A voice from Plymouth Rock calls us to put on a wide, hospitable, brotherly mind toward Christians of every name. My former greatly venerated and beloved parishioner, Professor Stowe, took immense comfort in his closing days in the fact that while ex animo and by church membership always a Congregationalist, by virtue of Presbyterian ordination, in peculiar circumstances, in his youth, he had a place in the "grand old Presbyterian Communion," - so he called it, as well. "If I were to live my life over again," he said to me once, "I'd join all the churches I could. You can't belong to too many." The feeling he so expressed, that vivid yearning sentiment of catholicity, God grant, by his indwelling grace working together with our liberty, we Congregationalists, as a family, may be increased in it more and more; and therein be set forward, on our part, toward that union of the body of Christ for which we all pray, and which will certainly come, when it does come, heart first and not head first.

The distinguished orator who pronounced the address at the laying of the corner-stone of the Pilgrim monument, in 1859, reminded his audience that there was a precept of Christ which the gratitude they were there professing might fitly call to mind; this viz: "If thou bring thy gift before the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy way. First be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." As now we are bringing our gift before the altar, our gift of thanks to God for our manifold wealthy heritage, may we not, should we not, pause to inquire if our brother has aught against us? Has any Christian brother aught against us? Are there those whom, because they are, as we deem, faulty and deficient in their faith, or those whom, because they differ from us in tradition and in worship, and perhaps deny us fellowship, we from our Jerusalem disdain and disown as alien Samaritans? To such let us seek to be reconciled, as Christ was of old.

Has our poor brother, our ignorant brother, home born or stranger; has our brother, who is wronged and oppressed, aught against us? Have we been wanting to him in consideration, in sympathy, in succor? To him let us be reconciled, and to all whom Bethlehem and Calvary make our brethren, and then come and offer our gift.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON RELATIONS OF THE BENEVOLENT SOCIETIES TO THE CHURCHES.'

SYRACUSE, N. Y., 1895.

Your committee on the relations of the benevolent societies to the churches present the following report:

Of the nine original members of the committee, Samuel Johnson, Esq., declined to serve, and the Rev. A. Hastings Ross, D. D., whose name appeared next in the list, and who had greatly interested himself in the theme in connection with a former similar committee, has died since the last meeting of the Council.

The theme upon which we are called to report has been before the Council since 1886, when, in obedience to a rising tide of sentiment among the churches, the first committee was appointed. Every meeting of the Council since that time has considered the subject. The report made at Minneapolis was an elaborate document, presenting, with a careful review of the facts, six possible plans for bringing the societies into more vital relations with the churches on which they depend for the means to carry on their work.

A majority of that able committee approved of and recommended the fourth of the proposed plans, which was substantially as follows: That our benevolent and missionary work be divided into two departments, home and foreign; that the (1) foreign department, now in charge of the American Board, a close corporation, be made representative by, a scheme which is carefully stated; that the (2) five home societies which are homogeneous in nature, each shall make such necessary changes in its constitution as to permit it to be served by the same delegates as the others; all of these delegates to be chosen by the State organizations of Congregational churches.

Thus the autonomy and chartered rights of the societies would be preserved. All of the societies would be representative bodies, and we should have two annual feasts instead of three. We are glad to notice that all of our societies, save one, have so far

Page 32.

respected the manifest desire of the churches that they recognize the rights of the churches to representation. In the various home organizations the representatives of the churches constitute the body, at least in part, while the American Board, by its action of 1892, elects its new members from candidates nominated by the State bodies.

We believe that this recognition of the rights of the churches by our various societies is working well. We believe also that the complete adoption of the fourth plan, as recommended by the committee at Minneapolis, would work still better. We believe that there are especial reasons why it is not only feasible but very desirable for our numerous home societies.

In the opinion of your committee it is the plan which would commend itself to the judgment and secure the co-operation of business men whose presence we desire, but whose absence we now deplore when our annual meetings are held. Several of these societies, which administer the funds of the churches to the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars, transact the business of their annual meetings with a mere handful of interested persons in New York or Boston. They would gladly have more popular gatherings at their annual meetings, and these remarks are no criticism upon the faithful services of those who have done the best they could to serve the churches. The proposed plan offers them the coveted opportunity for broadening their foundations and securing the uplift of a large annual meeting.

The two other and larger societies already have large and enthusiastic annual meetings, whose inspiration contributes to the power and glory of our work for the advancement of the Redeemer's kingdom.

We would not diminish by one iota the spiritual uplift or the financial support which these societies receive from their annual feasts. We believe that the plan proposed would add to both; we believe that the discriminating givers of the Congregational churches would not be confused by, but would rather rejoice in and honor, the plan which recognizes both the unity of work and the diversity of its fields.

Constant or frequent attendants at our annual meetings cannot fail to note that the present methods do not secure the attendance of any considerable numbers of business men or laymen. Pastors are there. Sometimes their wives are there. But the men to whom

we must look for large gifts of the Lord's money are not there in any considerable numbers. This is not because our lay brethren are lacking in conscientious discharge of duty when once it is clearly apprehended. There are no more conscientious laymen in any communion than those of our Congregational churches. Why then are they not more largely represented at our great meetings? It must be it is because our methods do not enlist their business judgment. Upon what wise business principle can we justify five or six annual meetings to transact the benevolent business of our denomination when all other denominations manage their great benevolences in one annual meeting? In the light of their experience the numerous objections melt away.

There is no pastor of a Congregational church, worthy of his. place or name, but is profoundly interested in the noble work of all of these societies. But the present plan of diverse meetings compels him either to leave his parish for two or three weeks, when one would do as well; to make two or three expensive journeys when one would do as well, or to surrender his right of franchise in one or the other of these great societies. It is an extremely modest estimate to say that the average amount expended in travel and other expenses by those who attend one of these meetings is not less than twenty-five thousand dollars. By what right do we, as the stewards of God's money, double this expense, when the extra twenty-five thousand dollars might go directly to the work of establishing churches and supporting missionaries or teachers? Upon what principle can we commend such methods to sensible and successful business men? The fact is that these methods do not seem to commend themselves.

If our home societies would accept the fourth plan these objections would be removed. We should save a vast amount of the Lord's money; we should save a vast amount of the time of God's servants, and that is business. We should commend our

selves to an enlarged list of business contributors on the score of this wise economy. We should through our State Associations appoint hundreds of our wisest laymen as delegates to this one great annual gathering to consider the advancement of Christ's kingdom through all of the various branches of our benevolent work; and such an appointment, by such a body, to such a meeting, they would honor. We would get the business men.

We should arouse the enthusiasm of our pastors for such a meet

ing as we cannot arouse it for two or three diverse and widely separated meetings. We would relieve good men of the embarrassment which compels them to decide between conflicting interests, which ought to be harmonious and which often ends in their neglect of both, by presenting for their prayers and their inspiration one grand meeting which should illustrate the unity of the faith by a unity of operations.

We should sharpen, condense, and unify the reports made at the various sessions of this united meeting. A day and a half under the quickened impulse of such a meeting would be ample for each of the two larger societies. That would leave a whole day for the other societies. The secretaries would shorten their reports and put fresh barbs on their arrows; the missionaries from the field would be admonished that the time is short" and that" what we do we must do quickly"; the eloquent men would be reminded that "the King's business requires haste," and would reach their peroration before they had exhausted themselves and their audience.

All of this is business. Brethren, this committee means business. We believe that we speak the mind of the churches, whose servants these societies are. We believe that we speak the mind of thousands of pastors whose means are small, whose time is limited but whose love for these societies and for their noble work is boundless and constant. We believe that we echo the wisest sentiment of the practical business men of our churches. We are absolutely sure that we are commending a course which, if pursued, will strengthen the testimony which we seek to offer to the world on the great theme of Christian unity. What right have we to solemnly exhort the rest of the world to organic Christian unity when we confess in this practical way our inability to secure the organic unity of our own benevolent work?

We therefore recommend,

First, that the American Board continue the plan upon which it entered three years ago, whereby it invites the various State bodies to nominate candidates for corporate membership.

Second, that our various home societies, at the earliest practical 'moment, so far adopt the fourth plan as to arrange for the holding of their annual meetings at the same place and within the limits of the same week.

Third, that this meeting be so arranged that it shall divide the