I am glad the writer has been in- | but God, I answer boldly. Experigenuous enough to speak out thus ence in other States and countries plainly the difficulties which he feels will support this answer. on this subject. On facts, his difficulties, as it seems to me, cannot rest, when he comes to review them. If so, then they must have their basis in fears. I do him honour, that, while cherishing such fears, he has added a testimony so frank and noble, in regard to the present Directors and management of the American Education Society, as is the following: "We are far from intimating that any such influence is now intended to be attained, and if it were attained, that it would be improperly used. We have the happiness to be personally acquainted with some of the Directors of this great concern, and we know the reputation of all; and we believe them to be as pure in their intentions, as single in their purpose, and as devoted to the cause of evangelical piety, as any men on earth; and we disclaim any knowledge of a single act in their management of this great charity which has the most remote sectarian bearing." And again; "As long as the Directors remain, such as we believe they now are, intelligent, active, and devoted to the cause of evangelical doctrine and vital piety, every thing, which the interests of the church and of the world demand, will be done." With these testimonies I do most heartily agree; and I sincerely thank the Reviewer for having given them to the public. It would seem now, that in his own view, with all his caution and apprehensions, there is, at least, no present danger. But then who can certainly secure us for the future? None, I answer unhesitatingly, but the Great Head of the Church; none but God. And in this respect the American Education Society do not stand alone. Every College, Theological Seminary, and Academy in this country, stand on the same footing as to the future. Who knows whether the distinguished College and Theological Seminary at Princeton will not, before the next generation passes wholly away, go into the hands of Arminians or Unitarians? None The Reviewer has referred us to the University at Cambridge, as an example and a proof that funds may be perverted, and the Societies who manage them may become faithless. I acknowledge this, with a feeling of deep distress. But what is the remedy? As a member of the Presbyterian Church, he may answer, "The remedy is in our creed and in our formulas of discipline and doctrine." But have not the church in Scotland been in possession of these for almost two centuries? And is the Reviewer ignorant of the fact, that the Moderates, i. e. the Arminian and Arianish party have had the predominance in that church, and swayed all its General Judicatories for many years, if not at the present period? He is surely not ignorant, that there are a large number of Scotch churches, which are seceders from the General Assembly of their church, on the ground that the majority had become corrupted. Or, if he pleases to refer the public attention to the establishment in England, and the 39 Articles of the Episcopal church, will this in any measure help the cause? Who that knows any thing, does not know, that the Church of England, in respect to far the greater majority of its leading members has been Arminian, I had almost said for ages; not a few, (if we may credit the statements of some of its own ministers) and that for no small period of time, a decided majority were Arian? And if one goes to the Creeds and Confessions of the Dutch and the German churches on the continent of Europe, is the argument helped at all? One glance at the Neology of the continent will answer this question. I am, indeed, not one of those who have any prejudices whatever against Creeds and Confessions, when used within their proper limits, and assigned to their appropriate places. In fact, whenever I hear a man declaim- | What is the result then? Why, if ing against them in a loose and gene- we are to reason as the Reviewer ral manner, I always take it for grant- does, the result is, that we must have ed, that it is because he wishes to no Colleges endowed; no Theologihave the liberty, in some way or oth- cal Seminaries of this character; no er, of inculcating what is opposed to Academies; no Scholarships; no bethem. But on the other hand, I have nevolent Institutions, for even such as no apprehension that we can put are without permanent funds, may be them into the same scale with the Bi- ultimately perverted. Nay, the very ble, in regard to their influence in structure of our government should preserving the unity and purity of the be altered; for the powers now comchurches with respect to doctrine and mitted to our legislators and judges, practice. When all is done and said, are liable to abuse by bad men, and they are only paper ramparts about therefore adapted to become the causthe citadel of God; and men will bat-es of immense and incalculable injuter them down, whenever their pas-ry to the community. sions or their prejudices are armed Can any man, now, on sober conagainst them. What then is to keep the Theological Seminary at Princeton from ultimately turning apostate? Is it the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church? How can we any more put our trust in this, than the good people of Scotland could in theirs? Once, men of God filled nearly all the pulpits in their land; but what has been the fact for a century past? Now, most of the members of the Presbyterian General Assembly I hope, and verily believe, are men of God, and devoted to the interests of truth; but how can this prove that it will always be so? And if the General Assembly in the United States should take the course of the established churches in Scotland and in England, then what is to become of the Seminary at Princeton, with all its funds and all its scholarships, which already amount to more than one half of the permanent funds of the American Education Society? What a tremendous engine will it be, to prostrate in the dust every advocate of the truths which it now defends? And does not the very same argument, (if it be any argument at all), apply to every College, Theological Seminary, Academy, and benevolent Society with funds, in the whole country? Most certainly it does. The next generation-who can tell what they are to be? God only knows. sideration, adopt or give assent to an * An opinion has sometimes been expressed (and it will be well if the remarks of the Reviewer do not strengthen the belief) that Institutions ought not to have permanent funds. In regard to some Instilence, this is doubtless true. But is there tutions for promoting religion and benevono danger of inflicting a deep and palpable injury upon the church by an indiscriminate condemnation of these important aids in building up the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ in the world? The experience of the best men in all ages, has shown that such funds are exceedingly necessary and useful in promoting some objects of great and permanent interest. As an example, may be mentioned, the work of education in nearly all its Branches. The American Education Society, it is believed by very many, comes to some extent at least within this class of Institutions. It is not formed The for temporary purposes. Should the mil- The reasoning of the Reviewer on page 368, in order to remove suspicion that the General Assembly, as well as the American Education Society, might possibly betray their trust in process of future time, furnishes no answer to the above suggestions; nor is it grounded on any appeal to the history of the General Assembly in past ages, and in other countries. How can all this history be overlooked by intelligent and candid men? The grand remedy proposed by the Reviewer, for all the evils which may occur in the General Assembly's Board of Education is, that they do not perpetuate their own body; and that the General Assembly, on whom they are dependent, is annually elected. But is not this precisely the case with the Directors of the American Education Society? And after all, who can, in either case, give assurrance that those who elect annually, will not, in process of time, become corrupt? Was not this the case in Scotland? And have we any better security in this country? None, I an apprehension as to the means of carrying forward the youth under their patronage. The American Education Society has a dopted no new principle on this subject. The plan of establishing Scholarships is of long standing. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church have warmly approved it; and the Trustees of that Judicatory already hold 16 such foundations for the use of the Seminary at Princeton, amounting to a permanent fund of $40,000 which is more than half of all the money invested by the American Education Society and its Branches in this manner-and within $10,000 of as much as has yet been actually paid into the Society. Four fifths of all the Scholarships belonging to the American Education Society and to its Branches are merely TEMPORARY; annual subscriptions binding only during the pleasure of the do nors. But three permanent scholarships have been given out of New England, and one of these was by a benevolent lady in Great Britain. In this respect, therefore, those who have jealousies about permanent funds, may find many other Societies and Institutions in our country, which afford, as to the point in question, more ground of jealousy than the American Education Society. swer; none that can be better, so far as merely human arrangements are concerned. What then is the antidote for our fears as to the future? Not the General Assembly, nor any other Assembly, or Society, or body of men, or Statutes, or Creeds, or Constitutions. To trust in God, and to do our duty, is the only ground of hope that we have, or can have, or that we need, in regard to the time future. Had Christians more faith and less fear, the world would be revolutionized in a short time. The treasuries of God would be full to overflowing; and all hands would be set to work, and all hearts engaged in the glorious enterprise of spreading abroad the knowledge of salvation. In view of all this, I am constrained to wonder, that such an objection to the American Education Society should be brought forward. The argument is simply this; Take care how you build up this Society; for should it once become corrupt, it will be a tremendous engine in doing evil.' And cannot this be said of every good Institution which adorns society or blesses mankind? Nay, cannot Christianity itself be abused, and has it not been, to the destruction for time and eternity of millions and millions? But shall there be no Christianity, because it may be abused? Shall there be no endowed Academies, Colleges, and Theological Seminaries, because they may be abused? If so, then let the Reviewer use his eloquence and his influence with the next General Assembly, to take away all the funds from the Princeton Seminary, and to return its Scholarships to the owners. It is vain for him to say, that there is, or can be, any other security that they will not be perverted, than that which the American Education Society have, that theirs will not be. I have a word to say, on the fears which he expresses, that at some future period, the beneficiaries of the American Education Society, who take cannot be made, than to suppose they have any zeal on this subject. And should the American Education Society elect others like them, (which they certainly may do, when they leave the stage or resign, or whenever the Society chooses to supersede them), then these same views will be still cherished. Nearly one half of the young men who have gone from the Andover Theological Seminary have become Presbyterians, and the Seminary allows of a Presbyterian Professor, and never has uttered, and I trust will not utter, one word against Presbyterianism. The settle in the South and West, and Congregationalism. A greater miswho are indebted to the Society, may come forward, and, out of complaisance to the Directors who live near Boston, may vote in such a way as will change the doctrines or the discipline of the Presbyterian churches. In the first place, who are to license and settle these young men, in the Presbyterian connexion? Of course the several Presbyteries belonging to the General Assembly. Will these Presbyteries, then, ordain young men, most of whom will be educated in Presbyterian Seminaries of learning, who will sell their consciences and their integrity, and break their solemn vows, in order to please the Directors of the Parent Society in and around Boston; and all this because they owe them a small sum of money? The fact that the Society has no Institutions of its own, but educates young men wherever they pursue a regular course of study, is sufficient proof that the direct influence which they may have over young men will ever be secondary. The society has assisted forty young men the present year, in four Theological Seminaries belonging to the Presbyterian church; but who will imagine that the influence which the Society holds over these young men, is equal to that of their Instructers, or of the Presbyteries to which they stand related? No one who considers in what manner the Society is constituted, and how entirely the Directors are dependent upon it, can seriously apprehend any evil from this source. But I have other questions also to ask. Whence comes the suspicion that the Directors in and about Boston may wish to intermeddle with the doctrines or the discipline of the Presbyterian churches? To my certain knowledge, it is habitual with those who now hold that office, to recommend to all the young men who go from New England into the boundaries of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, to unite with the Presbyteries, and not to hold on upon Let us now turn the tables. Reviewer calls on the General Assembly to educate their own young men, and not to leave them to others. In this he is in the right. And it is exceedingly cheering to know, that very many individuals and churches, belonging to the connexion of the General Assembly, have long ago embarked in the blessed work which the Reviewer recommends, and now assist in bringing forward at least 200 young men for the ministry, in harmonious connexion with the American Education Society. The Reviewer has said, that nothing, or nothing to the purpose, has yet been done by the Assembly's Board. But while our western country is starving for the bread of life, and the world is perishing in wickedness, the American Education Society have believed that something is to be done, and have tried to do it. Have they ever decried the exertions of other benevolent Societies? Have they ever suggested one syllable, which could raise a suspicion about their motives, or alarm the public about the danger of such Associations? Let it be produced; and for one, I will give them my full share of disapprobation. On the contrary, they will lift up their hands and hearts to God, with devout thankfulness, when the exhortation of the Reviewer shall be fully heeded by Presbyterian churches, and | last topic proposed for consideration; they will come forward and take viz. charge of a great host of laborers for the vineyard of the Lord. tr But suppose now, when they do this, the Congregationalists should say; See, the Presbyterians are filling our country with their pupils and friends. They have a great Society, great Seminaries, many Scholarships, and great zeal for Presbyterianism; and if we wait much longer, they will be too strong for us, and Congregationalism will be driven from the land. What is to be done? Why this we can do: We can call aloud on the public, and rouse them up to an apprehension of future dangers to their religious freedom, and their welfare. We can easily excite the jealousies of the West on this subject, who are already filled with apprehension. We can thus make the candidates of the Presbyterian ministry objects of suspicion, and cause the public zeal in favour of raising them up greatly to abate. "And thus Congregationalism may still be safe." What could the Reviewer object to this? It is difficult for me to see; for has he not, by implication, done the same thing? The rectitude of his intention, I do not mean to call in question. The correctness of the principle, on which his popular appeal to suspicion and party feeling is evidently grounded, (although he may not be conscious of it), is what can never for a moment be defended, until it is decided, that Congregationalists are heretics, and that they have a design to destroy the Presbyterian churches. In a day like this, when every opposer of vital piety in our land is making an effort to raise a hue and cry about "religious combinations," and "religious establishments," is it prudent, is it wise, is it becoming, is it brotherly, to make such objections as these? But I must come to a close. And this I shall do, by a few words on the III. The method which the Reviewer has chosen, in order to accomplish his object. I frankly confess, that I have a deep feeling on this subject. The obligation to communicate serious doubts and fears, about the tendency of any measures so important as those of the American Education Society, I do fully recognize. The privilege of doing it, is an undoubted one. But how shall this be done? Shall the tocsin of alarm be sounded through the United States; and all the enemies of religion be set in motion, and have their mouths filled with matter of accusation against the American Education Society? Thousands will read or hear these accusations or objections, who never listen to the present, or to any answer whatever. Is it best to afford matter of clamour to such men? If the Reviewer had serious objections, why not make them directly to the American Education Society or to its Directors, and have them canvassed in the meeting of the Society, or of the Board? Is there any ground to suppose, that they would not have received an earnest and respectful attention? None. Why then should the public mind be awakened to suspicion, or be agitated about this matter, before it had been canvassed by the Society? If it be proper to accomplish objects of this nature in such a way, then may such members of the Presbyterian Church as approve of the writer's views, find hereafter deep reason to regret, that they have sanctioned a principle, which allows all their efforts to endow Seminaries of learning, classic or sacred, to be held up as objects of suspicion and of danger. know, that many, very many memBut I do believe, I may say that I bers of the Presbyterian Church never will, and never can, approve either of the reasoning and arguments of the Reviewer, or of the method which he has chosen, in order that they should |