“Constitution and Membership," we learn that the nine original Commissioners were all Congregationalists, and that in the following year three more were added, who were also of the same denomination. Indeed, it is expressly stated in this chapter that "the Board seems to have had no thought of becoming anything more than a Congregational body." Accordingly at its second meeting, in 1811, it suggested to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church the forming of a similar body in that communion. But when, after deliberate consideration, the General Assembly decided not to form any such organization, the Board was led to extend its membership into the Presbyterian Church; and at the annual meeting in 1812, eight Commissioners were added from among prominent members of that church. In the same manner the membership was afterwards extended into several other denominations. At the time when the Memorial Volume was prepared, of the two hundred and five members of the Board, one hundred and five belonged to the Congregational Church, eighty-one to the New School Presbyterian, seventeen to the Old School Presbyterian, nine to the Protestant Dutch Reformed, and two to the Reformed German Church. Three years before this time the Reformed Dutch Church had as a body withdrawn from the American Board, and assumed the management of their own missions, which had formerly been. under the supervision of the Board. It was found that the union had not accomplished what was hoped from it, in interesting the entire body of the Reformed Dutch Church in the entire field occupied by the American Board. There were but two missionary fields actually occupied by missionaries of that Church-Arcot, in India, and Amoy in China-and all the interest of this ecclesiastical body in the missionary work, and all the appeals to its members for their co-operation, were limited to these two points, instead of being extended over the whole field included in the Board's operations. Under these circumstances, the union was found to be an obstacle to the development of the missionary spirit and the missionary resources of the Dutch Reformed Church, and "all parties at length became convinced that the interests of the missionary

cause would be promoted by a different arrangement." The Presbyterian Church, too, which at first judged it inexpedient to engage as an ecclesiastical body in this work, has long had its own missionary organization, although some members of this church still continue to co-operate with the American Board, and the native churches, in some of its mission fields, are still formed according to the Presbyterian polity. This is true of the churches gathered from among the Armenians, and of some in India, and of those among the Choctaw, Dakota, and Ojibwa tribes of our own continent. The mission churches among the Cherokees were at first Presbyterian, but afterwards became Congregational. Among the Nestorians, the ancient Episcopal polity has not been disturbed, the missionaries contenting themselves with preaching the gospel, and seeking to convert souls, and to infuse spiritual life into the old congregations.

The facts then appear to be, that the pre-eminent catholicity claimed for the American Board was not, in the first instance, designed and spontaneous, but the result of circumstances, and the dictate of expediency and convenience; that it never extended beyond three or four denominations, never including either Episcopalians, Baptists or Methodists; that it has not worked altogether without friction, either in the organization at home, or in the mission churches; and that the two principal denominations formerly associated with the Congregationalists in the American Board have each, found that an independent denominational organization was much more favorable to the development of missionary zeal, and the collection of missionary funds, among the churches of their own order. We cannot forbear to quote in this connection a generous sentence from the chapter on "Reminiscences." After recording the fact, that Mr. and Mrs. Judson and Mr. Rice had become Baptists, the Rev. Mr. Nott says: " With every conviction of their earnest sincerity, their change was deeply regretted, as a hindrance to our united purpose; but it must now be acknowledged to have blessed India beyond the Ganges with blessings above all price." As a consequence of the formation of a separate and denominational missionary organization

among the Baptists, made necessary, it seems, in spite of the catholic basis of the American Board, by the change of sentiments on the part of these missionaries, the missionary spirit was developed much earlier, more rapidly, and more widely, among the Baptists, than among those denominations, other than Congregational, which continued to use the American Board as the channel of their missionary efforts. There seems little ground, in view of these facts, for the confidence which President Hopkins expresses, that the principle of united action will prevail over that of distinct denominational societies. On the contrary, we do not doubt that the Presbyterians and German Reformed, who still continue in connection with the American Board, will ere long become convinced of the expediency of denominational action, and will follow the example of those who have already withdrawn. And there is, it appears to us, just as little ground for the claim of special catholicity, as there is for the prediction of its prevalence. Why were not Judson and Rice retained as missionaries of the Board, after they became Baptists? If the Board were doing their missionary work, as is claimed, "simply as Christians," and "above sects and denominations," it seems strange that it did not occur to them to say to these missionaries: "the change in your sentiments in regard to baptism will make no difference in regard to your connection with us; our Board is formed on a catholic basis, and we are doing our missionary work simply as Christians, and we mean to keep ourselves always on this high platform, above all sects and denominations." It does not appear that such a generous catholicity as this had any place, at that time, in the hearts or the thoughts of any of the members of the Board. The truth is, that neither Baptists, Episcopalians, nor Methodists, ever had any part or lot in the organization. Baptists are excluded, according to President Hopkins, because they maintain that unbaptized persons are "not fitted to receive," and Episcopalians, because they maintain that unordained persons are "not competent to administer," "all the ordinances of the Church;" and Methodists-it does not appear why. But the basis of a Missionary Society can hardly be called eminently catholic, which ex

cludes from its fellowship three of the principal evangelical sects, of which one was the first to engage in the missionary work, and the other two are now in advance of all other denominations, Congregationalists not excepted, in the extent of their missionary work, the amount of their contributions, and the number of their missionaries in the field. No doubt the American Board is a noble Christian institution, and its members may be men of very enlarged and catholic feelings; but its basis is just so catholic as this and no more, that it is limited to those who are Pedobaptists, Calvinists, believers in the parity of the ministry, and disbelievers in immersion as the only scriptural baptism. The parings of this catholic basis are considerably broader, it must be confessed, than the platform which is left.

Thus far we have considered this matter merely in the light of facts and experience. But, apart from the inconsistency of the claim, and the evident inconveniences and disadvantages in the practical working of this extolled catholicity, is the principle itself a sound and scriptural one? Under what commission do our missionaries go forth to preach the gospel to the benighted? Is it under the Divine commission, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations"? If so, must they not take that commission in its fulness and integrity as their directory? Must they not, in connection with preaching the gospel to the heathen and making disciples among them, baptize them also, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" and then "teach them to observe all things whatsoever" Christ has commanded? Have they a right to curtail this commission, and to say, "I will proceed so far in fulfilling this work, and here I will stop?" Is not the subsequent teaching as imperative as that which is the means of making disciples? And does not that include instruction in regard to the organization of the church, and in regard to its ordinances?

In our view, the catholicity claimed for the American Board would be no ground of boasting, if it were better supported than it is by the facts of the case. We say rather, let those who go forth to teach idolaters, or to revive a pure Christianity in

corrupt churches, go with distinct and positive views on the whole range of christian duties, prepared to train their converts in all that pertains to their individual and ecclesiastical relations, as disciples of Christ, and members of his church. They go to build the house of the Lord in the wilderness. Let them not refuse to explain to their converts the Divine pattern and plan of that house, as well as the materials out of which it is to be constructed. Let them not refuse to explain to their converts any part of the Lord's will in regard to which they may be questioned; nay, let them not wait to be questioned; but under a deep sense of their responsibility to Him, let them teach the converted and baptized disciples all things that He has commanded, - all things pertaining to the constitution of his church, its government, and its ordinances. These things are secondary, to be sure, in comparison with conversion, and the salvation of the soul. And so they are in America, as well as in Asia; in the United States, as well as in Persia. If they are so doubtful, or so unimportant, that it is not expedient to say anything about them to converts from among the heathen, then they are not of sufficient consequence to justify the separation of Christians at home into distinct denominations. It is indeed an evil, which deserves to be deeply lamented, that the different questions which divide the Christian world should have to be re-discussed and re-determined in the churches which our various missionary societies are planting among the heathen; but it is an inevitable result of the existence of these differences among the Christians who are engaged in these missionary efforts, inevitable, unless God had seen fit to confine to some single sect the honor and the labor of missionary service, which would doubtless have been a greater evil; nay, inevitable even on that supposition, for that could only have delayed, not prevented for all future time, the disturbing discussion of these unhappy differences. There seems, then, to be no escape from the evil of introducing denominational dif ferences into the churches founded by missionary labors. It will not do to wait until we have a united Christianity at home, before we begin to engage in these labors; for the