this government (as I understand) to fill his crop with materials for that piece and I came several times within scent of him (for he left a savour of what he fed upon when he lit) and was at your college at the same time and should have freely given him a full and true account of that whole affair, if he had desired to know the truth-and could have proved it to him at the time and place beyond exception. And I suspect he would doubt-less have given me the opportunity if the truth had been what he desiredhowever, if I think too hardly of him let others judge who know the cir cumstances of the case. I am confident I am far from being alone in these thoughts of him.

I should have wrote to the Doctor, but I understand he is a gentleman, who takes more liberty to insult his inferiors than perhaps the mercury in my own blood will well bear while I am so sensible of mean, unınanly, unchristian and abusive treatment received from him, though as yet I am not sensible of any great impatience under what I have already suffered from him.

Will you please, Sir, to let the Dr. know that I think he has made himself a debtor to me and also to Mr. Pomeroy and Mr. Allen by what he has wrote, and more so to the Redeemer and his dear cause, and then if he will risk the consequences of it, he will have none but himself to blame if they prove very bad.

Please also to favor me with your and the Rev. Mr. Foxcroft's advicewhat is duty and expedient for us to do in the case to retrieve or prevent the injury that has or may accrue to religion by what the Dr. has wrote -I hope, Sir, the occasion will excuse the tedious length of this letter. Please to accept most dutiful and affectionate salutation from, and remember in your devoutest hours, your unworthy son in the Gospel, REV. EB. PEMBERTON.

ELEAZ'R WHEELOCK.

ART. VIII. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND MINISTERIAL.

RELIEF.

By REV. J. M. SHERWOOD, New York.

IN the January issue of this REVIEW we discussed at length,. in the light of Scripture teaching, historical facts, and church economics, the important subject of "Ministerial Relief." The views then presented have obtained a degree of acceptance much beyond what we dared to anticipate for them in so brief a time. The "Society for Promoting Life Insurance among Clergymen," believing the paper timely and adapted to influence the public mind in the right direction, republished it in pamphlet form for distribution among the entire ministry of the United States. It was immediately sent to,

the 8,000 ministers who compose our great Presbyterian family, with a special request from the Executive Committee for an "expression of views upon the subject which it discusses." Several hundred letters were received in response, not a few of them from leading brethren in the various branches of the church, uniformly concurring in the reasonings and conclusions of the paper submitted to them. Not a solitary adverse opinion was expressed, but many facts were given, and arguments adduced, confirmatory of those which we had presented. And we happen to know that the opinions of some at least of our leading pastors and laymen were changed by the reading of this paper, in reference to some features of this subject, particularly as to the "charity" basis of our present system, and the inexpediency of a large Permanent Fund. And the singular fact that the "Memorial" year, which has yielded over $7,000,000 to the Church, has added but $12,000 to this fund, though it was one of the specific objects commended-less than half the sum added the previous year-indicates that our views are shared by a large part of the pastors and laymen connected with our large and liberal churches.

So far, therefore, as we have the means of knowing, the mass of facts cited in our previous article have not been called in question; the arguments adduced have not been set aside; the principles urged and the conclusions reached have not been shown to be wrong; indeed no attempt to do this has been made in any quarter. And yet the leading facts, arguments, principles, and results embodied in our former paper, go to show that our present system of Ministerial Relief, instead of being the best possible, and one that the Presbyterian church ought to be satisfied with, is radically wanting and defective, both in its essential principles and in its practical workings, and ought to be merged in one much broader in its scope, based on principles of justice and sound church economy.

The action of the late Assembly on this subject seems to furnish fit occasion for some further discussion of it. The friends of the present system of Ministerial Relief, with a single exception, had everything in their own way, and they

improved the opportunity. Coming before the Assembly in their Annual Report, and being heard through one of the Standing Committees and their own Secretary, the Committee had all the advantage. No other method was formally before the Assembly, and had there been there was no opportunity for a fair and calm discussion of its merits. But it strikes us that unless the advocates of this charitable fund plan can make a better show of reason and fairness in the future than they did on this occasion, it will not be possible to preserve it intact much longer.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF TWENTY-ONE.

It is known that this able Committee, particularly the Subcommittee to whom this matter was specially committed, gave considerable attention to it, and as the result of inquiry, investigation, and deliberation, the Committee finally adopted and submitted to the Assembly the following report:

Lastly, in regard to the important subject of Ministerial Relief, the committee, after careful inquiry, have concluded to recommend that this Assembly appoint a special committee for further investigation, who shall put in requisition the services of experts in this very difficult matter of life insurance; and, having due regard to valuable existing plans, and the preferences of our people, shall consider and report to the next Assembly as to the practicability and desirableness of a plan by which each congregation may, in addition to the salary of its pastor, pay an annual premium for the assurance of his life (a percentage upon the salary), so arranged that part of it shall inure to the benefit of ministers who can not be thus provided for. 2. That the insurances shall be so arranged as not to be vitiated by transfers from one charge to another; and so as to benefit the disabled as well as for the families of the deceased. 3. So as to include the advantages of the mutual plan 'of life insurance. And also to consider if the relief to ministers and their families should not in all cases be in the form of annuities."

We had hoped that this Committee would see their way clear to embody the principles of their Report in a tangible and definite plan for the adoption of the Assembly ; and had they done so, their recommendation might have met with a different reception. The Assembly might fail to comprehend or approve abstract principles, when they would give assent to a practical embodiment of them. The Committee had in hand at least two plans, based on the essential principles of their Report, both of which possess, it seems to us, so many and such great advantages over our present method, that we

can scarcely doubt that the Assembly would have recognized the fact, and would at least have been in favor of a Special Committee for the purpose of further investigation.

The discussion and action of the Assembly in reference to the other parts of this now memorable Report, had their influence unquestionably in awakening distrust and exciting prejudice with reference to this last item of it. For, in itself considered, and apart from its surroundings, the recommendation of the Committee on this subject was eminently proper, wise, and conservative, as every intelligent, fair-minded man must admit, not only as the dictate of their own enlightened judgment, but as demanded by the sentiment and state of things prevalent in the body for whom they acted.

Unfortunately also for this interest, this part of the Report was not taken from the table for formal consideration until the closing hours of the session, when many had left, and the Assembly was wearied out, and too impatient to adjourn to give due consideration to any subject which called for patient and deliberate discussion and settlement. To these untoward circumstances we attribute the final disposition of the matter, rather than to a purpose on the part of the majority, either to suppress investigation looking to an improved method, or to render judgment against the method foreshadowed in the Report of the Committee of Twenty-one. The fact that, without any discussion of the merits of the question, and in spite of the speech of Dr. Poor, the Assembly struck out from the Annual Report of the Committee on the Relief Fund, the passage which reflected on "Life Insurance and earnestly deprecated all thought of superseding" the present system, indicates what was the real temper of the house. But it was not in a fitting mood at this late hour to discuss any difficult and grave matter, and the shortest and easiest way was-to do nothing. Not even the modified course proposed by Dr. Reed-himself the President of our Ministerial Relief Fund-to turn over the matter of investigation to the Sustentation Committee, found favor, for that too was a step which required a calm and careful examination. Had the Assembly, when fresh and full, taken up this subject and discussed it fairly and fully, and elicited facts and

comparisons, and the results of a year's investigation on the part of a highly intelligent and competent Committee of its own, we have no doubt what the result would have been.

BIASING INFLUENCES.

A bias likewise had been given to the mind of at least a portion of the Assembly before the above action was taken. The otherwise excellent Report of the Committee on Ministerial Relief, was marred by a passage, the obvious scope and purpose of which were to prejudice and defeat the recommendation of the Committee of Twenty-one on the subject of "Ministerial Relief." As to the good taste and propriety of such an interference we have nothing to remark. The Committee no doubt had their reasons for it, but we fear they will not be appreciated. It strikes us as something new in the history of our Boards. To adopt that report was to prejudge and negative the question submitted by the Committee of Twenty-one; to commit the Assembly to a gross and wholesale arraignment of "the system of Life Insurance ;" and to a policy that would suppress all liberty of "thought," and all ideas of progress. We give the passage-and we know not where to find its parallel in the annals of our ecclesiastical legislation :

"The more we study the subject the firmer is our persuasion that this fund affords the best means for accomplishing the purposes in view. A system of life insurance, supposing it should be generally acquiesced in and carried out, may present some favorable aspects, but it is too precarious in its nature, too limited in its application, to be securely relied on for every case. But here we have a friend who will last as long as the Church lasts, administered by those whose relations bring them into mutual sympathy with parties to be relieved, and ready for every time of need. We would therefore earnestly deprecate all thought of superseding this fund by any other measure that may be devised."

The language and scope of this passage are unmistakable and sweeping. The "system" of Life Insurance is too “precarious in its nature" to be trusted; "too limited in its application" to be available; and in contrast with their "Fund" scheme is not worth a moment's consideration, and "all thought of superseding it by any other measure is to be "earnestly deprecated."

This deliverance will naturally strike the public mind with