective, for the want of some provision, to come in place of the usage to which we have referred. In deliberative bodies of a civil character, the house, on important occasions, goes into a committee of the whole, when the presiding officer, if he chooses, takes the floor, and gives his fellow members, at as much length as he pleases, the benefit of his views and reasonings. In the Dutch church, which is strictly Presbyterian, their general Synod always choose an assessor, when they choose a Moderator; and

« PreviousContinue »