a subject.  But whether such disapproval on the part of the English Presbyterian Church would have been strange or not, it would not have been so strange as was the decision of our Church, that the churches organized by the English Presbyterian brethren and by us—­all one in fact, growing out of each other, and all adopting our order, should not be organically one.  Hence, when we learned from our Board the decision of Synod, we felt (correctly or incorrectly) that there must be some misapprehension.  Surely our Church cannot have correct views of our position, and our course of proceeding.  Hence, we returned answer to the Board as follows:—­(Letter dated December 23, 1857.)

After speaking of our hearty approval of the course of our Church in separating from the A.B.C.F.M., though as individuals we took our leave of that Board with feelings of sadness, we remarked: 

“It seems proper to us also, on the present occasion, to allude to a subject deeply affecting the interests of the little Church which God has graciously gathered by our instrumentality from among this people.  This Church is now small, but we trust that, with a continuance of the Divine blessing, the ‘little one’ will soon ‘become a thousand,’ and the ‘small one a strong nation.’  ‘The Lord will hasten it in his time.’  We love this Church, and cannot but watch over her interests with jealous care.  Besides this, the Great Shepherd has made us under-shepherds, and commanded us to watch over the interests of this flock.  We gave a brief history of our work, and an account of the present condition and peculiar circumstances of the churches here under our care, and stated at considerable length our views in reference to the future ecclesiastical relations of these churches, in a paper prepared for the information of our Church at home, and addressed to General Synod.  The facts thus communicated ought to be known by the Church.  It seems to us very unfortunate that that paper was not published according to our suggestion.  It stated facts of grave importance.  If we could have had a representative in General Synod, the previous publication of our paper might have been unnecessary.  But, without such a representative, it was hardly possible that the subject, by a single reading of so long a document, could be brought before the minds of all the members of Synod with sufficient clearness....  Therefore it is not strange that some of the important points in the paper should have been entirely overlooked, and also that certain grave misconceptions should have got abroad in the Church concerning the views expressed by us.