suffered, in consequence of the diminished resources of its friends, but indirectly, in consequence of the number of ministers who are found in some parts of the country, unemployed, or not employed in their profession. The missionary boards, home and foreign, having been somewhat crippled, and the distresses of the country having operated in various ways to cause a temporacheck in the work of evangelization, it has happened that in some districts there are just now a few ministers, men of great worth, men who if employed in the right place might be highly useful, who, to the question "Why stand ye here idle all the day long?" are compelled to answer, "Because no man hath hired us. And from this the impression has gone abroad, to a considerable extent, that the education societies have not only done but overdone their proper work, and that the country is already over-supplied with ministers. We need not stop here to show the fallacy of such an impression. The true remedy for this state of things-the most efficient method of removing, from all minds, so fatal an impressionwould be found in an expansion of the missionary work in every direction. The true remedy for a surplusage of ministers in certain districts, is not to abandon the enterprise of providing an educated ministry for the whole country and for the world, but to send forth to other regions all who are properly qualified, and to put them at work, and keep them at work, where their la bors will be effectual for the advancement of the kingdom of God. As yet this remedy has not been applied. The American Home Missionary Society, if it had the means of expanding its operations in some proportion to the exigencies of the great West, would give instant employment to twice as many enterprising and devoted ministers as can be found unemployed in all the re

gion this side of the Alleghanies. But the Home Missionary Society— strange to say-has not the means for any such movement. And there. fore it is, that young men whom God has called, are discouraged from entering the ministry, and the Christian community is discouraged from attempting to provide that increased number of well educated ministers which must soon be called for, unless the enterprise of evangelizing our whole country is to be abandoned.

At such a crisis, it was a matter of course, that whatever elements of unpopularity might exist either in the structure of the American Education Society, or in the details of its operations, would come to light. The time was favorable for a discussion, and for a revision, and if necessary a reconstruction of the whole system. Accordingly the directors of the society determined, wisely, as we think, to ask the advice of their constituents. They called a meeting of the corporate and honorary members, for the purpose of fully considering the whole subject. In a circular letter to the members, they distinctly expressed the desire that those who had changed their minds respecting the importance of the object, or who had any objections against the policy of the society, would not fail to come and aid in the deliberations of the meeting. We shall give some account of that meeting in another place; we notice it here, only to show with what candor and frankness the directors have invited discussion.

The present organization of the American Education Society, is analogous to that of the American Board of Foreign Missions. Every man who has paid, or in whose behalf others have paid forty dollars in one donation, is an honorary member, with a right to sit and debate in all the meetings of the society. The right of voting belongs to corporate members, no

man being now admitted to the corporation by a mere subscription or donation, but only by election. This form of organization seems to us as safe against perversion, and at the same time as open to the influence of the public opinion to which it must look for support, as any that could be devised.

The only objection to this organization, which we have heard, is founded on the idea that for some reason, such an institution ought to be controlled directly and formally by ecclesiastical influence. Thus it has sometimes been said, "We don't like to see so great a movement under the control of any corporation or body of men, independent of the churches. It is not consistent with Congregationalism. Some of us are jure divino Congregationalists; and we would have such a business to be directed by the churches, acting through representatives chosen by themselves for the purpose." This idea may be good Presbyterianism-though we have doubts on that point; but we are sure there is no relish of Congregationalism in it. Congregationalism is utterly opposed to all permanent bodies professing to represent the churches and to act by their authority, even for purposes strictly ecclesiastical and spiritual. The tendency of all other systems is to aggregation-to those ideas and arrangements in which the feeling of individual power and individual responsibility, is merged in the feeling of the power and responsibility of a great and extended community; hence their provincial and national churches, their synods, their conventions, their great legis lative assemblies. The tendency of Congregationalism, on the contrary, is to develope and direct the very feeling which other systems, in various degrees, counteract-the feeling of individual power and responsibility; hence its recognition of no church, other than the partic

ular congregation of believers, independent, self-governed, a brotherhood over which there is no dominion but that of light and love, and in which each brother has his voice and his vote. Accordingly, while other systems employ ecclesiastical agencies for almost all sorts of purposes, and have their theological seminaries, their colleges, their book concerns, managed by ecclesiastical functionaries, Congregationalism has nothing to do with such things. Where simple Congregationalism has had the forming of institutions, there is as much religious influence as elsewhere, though it does not appear in the form of ecclesiastical power or government. The business of the church is, by communion in worship and ordinances, by instruction, and by mutual influence, to incite its members to love and all good works; and it concerns itself as little as possible with the details of those things which can be better done by individuals, or by specific associations of individuals.

So far do the Congregational churches carry their disposition to be clear of secular affairs, that they have ordinarily no property except their records and their sacramental vessels, and no treasury except to receive and disburse the little monthly contribution which supplies the elements for the communion table, and expresses to needy and suffering members, the sympathy of the spiritual body to which they belong. One of the beauties of Congregationalism-perhaps the greatest advantage which it has over other ecclesiastical systems, is, that the church, as a body, exists for purely spiritual purposes, and has almost nothing to do with any secular affairs.

The church-the spiritual body, including those who recognize each other as members of Christ-undertakes, in that capa city, no secular enterprise, enters into no civil contract, makes no ap

pearance in courts of justice, to sue or to be sued, to plead or to be impleaded. To build and to hold a house of worship, to provide for the support of the ministry, whether by permanent funds, or by taxes, or by voluntary annual subscriptions, the members of the church as individuals, unite with other individuals and form a voluntary civil and secular association, called "the parish," or "the ecclesiastical society." What Congregationalist would subvert this simple and equitable arrangement, which is every way so beneficial? The self same tendency of Congregationalism, which leads to the formation of parishes, or voluntary ccclesiastical societies, distinct from churches, leads also to the formation of voluntary societies for missions, and for other objects of Christian enterprise, at home and abroad.

Besides, what reason or equity would there be in the scheme of a convention of delegates from churches, assembled to regulate the appropriation of such a charity. According to the Congregational principle of the equality of churches, every church must have in such a convention, as many representatives as any other church. But in respect to the number of members able to appreciate such a charity as this, and able to contribute largely to its advancement, churches ar obviously unequal. One church has many members able to render effectual assistance, and able to enter fully into the embarrassments of young men pursuing a college course in the face of poverty; and by the members of that church, a thousand or two thousand dollars annually are given for this object. Another church is less favorably situated, and its members give annually for the same object, perhaps ten dollars, perhaps noth ing. Is there either justice or reason, in the idea of allowing these two churches an equal voice in the

management of affairs in which their interest is so unequal? The directors of such an undertaking as that of the Education Society, ought to make their report, not to those who do not contribute, but to those who do contribute.

The American Board of Foreign Missions holds a yearly convention of its members, corporate and honorary, at which all its proceedings are reviewed and all its interests discussed with perfect freedom. No man could look at that assembly at Norwich last September, and doubt whether the churches were suffi ciently represented there. If the American Home Missionary Society, and the American Education Society-institutions so closely related and so mutually dependent as to be almost one-would unite in holding a similar convention from year to year, for the purpose of deliberating on the evangelization of America; the gathering of ministers and others, from all parts of the country, would soon be such that no one would think of inquiring whether the churches were duly represented.

Proceeding from the question of the organization of the Education Society, to examine the rules by which it acts, we find among the friends of the cause a more considerable variety of opinions than on any other topic. That the present system may be advantageously reformed, to some extent, is generally conceded; but to what extent, and in what way, is not so easily determined.

Some have suggested the idea of a place of education to be founded and managed by the Society itself, where all its beneficiaries may be educated, apart from others, by one body of teachers, in the same course of studies, and under the same discipline. It is supposed that such a method would be cheaper and better than the present system, which allows each beneficiary to

pursue his studies at whatever college or seminary may be most convenient or agreeable to himself— cheaper, because the standard of expense being fixed without any reference to the factitious wants of the more affluent, might be brought down so low as to include only the coarsest fare and clothing, and the meanest accommodations, consist ent with bodily health-and better, because the student would not be subject to the ordinary temptations of a college life, nor to the depress ing mortification of juxtaposition with associates, who can wear bet ter clothing and enjoy more indulgences than he can; and because all the influences of such a place would be in harmony with the design of educating young men in habits of devotion and self-denial.

It may be worth the while to look at this proposal for a moment. And first, without reference to its expensiveness or cheapness, let us look at the value of this kind of education. Is it better, at the same cost, than the education which the young men, aided by the Society, are now enabled to acquire? We answer, without hesitation, No. The ministers wanted in such a country and such an age as this-the ministers wanted for the work in which the churches of this country ought to employ all the ministers they can obtain, cannot be educated in this way. What sort of ministers do we want, to preach the Gospel in city and country, in the states of the Atlantic and on the prairies of the Mississippi? What sort of ministers do we want, to go forth in our behalf to India and to China, to Persia and to Syria, as well as to Africa and Polynesia? We want ministers whose training has made them acquainted with men, who have looked upon the world not merely as it might be seen from the loopholes of a great secluded charity school, and who are on the same footing in respect to education, with

the most enlightened and influential men in other professions. At the preparatory school and at the college, those who are by and by to speak from the pulpit, occupy the same halls, study the same books, listen to the same instructors, sit in the recitation room on the same benches, with those who are by and by to rise to eminence in other professions. As fellow students with those who are to enter into other professions, and who in a few years will be found in all places of honor and of influence, they not only help to form their character, but they connect themselves by ties of mutual respect and often of mutual affection, with those who are to adorn the legal and medical professions, with those who are to be distinguished in the walks of literature, with those who are to preside in the tribunal of justice, with those whose eloquence is to thunder in the Capitol, or whose diplomacy is to sway the destinies of nations. Young men at school and at college educate each other; and to the young aspirant for the sacred ministry, beginning his classical studies late, and pursuing them under many embarrassments, it is not the least of his advantages at college, that he is brought into competition and friendly collision with those who have enjoyed from childhood the best means and methods of intellectual culture. As for the tempt ations of a college life, he needs them all both for probation and for discipline. If he cannot withstand and overcome them, let him fall; he is not the man that we want for the ministry. If he overcomes them, he is the better for having encountered them. And as to the mortification of being poor and dependent, in the midst of associates and competitors who have enough, we say-experto crede-there is nothing killing in it. The great body of college students, every where in this country, and we dare

say, in other countries too, are men who regard a classmate with none the less of respect and affection, because he happens to be poor. The brainless, heartless fop, who does not honor the very poverty of a fellow student, struggling to maintain himself, is not worth regarding. But what would be the depressing influence of an education in the cloisters of a great alms-house.

Then as to the cheapness of such a system-would it be on the whole cheaper than the course now pur sued. The idea is preposterous. With ever so many colleges around us, every one affording education to all comers at much less than cost, it is proposed to set up a new charity college, for the sake of getting an education still cheaper, not to the pupil, but to those who are at the expense of founding and sustaining the new institution.

Several particulars in the rules of the American Education Society, have been objected to with much appearance of reason. We will not go into those details here; but will bring our remarks to a close, with a statement of our own objections to the plan of loaning, instead of giving, aid to beneficiaries. We object first, to the theory which this form of aid assumes, in regard to the lucrativeness of the clerical profession; secondly, to the effect which it naturally produces on the character and habits of the beneficiary while pursuing his studies; and thirdly, to the position in which it places him after he enters the ministry.

The theory on which the loaning system proceeds is this-that the profession of the ministry is so far a lucrative profession, that it may be expected not only to support those who enter upon it, but also to reimburse to them the expenses of their education. It is admitted, by those who formed the present system of rules, that there are cases-such as that of the foreign missionary, or

that of the home missionary who labors in some particularly unpromising field-in which the beneficiary. cannot be expected to repay what he has received; but these cases are regarded and treated as exceptions, the rule presumes his ability to pay. But is such a rule founded in fact? Is it true that the young man who enters the ministry can ordinarily be expected to repay, within a few years, the expenses of the eight or ten years which he has employed in educating himself for that profession? No. Where is the parish which expects to do more for its pastor than to enable him to live and support a family, comforta bly and respectably, according to their own average standard of comfort and respectability? Where is the parish which expects its pastor to lay up money out of his salary? Where is the parish which, if it finds that its minister is receiving, in the form of salary, more than enough to live on, is not likely to become uneasy? The salaries of ministers vary from three thousand dollars yearly to three hundred dollars, or less. But if a rich congre gation in New York pay their pastor three thousand dollars, it is because they know he cannot live decently, according to their idea of decent living, or in other words, cannot live as they expect him to live, with less than that income. And if another congregation, in some agricultural district remote from the markets, give their minister only three hundred dollars, it is because they think that sum sufficient to provide for his family all the comforts which they enjoy in their own. In neither congregation do the people, when fixing the salary of their minister, take into consideration for one moment the capital which has been absorbed in his education. The only question with them is, What will it cost him to live among us as our families generally live? All those arguments