Again, if the agencies of the A. H. M. S. are "wholly disconnected with ecclesiastical judicatories," because they are not actually appointed by such judicatories, the same is true of at least one of the agencies of the Board of Missions. "The Special Corresponding Executive Committee in the Cincinnati Presbytery" was appointed directly by the Board in Philadelphia, the Presbytery having refused to make such an appointment. There is, therefore, no ground for the contrast which the Secretary insists on, both in his letter and in the "Official Reply," between the Board of Missions and the A. H. M. S. as respects the ecclesiastical responsibility of its agencies and auxiliaries.

EVASIONS.

In reference to my fourth letter, it is asserted, [Off. Reply, p. 13.] that in it, "Mr. P. contents himself chiefly with direct contradictions of the Board,"-" an appearance of reasoning," &c.; and by these assertions, the writer furnishes himself with an occasion for deeming it " unnecessary" to answer my remarks on the two important topics of "Dissolution of Auxiliaries not required," "increase of evils not to be apprehended," &c. He then adds ;

"All the direct charges contained in this whole letter against the Board, its Secretary and Agents, and other exclusive friends, may be reduced to the four following:1. Injustice to the churches west of the Alleghanies. 2. Slanders industriously circulated against the A. H. M. S. 3. Misrepresentations; and, 4. Unyielding opposition to the wishes of Presbyteries and Synods, and to the peace of the western churches. To these charges," says the writer, "we plead not guilty.”

But really the above remarks convey us so far into the region of fancy, that I beg the reader to examine my letter referred to, [No. 4.] and judge for himself whether the above is a fair representation of its spirit or contents. Does it contain the above direct charges? If so, are they "against the Board, its Secretary, Agents," &c.? The direct charges are not to be found. The letter does not even contain the words in which they are conveyed! The words injustice, slanders, and misrepresentations, are not there; and it is painful to be obliged to remind the reader, that the expressions which the writer of the Reply is pleased, in several instances, to attribute to me, are not suited to my style, and can not be found in my letters.

cc ERRONEOUS ASSERTIONS."

Under this head, near the commencement of my fifth letter, [See Ap. pendix,] is the following quotation from Mr. R.'s official letter to the Cincinnati Presbytery: viz. :

"By carefully analyzing these reports, [those of the A. H. M. S. and the Bd. of Miss.] it will be found that the Board of Missions have actually sent into the field, during the last year, a larger number of missionaries, than the A. H. M. Society, as such, has done. Of the 392 Missionaries reported by the latter Society, it will be found that 196 are employed and sustained, not by the Parent Society, but by Auxiliary Societies; most of which were in successful operation long before the A. H. M. Šocięty was formed."

In reference to my remarks on the above quotation, (to which the reader is respectfully referred,) the Secretary replies, [Off. Reply, p. 14.] that the Board" were greatly surprised and grieved to find the truth of their positive declaration called in question, and their motives suspected," &c. Then follows a strain of irony, in which the writer affects to sup

pose that I have claimed to know the secret motives, &c. of the Board. But in all this there is nothing demanding notice, excepting a quotation, about the middle of the page, which is taken from my sixth letter, and contains the word "misrepresentations." I find that in my letter, the word is "representations!"

''

On pages 14 and 15 of the Reply, Mr. R. speaks of the above comparison between the Board and the A. H. M. S. as brief, general, and by no means invidious," as "fair, candid, and honourable," as " kindly expressed," and as containing "candid and sober declarations." Surely, if commendatory epithets, bestowed by himself upon his own production, can save it from merited censure, the public may yet be blinded to the unkindness of Mr. R.'s attack upon the A. H. M. S.

But there is here something more to be met than bare assertions. On pages 15 of the Reply and onward, the writer presents us with a formal array of "facts," derived, as he says, from the Reports of the A. H. M. S. and its Auxiliaries, on which the opinion expressed in the above comparison was founded. His "facts" are briefly the following:-He first finds, (as he alleges,) by careful counting, that the number of missionaries named in the last Report of the A. H. M. S. as having been "aided" by funds derived from Auxiliary Societies, is 196. Then, to prove, notwithstanding my positive declaration to the contrary, that the whole of these 196 missionaries were 66 employed and sustained, not by the parent Society, but by Auxiliary Societies," he originates the following process: He first affirms, that the word "aided," in my Report, means the same as "sustained” in his letter! Then follow a succession of quotations to prove that the term "employed," as well as "sustained," is "used repeatedly" in the reports both of the Parent Society and its Auxiliaries. And this he abundantly proves. But I am constrained to ask what this has to do with the "assertion" here in dispute? for it will be found, on examination, that though these words do several times occur in the quotations alluded to, it is not even intimated in one of them, that any of the mission. arics in question had been employed by the Auxiliary Societies, (which is the thing asserted in the comparison,) but only that they were "employed!!" My fifth letter [See Appendix] had assured the writer in what manner, and by whom, they were employed. I there explicitly state that they were all" appointed by the Executive Committee at New-York, and paid from the Treasury of the Parent Society," excepting 91, whose commissions were forwarded in blank to three Auxiliary Societies, signed by the proper officers of the Parent Society. This, it would seem, ought to have satisfied the Secretary that he had erred in his opposite statement. But it appears not to have had the slightest effect on his belief. Hence he inquires," But does the Report say this?" I answer, the Report does not say the contrary, nor contain any statement from which the contrary could be properly inferred. Yet the Secretary continues, in the name of the Board, to assert the very opposite, with as much confidence as if the Board and the public had never been assured of its entire incorrectness. Then follow several other quotations, [page 16,] from the constitution of the Society, the "form of constitution recommended to the adoption of Auxiliary Societies," &c. to prove that he had not misrepresented in his letter, "the manner of co-operation between the A. H. M. S. and its Auxiliaries." But these quotations again, unfortunately for his position, have no reference to the point in dispute. They prove, indeed, that the Society allows great freedom to its Auxiliary Societies, Presbyteries, &c. in

choosing the manner of their co-operation, but they prove nothing as to the "actual manner of co-operation," which has been adopted. The public, therefore, will judge of the soundness of Mr. R.'s conclusion, when he says, [page 17,] in view of the foregoing quotations; to us, at least, it is perfectly obvious that the Auxiliaries and Agencies of the A. H. M. So. ciety, generally, do not only employ and sustain, but also appoint, control and pay their own missionaries.'

Yet, obvious as this may appear, I have more than once assured the public, that it is certainly not a fact, in relation to those Auxiliaries and Agencies, generally, whose missionaries are embraced in the annual alphabetical list of the Parent Society.

The writer next proceeds [p. 18,] to exhibit the data on which was founded the assertion, that most of the Auxiliaries referred to in the foregoing comparison," were in successful operation long before the A. H. M. Society was formed." These, however, serve only to exhibit the grounds of his mistake in this statement, since it is certainly true, that the western and central Agencies in the state of New York, to which alone his professed proofs to the contrary refer, were appointed and organized after the A. H. M. S. was formed. In the First Report of the A. H. M. S. (p. 67.) it is stated, that the "Geneva [since denominated "Western"] Agency was appointed on the 23d of August, 1826, and organized in September following," four months after the formation of the Society. In reply to this, it avails nothing to state, that there was formerly an agency of the same name appointed by the United Domestic Missionary Society, since the Missionaries of that agency were transferred with those of the Society, to the A. H. M. S. at its formation; and the agency became extinct, it having no existence separate from that of the Society which appointed it.— The "Central Agency," the Secretary admits, was formed in 1829, and the First Report of the A. H. M. S. will inform him that the Western Domestic Missionary Society, for which the Agency was substituted, was formed June 7th, 1826, about a month after the formation of the Parent Society.

ANOTHER ATTACK UPON THE A. H. M. S.

Not satisfied with having attempted to maintain the foregoing assertions in the body of the " Official Reply," against all the facts presented in my letter, the writer carries the subject into his Appendix, which he also renders official by officially declaring it [p. 23,] to be the Appendix of the Board: [" their Appendix."] The object of this entire Article, [Appendix to the Off. Reply, No. II.] is, in the language of the Secretary, to "show that the comparisons heretofore instituted, were very far from having a tendency to depreciate the doings of the A. H. M. Society and magnify those of the Board." And this too is to be done by means which appear to the writer to be strictly just and honourable. But how?

To make it appear that the comparison contained in his letter was not only not "depreciating," but very kind towards the A. H. M. S., there is here instituted another comparison, which, if it were sustained by facts, would so nearly annihilate the comparative usefulness of the Society, that every previous representation would appear to be exceedingly lenient and forbearing. It is as follows:

"In 1830, the A. H. M. Society reported 392 missionaries. From this number, let the 127, reported by the "U. D. M. Society, out of which it was formed, be deducted, and the actual increase in the four years will be 265. But a large proportion of these

were reported to the National Society as having been employed and sustained by auxiliary societies, which had been in successful operation before the A. H. M. Society was formed. In 1828, the "N. H. Missionary Society," the "Vermont D. M. Society," and the "Hampshire Missionary Society," and in 1829, the “Maine Missionary Society," were announced as auxiliaries to the A. H. M. Society, and the whole num. ber of missionaries reported by these auxiliaries, at the time when they were formally recognised as such, was 98. In 1829, the "Western Domestic Missionary Society," which was then formally auxiliary, but virtually independent, and which has since become an Agency, reported 64 missionaries-total, 162-which, deducted from 265, leaves 103. From this calculation it will be seen, that if the several societies above named had remained independent, as they were before their connexion with the A. H. M. Society; and if they had continued their operations, without any increase of their number of missionaries, until 1830, they would then have had in their employment 289 missionaries-so that the actual increase of missionaries, secured by the operations of the A. H. M. Society, "as such," in four years, was precisely 103-whereas the actual increase of missionaries secured by the operations of the Board of Missions, "as such," in two years after its reorganization in 1828, was 167, the Board having commenced in 1828, after its reorganization, with 31 missionaries, and having reported in 1830, 198. Such, it appears from the Reports of the several societies above named, are really the facts in this case."

So say the authors of the "Official Reply." Truly, these are surprising results! The A. H. M. Society was in operation two years before the reorganization of the Board of Missions, and numbered more missionaries each year than the Board has done in each of the two subsequent years. From the reorganization of the Board, to the present time, it has continued its operations, and has reported, each year, about twice the number reported by the Board; and yet the Secretary of the Board has now found, by a "strictly just and honourable" comparison, (in which he says, "we [the Board] are very far from depreciating the doings of the A. H. M. Society,") that the Society, as such, regarding the "actual increase of missionaries secured by its [the] operations," has accomplished, in four years, less than two thirds as much as has been effected by the Board of Missions in two years! Who would have expected such results? Yet these are the results of official calculations, and if we examine and dispute, and especially if we disprove their correctness, we can hardly hope to escape the charge of having made another "unprovoked attack upon the Board."

The following facts, however, will set this matter in the true light. In the first Report of the A. H. M. S. page 11, it is stated that the number of missionaries received from the U. D: M. Society and transferred to the books of the A. H. M. S. at the commencement of its operations was 101, [not 127, as is stated in the above extract.] "Of these," it is further said, 55 have been reappointed, together with 68 who have been received as missionaries during the year." Here then is an actual increase of 68 the first year of the Society, instead of 42, as the "Official Reply" would make it. In the second Report, [p. 9,] it is stated that 89 new missionaries and agents had been received during that year, and these, as may be seen by an examination of the details of the Report, embraced none of the missionaries of the Auxiliary Societies named by Mr. Russell. The third Report, [page 10,] states that the number of new missionaries appointed within that year, including such as were aided by the funds of the Vermont, Maine, and Hampshire Missionary Societies, was 169. The number aid. ed by the three Auxiliaries above named, I find, on examination, was 64. Deduct 64 from 169 and there remains 105, actual increase the third year. The increase of missionaries named in the fourth Report, [p. 40,] including those received from Auxiliaries before existing, was 166. From these deduct 28 received from the New-Hampshire Missionary Society,

and 14, [not 04, as the Official Reply makes it,] received from the Western Domestic Missionary Society, and the actual increase during that year, remains 124! How different the result!

Not "precisely 103," as is officially stated by Mr. Russell! It ought to be remembered, also, that almost the whole of this increase has been within the bounds of the Presbyterian church.

The above, however, is but the beginning of trouble with this unhappy comparison. The reader will easily perceive, from the foregoing statements, that most of the alleged facts made use of in the above extract, are either erroneous in themselves, or have no relation to the points in question. Again, the other part of the comparison is equally erroneous. In estimating the "actual increase of Missionaries secured by the operations of the A. H. M. Society," the writer is careful to deduct every accession to its number of Missionaries derived from the lists of other societies, and he has actually made a deduction of more than 80, who, as far as appears, were not derived from such sources. But in estimating the increase secured, &c. by the Board, he has omitted to make corresponding deductions, excepting in one instance. He has deducted the 31 on the lists of the Board at the commencement of its renewed operations, but he makes no allowance for the number of Missionaries derived from the Pennsylvania Miss. Society, which was dissolved in consequence of the re-organization of the Board; from the New-Jersey Missionary Society, whose operations have been impeded by those of the Board; from the Western Domestic Miss. Society; and from the Synod of Pittsburg, and other Missionary bodies, which have relinquished their missions to the Board. All these are passed over, amounting, no doubt, to from 30 to 60. In addition to these, I find in the two reports of the Board 33 names, [there are probably more,] which are familiar to me, as having been previously in the employment of the A. H. M. S. Several of these the Society had ceased to aid; others have preferred the Board, or have found it for their interest to seek its patronage. Now, let all these be deducted, in due proportions, from the annual increase of the Missionaries of the Board, in the same manner as I have made similar deductions from the Missionaries of the Society, and the "actual increase, &c. secured by the operations of the Board," is reduced far below the number at which Mr. R. has stated it! These facts need no comment.

But, I may be told, perhaps, that I have based my calculations on dif ferent premises and principles from those assumed by the writer of the "Reply," and that this will account for the discrepancy in our conclu. sions. Be it so. I trust I have proved to the satisfaction of every reader that, at least, some of the premises assumed in the Reply, are not facts; and, as to the principles of his comparison, I appeal to every fair-minded man to decide, whether principles and estimates which lead to results so improbable and so injurious as those announced by the Secretary, ought not to be at once abandoned in so grave a discussion; and, in view of all this, I appeal to the Board of Missions to decide whether they are willing to be" identified" with their Secretary in this official comparison, and especially