without claiming any ecclesiastical power. But they had confidence in the churches, on whom the success of their undertaking depended, and trusted that through the mercy of God, so good a cause would be patronized. Nor did they trust in vain. That beginning of the missionary work has been a plant, which though small at first, has grown up and become a great tree, the leaves whereof are for the healing of the nations.

Is it said, that those who commenced that important work, should have postponed it till they had brought the churches to a readiness to engage in it? But this might have required long continued efforts on the part of those who were disposed to be active in the work. And then, upon the principle of the objector, how could they with propriety have made these efforts, without having been in any way authorized by the churches? And if they had themselves delayed all action in the cause of missions till they had persuaded the churches to unite in the work, they might, on this very account have failed of persuading them. For in all probability, the only successful appeal to the churches depended on the actual and vigorous prosecution of the work of missions, for a time, by those who were its hearty and active friends, and on the evidence derived from acknowledged facts, that it might be prosecuted with success.

If you ask, to whom a missionary, or other voluntary society, formed in the usual way, are responsible? I ask, to whom is an Association, or Consociation, or Presbytery, or Synod responsible? Either of these bodies, undertaking the cause of missions alone, acts on its own responsibility, except that it is responsible to the Christian public, and especially to God. But you say, the Association, Consociation, Presbytery or Synod intrust the missionary business to a Board of Directors, and that this Board are responsible to the body which appoints them? The same is true in the other case. A missionary society intrust the business of missions to a Board or Committee; and this Board or Committee are responsible to the Society. There is an equal responsibility in both cases, and created in the same way. And why are not the interests of the Society equally safe, if the men who constitute the body, acting as a missionary society, and the men who are appointed as directors, are equally numerous and equally intelligent, pious and faithful? The circumstance of their acting as members of a clerical or an ecclesiastical body, cannot give security to the missionary interest committed to them, unless they are intelligent, trustworthy and faithful in their individual capacity.

In view of the foregoing remarks, I cannot but think, that those who affirm, that benevolent works should be undertaken by the church of Christ, and by that only, in an exact ecclesiastical form, will find the position difficult, embarrassing, and

untenable.

Christians are united together in the form of a church, or in the form of churches, for very obvious and important purposes; and this church form is evidently adapted to accomplish these purposes. And why may not Christians be united in other forms for other important purposes? And why may not other forms of union be best adapted to accomplish these other purposes? Is it not so in our civil state? Our being united together as Towns, Counties, States, and a nation, is manifestly suited to various important purposes; but not to all purposes. For weighty reasons we judge it best to form other associations for literary, charitable, agricultural, mercantile, and moral objects. An attempt to accomplish all these by acting as Towns, Counties, etc. would embarrass and shackle all our movements, and end in disappointment.

It may be said, that, if Towns, Counties, States, and the nation were what they should be and acted as they ought, in the capacity of civil corporations, they would be competent to do all that could be done in promoting every good object. Now, although this is not perfectly evident, I will admit it. But these civil bodies are not what they should be. And the question is, can every important design be carried into effect by their agency, they being what they are? Is there no occasion for other Associations? And may not other Associations be better adapted, than those above mentioned, to various important objects? And if the laws of the land should prohibit all other Associations of men, and require that every thing should be done by these civil bodies, would it not cramp the active spirit of the community, and hinder their useful exertions? Is it not generally by the genius and enterprise of individuals, sometimes acting by themselves, but more commonly forming themselves into smaller or larger associations, that the community at large is advanced in the useful arts and sciences, and in all social and civil advantages? hold in respect to the objects Church organization is a divine various and momentous purposes.

And why may not the same of Christian benevolence? institution, and is suited to And say, if you please, that

if the church at large were what it should be, it is suited, in its appropriate organization as a church, to ALL important purposes. But the church is so far from what it should be,-it is so divided into sects and parties, in which there is so little holiness and so much sin, that it is by no means suited, in its present state, to the various objects of benevolence. You cannot bring the whole church on earth to act together as one organized body, in disseminating the Bible, or in sending the Gospel to the heathen. And you may not be able at once to bring all who belong to a particular denomination, or any considerable part of them, to act together in such a work, in an ecclesiastical way. Will you therefore do nothing? If you have a little company of fifty or a hundred, who are of the same mind with you; will you lie still because others are of a different mind? Will you extinguish the benevolence and zeal which God has kindled up in your breast, and deprive the world of the benefit of its influence, and hinder the accomplishment of that great work of love, which may be accomplished, if you, with a few others, will resolutely commence it, and move others by your example?

As to the Congregationalists in Massachusetts and other parts of New England, to whom I have already referred,-if they act at all, they must act in a way correspondent with their condition. But you may say, they should forthwith change their condition, and put themselves into an ecclesiastical state, suited to the great objects of benevolence which are now presented before them? Suppose then this change to be desirable, and suppose it to be practicable too, in consistency with Congregational principles; as would appear from the ecclesiastical state of Connecticut. Still while Congregationalists in Massachusetts retain their present opinions, as they have a right to do, on the subject of church government, the proposed change cannot take place. Must we then abstain from all efforts to evangelize the heathen? And if our present ecclesiastical state is to remain for generations to come, must we, through all those generations, still do nothing for the conversion of the heathen? Because we are not prepared to act in the way which you think to be the best, shall we not act at all? And, to go where they have a settled ecclesiastical organization; because the clergy and people of the church of England are not disposed, as a church, to engage in the missionary work; shall

those who are disposed, do nothing? If men of a missionary spirit belonging to the church of England, and those belonging to the church of Scotland, and if men of such a spirit among the Dissenters in Great Britain, and in New England, had acted on this principle, where would have been all those benevolent institutions which have been originated there and here, and which have not only been successful in accomplishing the object directly aimed at, but have awakened the spirit of Christian compassion and love in the minds of multitudes who stood aloof, and induced them to enlist heartily in the same work? From the beginning of these benevolent operations, it has been constantly affirmed and demonstrated to be the duty of the whole Christian church, and of all particular, local churches, and of all denominations and classes of Christians, to send the Gospel to the heathen. But nominal Christians generally have been lamentably remiss in regard to this duty; and there has been only a comparatively small number in different parts of Christendom who have cordially given themselves to the work. This small number of faithful ministers and Christians have not been able to do what they would; but they have done what they could. They would have rejoiced to see all Christians on earth, of all denominations united in this work, and laboring as subjects of the same glorious Lord and King, to extend his peaceful reign over the whole world. But as this could not be, they had no alternative left, but to abandon the work altogether, or to bring as many as they found like-minded, to shake off their slumbers, and in good earnest to join with them in beginning this longneglected work. Thanks to God that they determined upon this course; and with what wisdom, zeal and success they have pursued it, the world knows.

Now let it be remembered, that the Congregationalists could not, to this day, have done any thing, as an ecclesiastical body; for they have not been formed in such a body. And we know too that the majority of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church have not till recently undertaken the work of Foreign Missions; and probably would not have done it now, had not smaller portions of that church commenced it before. And even now, the church of England at large is very far from being prepared to engage in the missionary enterprise.

I must therefore proceed to say, that it is evidently expedient, and of great importance, to leave the door open for different modes of action in promoting the objects of benevolence. To

maintain, that every thing which is to be done for reforming and saving the world, must be done in one and the same way; and to regard whatever is done in any other way, with dissatisfaction or indifference, would in my view betray a very narrow way of thinking, and a disposition to oppose the manifest leadings of divine providence. The great Apostle showed himself to be of a very different mind from this, when, looking at the preaching of Christ by men of different characters, and some of them very unfriendly to himself, he expressed the feelings of his heart in these remarkable words: "Notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and I will rejoice." Noble spirit! worthy to be imitated by all who preach the same gospel, and serve the same divine Master! To attempt to bring Christians of every denomination, and in all circumstances, to think and act in the same way in regard to the objects of benevolence, would be as fruitless, as to attempt to bring them all to think alike respecting church government, and the outward forms of worship. The state of Christendom is far from what it should be; and many evils exist which cannot at present be remedied. Let us employ our talents upon objects which are of the greatest importance, and which we may have some prospect of accomplishing. Let us do all the good we can in present circumstances. And as we cannot induce all Christians to do good in the way which we prefer, let us be willing they should do good in their own way. And though we may imagine that more good would be done, if they should all adopt our way; still let us rejoice that they do a less degree of good, rather than none. We may think it best that all efforts in the cause of benevolence should be made by an ecclesiastical organization; or we may think they should be made by voluntary associations. But whether we prefer the one, or the other, many Christians will differ from us, and will act, if they act at all, in another way. Why should we oppose them? Why be disquieted, provided they allow us the same liberty which they ask for themselves? Why not say in the spirit of the Apostle: Notwithstanding, every way, whether by an ecclesiastical or a voluntary organization, the glad tidings are proclaimed to the perishing; and we therein do rejoice, yea, and we will rejoice. We cannot govern the world. We cannot control the judgments and wills of our fellow Christians. And God has not called us to do it. Let us give it up, and that cheerfully