periments and improvements as to its methods. It was not to be expected that the best methods would be discovered first; or that any one could be adopted as the best at one time, that would not be subject to an improving change at a later time. The school system of the Board has gone through these experiments and improvements, and is as yet far from being settled. There is still needed an induction from a more extensive accumulation of facts than the missions have so far furnished, and, even then, each mission must probably be determined in its school policy by peculiarities of its own.

In 1830, 31, 32, the number of pupils in the schools at the Sandwich Islands was, respectively, 39,000, 45,000, 53,000. The number of teachers, natives, was, in 1831, about 900, of whom not more than a dozen received compensation from the mission. Their qualifications were extremely moderate, and so the schools soon declined; in 1837, to a little more than 2000 pupils. Then schools for the education of teachers were established and the common schools revived, when, in 1847, the Hawaiian government assumed their entire management and

expense.

The number of pupils in the free schools of the Mahratta, Ceylon, and Madura missions from the beginning to 1860 was about 70,000, under the instruction mostly of heathen teachers. Of the spiritual results within its own limits, the Mahratta mission reported in 1854: “We cannot point to a single case of conversion from among all this number. . . . The result seems to show, that these schools have failed of accomplishing, except to a very slight extent, what was hoped from their establishment, in the way of influencing the people, and gaining them over to the truth. From this result follows, as a general rule, the inexpediency of employing heathen teachers in common schools. The main ground upon which such schools are urged at present is, that they are a means of communicating with the people, of forming some kind of connection with them, of getting a congregation. It is probable, however, that, in most cases, the missionary can secure a hearing for his message without the aid of such schools." (pp. 306, 307.) The Ceylon mission reported about thirty conversions in its schools, and that a few of the heathen teachers became hopefully pious, but that the

pupils were too young to receive much spiritual benefit. The Madura schools were not more prosperous.

In 1855, the employment of heathen teachers by these missions had nearly ceased. Their services had been overestimated, and these schools had had a delusive appearance in value. A change was needed.

These three missions had also higher or boarding-schools, the pupils being mostly heathen children. The object was to secure the conversion of the pupils and gain efficient native helpers. They were designed to be training institutions for schoolmasters, catechists, preachers, and pastors. The English and the vernacular were taught in these schools, and, till 1843, the board and tuition were gratuitous. Afterward, those who could were required to make remuneration. But unexpectedly there came in "a class of students from wealthy families, whose sole object was to fit themselves for government service, or some lucrative post in agriculture or commerce." A passion for English became excessive among the natives. A change was needed.

An expensive "Mission Institution" was founded by the brethren at Bombay, in 1854, though not adopted by the Board, which those brethren afterward discontinued, for the reasons that English was made too prominent a study and too much the medium of instruction, that to make it successful it must be very expensive, and that the effects of it must be unfortunate on other missions. On more careful examination, they found that "the experiment had been tried elsewhere, under the most favorable auspices, and the results, if not actually disastrous, have at least proved unsatisfactory. The system seems to be a forced, artificial one, and produces artificial fruits."

The Syrian mission commenced a high school for training native helpers, in 1836, in which English was taught, but closed it in 1842. When English forces there engaged in the war with Mohammed Ali the officers drew off these pupils for dragomans, and so they were demoralized, and lost, mostly, to the missionary cause. Another seminary was opened at Abeih, in 1846, on the basis of excluding the English, and, as far as possible, preserving among the pupils oriental manners and customs. This school still continues.

"Nowhere have the higher schools been more signally blessed with hopeful conversions than among the Nestorians. That for males was commenced in 1836, and the one for females in 1838. Two thirds of those who have been educated in the male seminary give hopeful evidence of piety. The same may be said of an equal portion educated at the female seminary. A large portion of the educated young men are preachers of the gospel, or teachers in the schools; and the greater part of the pious graduates of the female seminary have become wives. of these missionary helpers. Both of these institutions have been signally favored with revivals of religion. The instruction has been almost wholly in the native tongue." p. 320.

As a general result of the educational efforts among the American Indians, it is said that had they "been sufficiently isolated to have retained the use of their own language, and to have used none but the vernacular in the schools, it would have been better for their moral and religious interests. With few exceptions, those who acquired most knowledge of the English language were furthest from embracing the gospel." p. 321.

To remedy some of the evils now mentioned in the mission boarding-schools, changes were made" requiring more age for admission, a shorter residence, a Christian parentage, (if not actual piety,) and a more religious course of study." As to the use of the English language in the higher schools, the Mahratta missions agreed that "they should be strictly vernacular schools." The Madura mission thought that those preparing to be school-masters, catechists, and in some cases pastors, "should be restricted to purely Tamil studies; but that a part of the higher class should study English for mental discipline and to have access to English literature. But as a medium of instruction, the English should be excluded when proper text-books in Tamil can be obtained." The Ceylon mission declared it inexpedient to continue the study or use of English in the higher schools. The effects on the pupils, as well as the missionaries who taught, were variously unfortunate. After a survey of all the facts concerning education and mission-schools, a few of the more prominent only we have been able to indicate, the Board have for the present settled. down on these principles of action :

"In the present advanced state of most of its missions, it finds a more profitable use for its funds than in the support of heathen schoolmasters. Nor does past experience encourage any great outlay for common schools, composed of very young heathen children, even with Christian masters."

"The Board has been obliged, in the progress of its work, to decline connection with expensive educational institutions for general education, to prepare young men for secular and worldly pursuits." "It has been found necessary to exclude the English language, in great measure, from the training schools for educating village teachers, preachers, and pastors." "What the schools most need is better teachers, and to derive more of their support from the parents of the pupils. The self-supporting principle among native Christians, in all its application, needs an unsleeping guardianship and culture." pp. 325, 326.

The Christian world, however, is in a fair way to know whether larger expenditures for education, a higher grade of schools, studies with immediate reference to secular life, and a prominent place in them for the English language, will better promote the object of foreign missions than the policy indicated by the American Board. For the Scotch Missionary Boards are giving preeminence to the educational system as a leading branch of missionary labor, while the English Boards have either adopted the American basis, on the points in question, or are rapidly approaching it.

The Church Review," whose article on the Board we have indicated at the opening of this article, while laboring under what is probably a reporter's deficiency, degenerates into severity, and shows itself very naturally as extremely Episcopal. The Review thus speaks:

"A statement of the Rt. Rev. Bishop Bedell, at the late meeting of our Board, at Philadelphia, astounds us. . In the debate on the Greek missions, he said, 'that three days ago he met the venerable and noble Dr. Anderson, of the A. B. C. F. M., and asked him what - after all his long experience was his opinion of the conciliatory principle in regard to missions in Greece and among any decayed churches. He said he had no hesitation in declaring, that the only possible principle for such a work, was the conciliatory principle, in opposition to anything aggressive or looking to the establishment of a distinct church.' And yet a principle directly the reverse of this is the settled policy of

the A. B. C. F. M., and is steadily pursued in their operations among the Oriental churches." p. 419.

The "Review" further declares that the Board has a "destructive policy," and a "destructive principle," and shows its ecclesiastical tendency and design by publishing in Armenian the "Assembly's Shorter Catechism, with Proofs," "Church Member's Guide," "Rule of Faith," &c., and that native teachers have been "ordained," and "converts, notwithstanding their immaturity, were called on to lead in extemporaneous prayers, and in these devotions, prayers were offered for the conversion of the Patriarchs and Bishops." A few words can and should set the American Board right historically, whether Dr. Anderson said more or less than the above quotation, and whether the reporter of Bishop Bedell recorded more or less than what he said.

The actual policy and aim of the Board, in the Greek, Armenian, and Nestorian missions, as stated in the Memorial, have been to revive pure and undefiled religion in those ancient churches. Provided the reformation were brought about, the Board cared little for the ecclesiastical form it might take. But while it seemed undesirable to make unnecessary changes in the forms of those old communities, to which the people had been long accustomed, the Board did not esteem them so highly as to be willing to risk much for their preservation, while in the pursuit of the main object. So when the Greek church rejected its aid, and when the Armenian church cast out its converts and made them outlaws, the Board found no more use or place for the conciliatory principle.' It was not till these converts were excommunicated from the old church, for not conforming to its idolatrous practices, that the Evangelical Armenian churches were organized. The forms of ecclesiastical government in the old church could no longer be regarded, and the great commanding spiritual object of the mission was kept in view, in a comparative disregard of minor things. The Board really has had very little solicitude what form the Armenian church might receive when evangelically reformed. It must be admitted that the present actual policy of the missions of the Board is aggressive toward the Arme